Public Comment

District 3 representative Max Anderson has placed a resolution on the Tuesday, Feb. 7 City Council agenda specifically excluding declaration of a Transit Village Development District or a Redevelopment Area, or exercise of eminent domain, as part of Ashby BART development. That’s good. (That resolution, and the other documents mentioned below, can be found on nabart.com.) Anderson’s resolution also reaffirms support for the city’s Caltrans grant application. That’s bad. Here’s why: 

Public participation 

The grant application highlights the importance of public participation: “In almost all cases, public input is obtained after significant portions of the project have already been determined. In too many cases, the result is a less-than-desirable project, acrimony, lawsuits, delay and disenfranchisement.” 

Fine words. Yet that same application indicates that, before any public input, the most significant elements of the project have already been determined: 

• Developer to be selected by June of this year. 

• For-profit rather than nonprofit. 

• Mixed-use project with residential, retail, and arts space. 

• At least 300 units of housing. 

• South Berkeley Neighborhood Development Corporation and application author Ed Church to disburse money. 

• End result is a request for qualifications for the previously selected developer. 

Moreover, the 2004 feasibility study found that a six-story, 553-unit rental project would not be practical. So effectively it has already been determined that the project would have to be condos. 

Flea Market 

The proposed development would displace the flea market. The grant application envisions moving it to Adeline Street. As detailed in the flea market’s attorney Osha Neumann’s Jan. 11 letter to the City Council, this proposal is unworkable, and there is no other practical location in the area. 

Ed Roberts Campus 

The Ed Roberts Campus partners already have a permit to build an 86,000-square-foot office building in the east parking lot and construction is scheduled to start next year. Wouldn’t it make more sense to put off contracting with a developer for development of the west lot until we see the ERC’s impact on the neighborhood? 

Affordable housing 

The for-profit development envisioned by the grant application is similar to the large apartment/condo projects recently built just over the border in Emeryville. The proponents’ main selling point for such a project is that 20 percent of the units would be affordable. Unfortunately, under current law, so-called “affordable” units with less than three bedrooms can rent at market rates. (For details, see my commentary “Is a Transit Village Economically Feasible?” in the Jan. 27 Daily Planet.) Building truly affordable housing requires significant contributions from government or charitable organizations, such as the $4 million in federal funds the City Council just pledged to the Brower Center. 

Feasibility 

A 2001 study concluded that development of the west parking lot was not feasible, due primarily to the high cost of providing the same number of BART parking spaces as currently exist. A more detailed 2004 study found that a six-story project with 553 rental units (76 units per acre, 50 percent higher than envisioned by the grant application) was not feasible, but that the cost of providing BART parking was not a major factor. Anderson’s resolution implicitly rejects condos by saying that the “affordable” housing would be for “households making no more than 80 percent or 50 percent, respectively, of the Area Median Income.” By Berkeley law, “affordable” condos may be sold to households making 120 percent of AMI. 

SBNDC as grant recipient 

The South Berkeley Neighborhood Development Corporation is the city’s co-applicant on the grant application, which specifies that the money would flow through the SBNDC. The organization’s track record does not inspire confidence. For example, it did a survey to find out what sort of retail people wanted at its 1995 Lorin Station Plaza project (3253 Adeline), and neighbors asked for a cafe, a produce market, and a laundromat. Instead of finding retail tenants, the SBNDC leased the commercial spaces to an accountant’s office, a Comcast service center, and a nonprofit job-training program. 

Ed Church as project manager 

The legitimacy of the $120,000 Community-Based Transit Planning grant application, which would give its author Ed Church primary control over how the money is spent, hinges on his commitment to (in his own words to the City Council) an “open and transparent” process of public participation. The process to date has been anything but: 

• Neither the 2001 nor the 2004 feasibility study was shared with the public until the grant application brought them to neighbors’ attention and we asked for copies. 

• The grant application was submitted on Oct. 14, but not made public until early December, and then only through an entry on the consent calendar for the December 13 City Council agenda. 

• No one informed the flea market, neighborhood associations, Ashby BART patrons, or other stakeholders about the City Council agenda item so they could comment. 

• Ed Church, Max Anderson, and Mayor Tom Bates, the main drivers behind the grant application, met with various South Berkeley neighborhood groups between the time the grant application was submitted and the Dec. 13 agenda was published, but said nothing about it. 

Ed Church has put a lot of time and effort into developing his vision for Ashby BART development, and thus has much to contribute to a real community-based planning process. But the Ashby BART neighborhood doesn’t need a paid professional “smart-growth” advocate—or any other individual—to direct that process. We can and will do it ourselves. 

Bottom line 

The process to date has been anything but open and transparent. The community was inappropriately excluded from that process. Caltrans giving $120,000 to Ed Church and the SBNDC would tend to diminish rather than promote community participation in decisions about what will happen at Ashby BART. The City Council should thus withdraw support for the grant proposal and let the community take the lead. I invite everyone who supports that outcome to join me at 6:15 p.m. Tuesday on the steps of 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way for a pre-council meeting rally. 

Robert Lauriston maintains the Neighbors of Ashby BART website (nabart.com) and invites submissions from all points of view. 

›