4 16-0708 Subject: MacArthur BART Revision To PUD And Amendment To Development Agreement
From: Planning And Building Department
Recommendation: 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 am strongly opposed to this revision and amendment. The current approved set of plans should be used soonest to get rid of the eyesore at MacArthur Bart.
As a resident of Temescal, I am OPPOSED to the revision and amendment to the original MacArthur transit village proposal. WE DONT NEED A GIANT UGLY BUILDING in our low rise area.
BUILD IT DOWNTOWN. #opposed
As an Oakland resident for the last 16 yrs & specifically Longfellow the last 3 yrs I am strongly opposed to the 'tower' development as proposed. It is out of scale with the existing urban fabric & to be honest is aesthetically unappealing. Perhaps a tower would work among the taller buildings of downtown oakland but here at Macarthur it will just be a very visible eyesore. I support proceeding with the 2008 approved plans that are more appropriate to our neighborhoods existing streetscape.
I am concerned that this project is being rushed through the approval process without any thoughtful consideration to the negative impact of our community. It is apparent that a 24 story tower complex is out of character to the neighborhood. What the neighborhood needs is a true transit village, not a tower. A project of this height and size will be even more of an eyesore if the economy's rise takes a downward term. The height and current design does not allow for any flexibility in the future. The design doesn't allow for the type of retain that community desires, such as a moderately priced grocery. Instead we are likely to get bars/restaurants, which are fine but already plentiful. It will not be inclusive of the current community. Together with other approved projects in the area, there is no infrastructure to support a building of this size. Parking is already impossible on the weekend and evenings. Please ask tough questions. Demand appropriate development.
During the coming years, many people in Oakland will be outraged as the Federal government overrides important environmental regulations. But the same thing is about to happen right here, thanks to our City Council. Plans for the new BART tower are proceeding, despite the fact that there is no robust EIR for this project. The previous EIR, created eight years ago, plainly states that it does NOT apply to a possible tower. Yet this project is being hurried through with no regard for how the landscape, climate, community or seismic conditions have changed during nearly a decade of rapid growth. Even those of us who support new housing in Oakland are alarmed by the reckless agenda of those who wish to build these apartments. The tower may stand for decades—will the city not spend a fraction of that time determining what the building’s impact on the local air, land, groundwater and surroundings may be? Addressing such issues now is a far less costly approach than dealing with them later.
As a resident of the Temescal district for 15+ years, my family is strongly OPPOSED to the revision and amendment to the original MacArthur transit village proposal. The revisions and amendments are not minor - they will cause significant traffic problems at MacArthur BART (uber, lyft, google and fb buses); they will cast additional shadows (and traffic accidents) across the MacArthur maze and the 51st St on-ramp to 980, and afternoon shadows up Telegraph all the way to 51st St.; there is a ton of new housing in North Oakland that has been developed since the original proposal was approved, alleviating said housing crisis; AND it reneges on an agreement and plan that was already approved with community involvement. It's time to fast-track the original plans and start building to create jobs, and alleviate the eyesore we've been living with in our community since 2008.
I support the 2008 agreement for Parcel B. I oppose the out of proportion 24 story tower. This project should have already been built according to the 2008 agreement. The 24 story tower is out of proportion to the neighborhood and will be disruptive in every way, carrying capacity of the neighborhood has not been addressed.
Relying on a nearly 10 year old EIR is bad practice and sets a terrible precedent, that EIR did not even fully address the 24 story tower. This bait and switch process is highly suspect. Please restore the 2008 agreement and ensure it is built.
I like tall buildings - lived in Manhattan more than 20 years - but I strongly oppose the tower on Parcel B as completely out of scale and character with the surrounding neighborhood. Having lived so long in Manhattan, I understand the difference in how one relates to an area from the 15th floor compared to the 5th. I support the rest of the Transit Village construction, which will bring needed housing to our area. Parcel B should be about the same height. If the argument is that people living in the tower will mainly be BART commuters to/from San Francisco who would live there but can't afford to, then the answer is to build more towers in San Francisco, so more housing stock there will reduce prices.
