9.2 16-0708 Subject: MacArthur BART Revision To PUD And Amendment To Development Agreement
From: Planning And Building Department
Recommendation: Conduct A Public Hearing And Upon Conclusion Adopt The Following Pieces Of Legislation:
1) A Resolution, As Recommended By The City Planning Commission, (A) Revising The MacArthur Bart Planned Unit Development; (B) Adopting A Final Development Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10561, And Design Review; And (C) Relying On The 2008 MacArthur Station Project Environmental Impact Report And Addenda, And Other Documents, Finding That No Additional Environmental Review Is Needed Pursuant To California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15162-15164, 15168, 15180, 15183, And 15183.3 And Adopting Related CEQA Findings, For Parcel B, Located At 532-39Th Street, Oakland, Ca (Assessor Parcel Numbers 012 102501100 And 012 102501200); And
I'm opposed to this tower because the BMR percentage is too low.
Parcel B is steps from public transportation and in a thriving residential and commercial corridor. Is 11% enough BMR for this parcel when around 70% of Oaklanders make less than the amount needed to afford a market rate unit in this tower?
San Francisco's recent "Inclusionary Housing Working Group: Final Report" found that 14%-18% of units in new developments should be set aside for low income renters. To put that in the context of the current tower proposal, increasing the BMR percentage from 11% to 14-18% would mean that 12-28 additional low income households would be able to live in this tower.
When you vote on the parcel B proposal, please remember the 70% of Oaklanders who will be unable to afford the market rate rents in the tower. Many of those families are your constituents. And remember the 12-28 families whose housing needs, and future, is in your hands today.
Although I am in favor of density on this site, I strongly oppose a tower of this height. At nearly 3 times taller than the zoning height (already taller than adjacent parcels), nothing in the surrounding neighborhood will ever come close to this height and it will stick out like a sore thumb, visible for miles and miles. This tower would be great in Uptown or Downtown, but it is not a good fit here – it will loom over its neighbors, people who worked hard for years to improve their neighborhood. The surrounding area consists of 1 & 2-story tall single-family & duplex homes. Note that those in support of this project are mostly not from the neighborhood and support it for the sole reason that we need more housing. This one building will not solve the housing crisis, and there are already many projects underway that will add housing to the area and help satisfy demand. The bubble is already flattening. Don't leave our neighborhood stuck with this outsized tower in the name of politics.
Approval of this proposal is to send a huge message to all of Oakland - citizen participation is useless. Although people put years of time and work into creating visions, policies, and crafting agreements for development in their neighborhoods; the City will not stand behind you. Oakland will even disregard its own policies and directives when it sees fit. It is also moving in the wrong direction. Instead of seeking Global Warming Solutions per AB32 it steps back in time promoting a building that relies on energy and carbon intensive materials such as concrete. It is a project that has little ability to offset its energy usage with onsite renewable sources (as will be required in 2030). And it relies on a false equation that proximity to BART will eliminate car usage. BART's capacity issues are already turning people toward other means and many will end up in cars.
Planetizen website states that tall buildings generate urban pathologies. "In "Theory of the Urban Web", it says a city needs to have alternative connections in order to stay healthy, and in monofunctional megatowers, it kills the city by creating a mathematical singularity. High-rise buildings deform the quality, the function, and the long-term health of urbanism by overloading the infrastructure and the streets that contain them - referred to as "urban hypertrophy." This prevents the organic development of new healthy, mixed urban fabric anywhere beyond the center. The most successful cities are where people and buildings are in a certain balance with nature. High-rise buildings work against nature, and work against people because they isolate them from others. Children suffer more because they lose direct contact with nature and with other children. High-rise buildings work against society because they prevent the units of social importance - the family, the neighborhood, etc."
The City Council should not accept the EIR from 2008 given that the traffic near the project has been changed to one car lane in either direction and even the slight study they did showed that the wind tunnel effect already makes the plaza and entrance to the garage "uncomfortable to stand or sit". The old EIR clearly didn't approve this project. The Planning Commission was only interested in the money that Boston Properties /MacGrath promise - and did not think about the impact on the neighborhood or the impact that violating zoning would cause. Please do not be bought off so cheaply when what is at stake is the soul of Oakland. Are you here because you care about the people who live here now- whose families' are long time residents? Or do you just want to bring in lots of SF commuters with no respect for Oakland values? It is a slap in the face to neighborhood people who spent years on the compromise 4-8 story Transit Village that included affordable housing. PLEASE VOTE NO!
It's difficult to believe that no additional environmental review is needed at this point, when 1) 9 years have passed since the original review, and 2) among other changes, the height of the proposed structure has increased by 3-4 times. This is just one example of process being bypassed to push this revision through without regard to how these changes will impact the community. Any potential community benefits should be compared to the potential impact to the community, especially residents that could be adversely impacted by a huge change in the demographics and income level of the neighborhood, brought not just by a larger number of market-rate (and I would argue probably above-market-rate) units, but also the tower structure itself. The potential for new development that involves and supports the community will be destroyed if the 2008 plan is completely thrown out on the whim of the developer, rather than revised with the community in mind.
