Editorials

The Capitelli/Bates Proposal Yields No Benefits for Berkeley

Becky O'Malley
Friday May 22, 2015 - 12:35:00 PM

Our email is aflame with expressions of outrage directed at the Capitelli/Bates proposal to give away the so-called “significant community benefits” payoff which citizens are supposed to get for permitting Los Angeles speculators to acquire entitlements to build a condo tower more 190 feet tall on the site which now houses the Shattuck Cinema and the Habitot children’s center. 

Since the applicant has supplied no pro forma financial calculations, and since the project description on which the EIR is supposedly based keeps morphing to suit the prevailing winds, estimates of the extent of the giveaway differ, but no one who’s copied the Planet on their outraged letters seems to think it’s a good deal. 

The Capitelli/Bates idea is on the agenda for Tuesday’s city council meeting in the form of this resolution asking the staff to draft language for the Council to pass as another resolution. 

 

Council Action Items  

 

  1. Significant Community Benefits from Five Tall Downtown Buildings
    From: Mayor Bates and Councilmember Capitelli
    Recommendation: Request the City Manager to draft a Council resolution establishing a system for Downtown building projects over 75 feet to provide significant community benefits. The projects would be assessed a fee of $100 per square foot for the residential portion of the building between 76 and 120 feet, and $150 per square foot for the residential portion above 120 feet. A Project Labor Agreement (PLA) would be required. It would include local hiring and training components. The PLA would provide a credit, equal to 5 percent of the project construction costs, which would be deducted from the fee. In addition, the fee could be further reduced by voluntary on-site benefits for arts and culture, which must be approved by the City Council. The remainder would be paid into a City fund to be used for affordable housing and arts and culture benefits.
    Financial Implications: See report
    Contact: Tom Bates, Mayor, 981-7100
A media colleague inquired why, when I first posted this agenda item, I headlined it “Slush Fund”. My thought then was to describe a phrase in the last sentence: “…a City fund to be used for affordable housing and arts and culture benefits.” 

 

But on closer scrutiny I see that this proposal doesn’t even rise to the level of a slush fund. After the unions have claimed their piece of the pie and the developer has identified those “voluntary on-site benefits for arts and culture”, there will be precious little slush left for the City fund. 

Yes, the “voluntary on-site benefits” “must be approved by the City Council”, which in theory gives councilmembers more to give away to their friends, that’s true. However smart money is guessing that the developer’s proposal will simply be to put back something like (though not necessarily identical to) the 10 movie screens scheduled for demolition when this project starts. This would be no benefit, just mitigation of a detriment directly caused by the project., 

Net public gain = zero, or possibly less. 

Why on earth would Berkeley councilmembers go for this? 

It’s not even clear why Capitelli, who is rumored to want to succeed Mayor Tom Bates in 2016, is pushing the fast track for this building, the first candidate for the Berkeley’s Bigger Buildings prize, the Residences at Berkeley Plaza (RatBP). 

Yes, RatBP’s sponsors, and especially Berkeley’s most active expediter-for-hire, former City planner Mark Rhoades, can be expected to contribute heavily to a mayoral campaign war chest. But if all goes according to the announced schedule, in November of 2016 downtown Berkeley will be in the throes of development hell. 

You can take all the minor messes around town now from the current building boom and multiply them exponentially. With the Shattuck Cinemas demolished, downtown shops and restaurants will be hurting bigtime. Construction traffic will be clogging major arteries. The noise and pollution at Berkeley High and the main library will be in many citizens’ faces. So if RatBP can be labelled “Capitelli’s project”, it will be a gift for his opponent. Why would Capitelli want this, no matter how much money he gets from developers? 

The Capitelli/Bates resolution is no way to run a railroad. It is far, far away from accepted best practices for delivering community benefits through economic development. Before voting for it, councilmembers should really take a look at the guide on this topic for elected and appointed officials published by the Community Benefits Law Center. From its introduction: 

The guide focuses on the following five core strategies: 

 

  • Demand strong community benefits in government agreements with developers;
  • Encourage negotiation of private community benefits agreements between developers and community coalitions;
  • Enact ordinances and policies establishing baseline community benefits for future projects;
  • Incorporate community benefits into land use planning and policy; and
  • Convene key stakeholders to reach agreement on community benefits principles for future projects.
Some of our smarter citizens with sharp pencils are engaged in calculating exactly how much the Capitelli/Bates scheme would cost Berkeley if it were adopted. In this issue are two early analyses, from former Planning Commission and Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee member Rob Wrenn, government management consultant Kate Harrison and economist James Hendry. 

 

Berkeleyans are not chumps, so I’m sure more figures will appear, and when they do you’ll see them here. The Planet is committing to publish these numbers, and of course anything from the City staff or elsewhere that attempts to contradict them. And as they used to say about obits in the old newspapers, Other Papers Please Copy. Permission freely granted. 


. 

‘