The Planet and Daily Call will likely have good summaries of the meeting so I'll just highlight a few significant things from my notes. Ed Church, Max Anderson, and Tom Bates insisted that the planning process is open-ended, starts with a blank slate, "everything is on the table," no specific number of units, nothing predetermined. Bates said that if Caltrans awards the city the grant but would not allow its terms to be modified, the city "would walk away." They disavowed the process outlined by the grant application, which was: - developer to be selected by June of this year - mixed-use project with residential, mixed-use, and arts space - at least 300 units of housing, 80% market-rate - end result is a detailed proposal for the previously selected developer In his PowerPoint presentation (should be online soon), Ed Church outlined this significantly different process: [Phase 1] Input on Scope of Project and Designation of Developer(s) - Representative Task Force named to guide and organize public input meetings - Community defines the scope of potential development and desired qualifications of developer(s) - Process is staffed by SBNDC - Task Force reports findings to City Council, which can decided to issue a Request for Qualifications [general outline of proposed project] based on them [If the task force reported that nothing desirable was feasible, the process could end at this point.] - City Council issues RFQ for developers [Phase 2] Community input on selection of developer(s) - Developers, both for-profit and nno-profit, respond to RFQ - Task Force convenes community to assess the response - Task Force reports findings to City Council - City Council selects developer(s) and enters into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for 12-18 months [Phase 3] Design process: buildings, streets, open spaces - (Task Force?) organizes community participation meetings with developer(s), utilizing professional facilitators, and consultants hired by the community in archtecture, urban design, environmental building, financial analysis, etc. over a 12-month period - Community members, developer(s) present proposed project to City Council Both Anderson and Bates talked about subsidized affordable housing, despite the reality that there's no money. The Brower Center will tap out the city's housing budget for several years. Anderson suggested that if we don't build something on Ashby BART soon, speculators will buy up Adeline Street and gentrify the neighborhood. Question from David Crestor (?): Given the history of SBNDC, why were they given the lead role? Church: We understood that we needed to have a nonprofit partner because of the city's inability to get some particular monies. Max and I talked about starting a new one, thought that would be counterproductive and impolite, talked with board about being the fiscal intermediary, not the lead agency. There is really no one leader in this process, our idea was that Max and the mayor would lead the task force. Something happened at that meeting that put SBNDC on that task force, I'm not sure that's a good idea. I don't think the SBNDC should lead this process, I think that this community should. Written question from an unidentified audience member: Who owns the air rights, and what's the value? Bates: The city owns the air rights. The value is zero. Question from Robin Wright: Seems dishonest to say we can do anything when the grant application says minimum 300. How did you make that mistake? And where's the $72,000 supposed to come from? Church: Why did we start with such a specific project? Started with 50 units per acre for livability. $72,000 is to be raised by SBNDC from foundations, other state grants, we're working on it. The 6 acres, was measuring from the street out around the entire area, it's just wrong, it was a mistake. I think we really don't get the answers we need until this community sits across the table from a developer, yes we can do this, no we can't do that. Question from Bill Martine (?): Little worried about the high amount of units, are we really locked into 300? Church: Not locked into the 300 units. Part of resolution indicates that we're going to let the number of units emerge from the planning process. One of central proposals is retention of the flea market. Need to figure out how to get the benefit of housing with flea market. Every grant application has slippage, it's very obvious to me that if we get the money it's going to be modified. Also obvious that we're not going to get a developer by June, first point of slippage. Question from Steve Solomon (?): What are the options besides a dense, mixed-use development? Bates: BART is interested in having ridership. They're interested in having housing. One criticism they have of Fruitvale is they don't feel they have enough ridership there. Question from Karen Hester: Ed mentioned the developer's going to own the title. Why can't the city hold on to the title? Bates: We can. Question from Larissa (?): I have never ever received any notice from the city about its decision that housing would go in the west lot. As far as I'm concerned the community was not involved in that decision. Lauriston: The 1990 South Berkeley Area Plan resulted from a community process, as did the 2001 General Plan, though many people from all over town were involved in that. So basically the question has not been put to the neighborhood since 1990. Question from Bill Hamilton (?): We have to have a plaza, very important. Wonder if the city would put money in that? Anderson: I'd support that, as well as art. Written question from an unidentified audience member: If you don't get the grant, are there funds? Bates: The City Manager is looking into that and will report back to the City Council in two months. Written question from an unidentified audience member: How does the city plan to pay for the additional resources (police etc.) required by the 300 units? Max: We don't have a plan for any number of units, lays before us to determine units, configuration, whether or not we even want to do this. Bates: If we have 300 units, we're going to have a lot of income, stores, restaurants, transfer tax, going to generate a lot of money. Some additional cost but more than offset by the project. Question from Mary Trou (?): I don't think this is about affordable housing, I think that this is a land grab, giving away great resources for private development. Bates: We can do affordable housing like we're doing with the Brower Center. Lauriston: That's costing the city $3 million, the city doesn't have any more money to do that here. Bates: By the time this is approved we might have more money.