I have been a resident of Oakland for 45 years and have lived in this neighborhood for 25 all as a renter. I love Oakland and want to see its special character preserved. I support the original PUD approved by the City and community in 2008.It provides for up to 675 residential units built by union labor. A tower of 24+ stories with ~ 350 luxury apartments will foster a stratified moneyed class separate from the rest of the neighborhood. Neither the S-15 zoning regulations nor the original PUD allow for a building height of 260 feet. What's more, a new EIR should be done in spite of claims by the Planning Commission to the contrary. Please City Governance please consider your responsibility to all of Oakland.
There are both written rules and less-rigid agreements that allow us to function as a community. Actions as simple as stopping at a red light we take for granted because we’ve become accustomed to people responding to that signal. And when a driver ignores the signal and runs the light, accidents happen. Some fatal. This is exactly what is happening now to the neighborhoods that intersect at MacArthur Transit Village: Mosswood, Longfellow, Temescal, Hoover-Foster, and others that will be forever impacted by this project. The City has been gunning this proposal through all the red lights and the neighborhoods will be casualties.
I was excited about the prospect of ~700 new homes & retail at MacArthur Transit Village. It had the potential to be a wonderful local resource and national example of transit oriented development, but only if designed with community and place-based solutions in mind. This tower proposal is the opposite of a considered, or even legal, option for Parcel B.
I am against this project because the tower is a bait-and-switch from what was originally approved - I was part of the planning process for the Village since the beginning, and I feel that we already have a design that the developer has ignored to his financial benefit. A tower would stick out like a sore thumb and is against the entire plan for the area.
The MacArthur Transit Village site is zoned S-15 (Transit Oriented Development Zone), and has a maximum allowable height of 90 feet. According to the PUD, the maximum allowable height for Parcel B is 80 feet. The proposed tower is an incredible 180 feet taller than what is permitted. If City officials approve this unprecedented, unnecessary, and massive deviation from the City’s existing, well planned zoning regulations, it will betray the trust and respect of the residents who have chosen to make this neighborhood our home. In fact, why bother having zoning regulations at all if the city simply tosses them aside when asked to do so by a billion-dollar developer? As residents of Oakland, the least we should expect is that city rules and regulations be fair, clearly delineated, and applied consistently. To allow a 260-foot tower on a lot zoned for a maximum of 90 feet would be arbitrary, capricious, & irresponsible -terms that are antithetical to the very nature of a building code.
I oppose this giant building being build in the low-rise residential neighborhood that is Temescal. It almost seems too credulous to consider. Maybe down by 25th street or something. And it will kill this block of Telegraph with is shadow and cooling effect. Saddened...
I'm opposed to this tower because the BMR percentage is too low.
Parcel B is steps from public transportation and in a thriving residential and commercial corridor. Is 11% enough BMR for this parcel when around 70% of Oaklanders make less than the amount needed to afford a market rate unit in this tower?
San Francisco's recent "Inclusionary Housing Working Group: Final Report" found that 14%-18% of units in new developments should be set aside for low income renters. To put that in the context of the current tower proposal, increasing the BMR percentage from 11% to 14-18% would mean that 12-28 additional low income households would be able to live in this tower.
When you vote on the parcel B proposal, please remember the 70% of Oaklanders who will be unable to afford the market rate rents in the tower. Many of those families are your constituents. And remember the 12-28 families whose housing needs, and future, is in your hands today.
Vote No on 11% BMR. Vote No on this proposal.
Although I am in favor of density on this site, I strongly oppose a tower of this height. At nearly 3 times taller than the zoning height (already taller than adjacent parcels), nothing in the surrounding neighborhood will ever come close to this height and it will stick out like a sore thumb, visible for miles and miles. This tower would be great in Uptown or Downtown, but it is not a good fit here – it will loom over its neighbors, people who worked hard for years to improve their neighborhood. The surrounding area consists of 1 & 2-story tall single-family & duplex homes. Note that those in support of this project are mostly not from the neighborhood and support it for the sole reason that we need more housing. This one building will not solve the housing crisis, and there are already many projects underway that will add housing to the area and help satisfy demand. The bubble is already flattening. Don't leave our neighborhood stuck with this outsized tower in the name of politics.
Approval of this proposal is to send a huge message to all of Oakland - citizen participation is useless. Although people put years of time and work into creating visions, policies, and crafting agreements for development in their neighborhoods; the City will not stand behind you. Oakland will even disregard its own policies and directives when it sees fit. It is also moving in the wrong direction. Instead of seeking Global Warming Solutions per AB32 it steps back in time promoting a building that relies on energy and carbon intensive materials such as concrete. It is a project that has little ability to offset its energy usage with onsite renewable sources (as will be required in 2030). And it relies on a false equation that proximity to BART will eliminate car usage. BART's capacity issues are already turning people toward other means and many will end up in cars.