Please be forward thinking in your decision. To allow a tower that tall at that location is ONLY forward thinking, if you envision a future for this neighborhood in which many other high rises are to be built. That's the only way it could ever be compatible with its surroundings.
I support the original PUD approved by the City in 2008. It was developed after countless community hours and maintains the integrity and feeling of the neighborhood. It provides for 675 terribly needed residential units. If the new proposal goes forward, the requisite community benefits MUST be increased beyond the original amount. For instance, the Mosswood Park allotment should be more than the original $25,000. Since the Tower Proposal of 25 stories would be about FIVE times as tall as the original Parcel B Plan of 4-6 stories, the community benefits for Mosswood Park should be more like $125,000.
I am strongly opposed to the proposed tower. I do not understand why the original plan with area residents' input was ignored. This Tower is ugly and is not in character with the surrounding Mosswood, Temescal and other neighborhoods. There should also be an additional EIR. I commute from the MacArthur BART station during the work week. There is a great deal of traffic congestion in front of the station from shuttles and cars illegally entering the area dropping off passengers. This situation will worsen if the tower is built.
I am in favor of development, but I oppose this revision of the existing plan because the impact to the surrounding community has not been fully considered. If getting something built quickly is an issue, there is an approved plan from 2008 that the community, developers, and the City spent time and effort to agree upon, and which would add up to 250 new units to the site. If the City and developers want to increase density, then they need to spend the time and take part in the process to fully consider the impact to the community. These extreme revisions to the project have the potential to have great impacts, both environmental and economic, on the existing residents and community. If density is the goal, please push these developers to be more creative and come up with a plan that can increase density in a way that supports the growth of our community, rather than disregarding it. Existing residents do not oppose development, just the tower.
Planning Commission has left the City Council in a tough position Rather than doing their job to “promote the orderly growth and development of the City” they have opted to be pro-development and disregard their own studies and policies The community spent years working with each other the developers and City to come to a resolution that was approved in 2008 Why is that agreement now worthless? I wonder what my neighbors in other district feel about their work to create Area Plans? The example from MacArthur Transit Village is community involvement is pro forma and the City can decide to contradict even violate its own codes and studies In addition the proposed tower 1) does not conform to basics of urban design scale relationship because of per Ms. Payne: has significant changes in height 2) Is not sustainable To get the electricity required for the project it would need at a min.PV array about 3.5x the site. All project of this type will be required to do just that starting in 2030.
Although I am in favor of dense development on this site, I strongly oppose a tower of this height. Nothing in the surrounding neighborhood will ever come anywhere near to this height and it will stick out like a sore thumb, visible for miles and miles. Why is the Planning department throwing the General Plan out the window? This flies in the face of all good urban design protocol. This mammoth tower will loom over its neighbors, people who have worked hard for years to improve their neighborhood. This one building will not solve the housing crisis - those who are in support of the project seem to support it for the sole reason that we need more housing. There are many projects along Telegraph that will add new housing to the immediate area and help satisfy demand. The bubble is already flattening. Don't leave our neighborhood stuck with this monstrosity in the name of political expediency. It will never fit in this neighborhood. It belongs in Uptown or Downtown.
An additional EIR should have been ordered. Once again, an out of town developer (Piedmont, CA) and gentrifiers win and Oakland's real low to moderate income residents lose. Lifelong Oaklanders are being shoved aside. Shame on you City of Oakland. The proposal, Staff Reports & documentation ignore CEQA guidelines, do not meet requirements for a Planned Unit Development Permit Revision, and do not comply with zoning regulations or the General Plan. Staff/City representatives have proceeded outside the bounds of "interpretation" to rewrite rules and guidelines - that further compromise the Mosswood and Longfellow communities, and forever impact Temescal, Hoover-Foster, Santa Fe, Golden Gate and other nearby neighborhoods.
