Dear city planners,

We appreciate the efforts you are making on a challenging topic. I think much of the plan is a good start. I see some significant contradictions in the plan, however. These need to be addressed openly, especially if the plan is going to receive support from neighborhoods such as ours in the South Berkeley-Ashby BART station area.

I and many of my neighbors feel that the plan, as currently written, establishes major inequities between neighborhoods. Lower income neighborhoods such as near Ashby BART, which already produce much less carbon than the wealthier neighborhoods in the hills, are expected to shoulder most of the burden by accepting major reductions in neighborhood character and livability.

Yet much of the population and probably a disproportionate amount of the transportation-related carbon dioxide occurs in the hills. What are our fellow citizens in these areas asked to do? What about requiring more efficient commutes through more use of buses (and increased bus availability) for high carbon commute areas? Given the much higher carbon use, there is arguably much more potential to decrease emissions through efficiency changes in hills commuters than squeezing more out of the lowlands. Not exploring this makes the plan appear to reinforce economic differences, allowing the wealthiest residents using the most resources to make the fewest sacrifices.

Similarly, I think we should consider whether we should be encouraging increased density in the hills as well. The drive to BART from the Arlington is still much closer than Tracy or other threatened farmland. If, as the plan emphasizes, accommodating substantial future growth is a major goal, all neighborhoods should be considered, particularly ones with large lots and low density.

With regard to the specific recommendations for transit neighborhoods, I want to express concern about several points. While the plan makes nice general statements about the goals of maintaining livability, local food production, storm water retention, and increased green space, the zoning changes actually recommended would seem to preclude and prevent these possibilities. In particular, I am concerned about how recommendations in section 3.D.1.A. could greatly transform the character of our neighborhood.

The recommendations to change the zoning for accessory dwelling units would have a major effect on the neighborhood, largely eliminating the potential for achieving the above-stated goals. Increasing accessory unit size and density within one quarter mile of transit corridors dramatically changes neighborhoods such as mine -- between Shattuck and Telegraph -- to a much higher proportion of concrete, impermeable, non-green space. These are neighborhoods that already have relatively high density, yet retain much green, healthy characteristics. This recommendation should be thought through very carefully before destroying some of the most well-functioning neighborhoods in the city. It contradicts the goal of maintaining the character of internal neighborhoods and focusing high intensity on transit corridors and downtown. I would strongly suggest that such changes should not extend this far into neighborhoods.

Thanks very much, and I look forward to your response.

Best,

Robin Grossinger

Environmental Scientist

2146 Russell St.

Berkeley, CA 94705