Planetizen website states that tall buildings generate urban pathologies. "In "Theory of the Urban Web", it says a city needs to have alternative connections in order to stay healthy, and in monofunctional megatowers, it kills the city by creating a mathematical singularity. High-rise buildings deform the quality, the function, and the long-term health of urbanism by overloading the infrastructure and the streets that contain them - referred to as "urban hypertrophy." This prevents the organic development of new healthy, mixed urban fabric anywhere beyond the center. The most successful cities are where people and buildings are in a certain balance with nature. High-rise buildings work against nature, and work against people because they isolate them from others. Children suffer more because they lose direct contact with nature and with other children. High-rise buildings work against society because they prevent the units of social importance - the family, the neighborhood, etc."
The City Council should not accept the EIR from 2008 given that the traffic near the project has been changed to one car lane in either direction and even the slight study they did showed that the wind tunnel effect already makes the plaza and entrance to the garage "uncomfortable to stand or sit". The old EIR clearly didn't approve this project. The Planning Commission was only interested in the money that Boston Properties /MacGrath promise - and did not think about the impact on the neighborhood or the impact that violating zoning would cause. Please do not be bought off so cheaply when what is at stake is the soul of Oakland. Are you here because you care about the people who live here now- whose families' are long time residents? Or do you just want to bring in lots of SF commuters with no respect for Oakland values? It is a slap in the face to neighborhood people who spent years on the compromise 4-8 story Transit Village that included affordable housing. PLEASE VOTE NO!
It's difficult to believe that no additional environmental review is needed at this point, when 1) 9 years have passed since the original review, and 2) among other changes, the height of the proposed structure has increased by 3-4 times. This is just one example of process being bypassed to push this revision through without regard to how these changes will impact the community. Any potential community benefits should be compared to the potential impact to the community, especially residents that could be adversely impacted by a huge change in the demographics and income level of the neighborhood, brought not just by a larger number of market-rate (and I would argue probably above-market-rate) units, but also the tower structure itself. The potential for new development that involves and supports the community will be destroyed if the 2008 plan is completely thrown out on the whim of the developer, rather than revised with the community in mind.
I have been a resident of Oakland for 45 years and have lived in this neighborhood for 25 all as a renter. I love Oakland and want to see its special character preserved. I support the original PUD approved by the City and community in 2008.It provides for up to 675 residential units built by union labor. A tower of 24+ stories with ~ 350 luxury apartments will foster a stratified moneyed class separate from the rest of the neighborhood. Neither the S-15 zoning regulations nor the original PUD allow for a building height of 260 feet. What's more, a new EIR should be done in spite of claims by the Planning Commission to the contrary. Please City Governance please consider your responsibility to all of Oakland.
There are both written rules and less-rigid agreements that allow us to function as a community. Actions as simple as stopping at a red light we take for granted because we’ve become accustomed to people responding to that signal. And when a driver ignores the signal and runs the light, accidents happen. Some fatal. This is exactly what is happening now to the neighborhoods that intersect at MacArthur Transit Village: Mosswood, Longfellow, Temescal, Hoover-Foster, and others that will be forever impacted by this project. The City has been gunning this proposal through all the red lights and the neighborhoods will be casualties.
I was excited about the prospect of ~700 new homes & retail at MacArthur Transit Village. It had the potential to be a wonderful local resource and national example of transit oriented development, but only if designed with community and place-based solutions in mind. This tower proposal is the opposite of a considered, or even legal, option for Parcel B.
I am against this project because the tower is a bait-and-switch from what was originally approved - I was part of the planning process for the Village since the beginning, and I feel that we already have a design that the developer has ignored to his financial benefit. A tower would stick out like a sore thumb and is against the entire plan for the area.
The MacArthur Transit Village site is zoned S-15 (Transit Oriented Development Zone), and has a maximum allowable height of 90 feet. According to the PUD, the maximum allowable height for Parcel B is 80 feet. The proposed tower is an incredible 180 feet taller than what is permitted. If City officials approve this unprecedented, unnecessary, and massive deviation from the City’s existing, well planned zoning regulations, it will betray the trust and respect of the residents who have chosen to make this neighborhood our home. In fact, why bother having zoning regulations at all if the city simply tosses them aside when asked to do so by a billion-dollar developer? As residents of Oakland, the least we should expect is that city rules and regulations be fair, clearly delineated, and applied consistently. To allow a 260-foot tower on a lot zoned for a maximum of 90 feet would be arbitrary, capricious, & irresponsible -terms that are antithetical to the very nature of a building code.
I oppose this giant building being build in the low-rise residential neighborhood that is Temescal. It almost seems too credulous to consider. Maybe down by 25th street or something. And it will kill this block of Telegraph with is shadow and cooling effect. Saddened...