Public Comment

The ZAB will consider the types and extent of community benefits being offered for this proposed project. Under current planning rules, extraordinary benefits are required for construction of a project of this size. The terms of those benefits will set the stage for future large buildings coming into the pipeline. Other than the benefit of insuring union labor of $10 million, a welcome recent change, the claimed benefits are either too small, appear to significantly overstate their value or do not further already established city priorities.

Some points to keep in mind: 

o The developer is only offering the minimum funding required in city statute to the City’s in-lieu affordable housing fund. That amount ($20,000 per unit) is vastly inadequate according to the prior nexus study. An updated nexus study is in process, with the in-lieu fee to be reset in April. At a minimum, the amount to be provided by the developer should be set at the amount determined by the revised nexus study. However, the city should go further and request funds above the final amount determined by the study. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors required the 8 Washington Project in San Francisco to provide $8 million in affordable housing funds above the required amount. 

o The transportation mitigation plan is limited to providing AC Transit passes to the building’s residents rather than providing improvements that could benefit the overall community (e.g., a downtown shuttle bus service). Moreover, it is unlikely that most of the residents will utilize AC Transit to, particularly because one of the unique features of the project is its proximity to BART. 

o Funds to mitigate the impact on community resources and services, including policing, have not been included. Provision of funds for already existing needs, such as social services, should also be part of the significant community benefit package. This is a typical community benefit provided for large projects. Given the pressing need for services in Berkeley, provision should be made for these benefits. 

o The value of the privately-developed public space is set at $7,381,560, a figure that appears inflated given the 500 square feet of the planned open space and which is of significant benefit to the project itself and likely to be recouped by the developer by higher unit rents. SOSIP recommended and the Council adopted a number of downtown open space improvements that would benefit the community as a whole, such as making Center Street a pedestrianized zone with a native habitat and creek restoration. Funds would be better provided for already-determined City priorities. 

o The value of the “rent subsidies” to Shattuck Cinemas is claimed at $24,747,000 but there is as of yet no binding agreement to maintain the theater’s lease in new building. Also, the “subsidy” is a reduction from a projected per foot rent increase. A substantive and appropriate benefit would also include subsidies during the construction phase. 

o Inadequate funds provided to Habitot for displacement. The museum will be required to solicit the community to raise nearly $1 million instead of the full amount being considered a required mitigation.