A 24-story tower design should have been rejected months ago, instead of wasting everyone’s time and resources exploring ways to side-step established legal frameworks to appease a developer with deep pockets. The proposal, Staff Reports & documentation ignore CEQA guidelines, do not meet requirements for a Planned Unit Development Permit Revision, and do not comply with zoning regulations or the General Plan. Staff/City representatives have gone way outside the bounds of "interpretation" to rewrite rules and guidelines - that further compromise the Mosswood and Longfellow communities, and forever impact Temescal, Hoover-Foster, Santa Fe, Golden Gate and other nearby neighborhoods. I was excited about MacArthur Transit Village. It has the potential to be a wonderful local resource and national example of transit oriented development, but only if it is designed with community and place-based solutions in mind. This proposal is the opposite of a considered, or even legal, option.
This project because of the inappropriate height of the tower should not be approved without a serious look at its environmental impact. Since the last EIR which effectively stopped two towers, the immediate environment has changed to adapt to climate change, by limiting the car traffic to one-lane in each direction on all of the street surrounding the station. Also, this should be a matter of Oakland consciously making decisions on the growth of the city. This area is not zoned for such height and there will be displacement of long-time residents because of the rise of the average rent in the neighborhood. Are we really developing Oakland primarily to accommodate commuters to San Francisco over the needs of long term residents? The development has begun to claim that this a family friendly project, but there has been no consideration of the impact on schools and services. It is ridiculous to permit a building that does not comply with the present LEED requirements.
Since 2010 there have been 500,000 new jobs added in the bay area and only 50,000 new housing units. This 24 story luxury housing tower is being built to satisfy the profit motive of a non-local developer while making the neighborhood less livable for all. It will not make a dent in the housing crisis, especially for the lower income and fixed income residents of our city. OPPOSED.
I am strongly opposed to this revision and amendment. The current approved set of plans should be used soonest to get rid of the eyesore at MacArthur Bart.
As a resident of Temescal, I am OPPOSED to the revision and amendment to the original MacArthur transit village proposal. WE DONT NEED A GIANT UGLY BUILDING in our low rise area.
BUILD IT DOWNTOWN. #opposed
As an Oakland resident for the last 16 yrs & specifically Longfellow the last 3 yrs I am strongly opposed to the 'tower' development as proposed. It is out of scale with the existing urban fabric & to be honest is aesthetically unappealing. Perhaps a tower would work among the taller buildings of downtown oakland but here at Macarthur it will just be a very visible eyesore. I support proceeding with the 2008 approved plans that are more appropriate to our neighborhoods existing streetscape.
I am concerned that this project is being rushed through the approval process without any thoughtful consideration to the negative impact of our community. It is apparent that a 24 story tower complex is out of character to the neighborhood. What the neighborhood needs is a true transit village, not a tower. A project of this height and size will be even more of an eyesore if the economy's rise takes a downward term. The height and current design does not allow for any flexibility in the future. The design doesn't allow for the type of retain that community desires, such as a moderately priced grocery. Instead we are likely to get bars/restaurants, which are fine but already plentiful. It will not be inclusive of the current community. Together with other approved projects in the area, there is no infrastructure to support a building of this size. Parking is already impossible on the weekend and evenings. Please ask tough questions. Demand appropriate development.
During the coming years, many people in Oakland will be outraged as the Federal government overrides important environmental regulations. But the same thing is about to happen right here, thanks to our City Council. Plans for the new BART tower are proceeding, despite the fact that there is no robust EIR for this project. The previous EIR, created eight years ago, plainly states that it does NOT apply to a possible tower. Yet this project is being hurried through with no regard for how the landscape, climate, community or seismic conditions have changed during nearly a decade of rapid growth. Even those of us who support new housing in Oakland are alarmed by the reckless agenda of those who wish to build these apartments. The tower may stand for decades—will the city not spend a fraction of that time determining what the building’s impact on the local air, land, groundwater and surroundings may be? Addressing such issues now is a far less costly approach than dealing with them later.
As a resident of the Temescal district for 15+ years, my family is strongly OPPOSED to the revision and amendment to the original MacArthur transit village proposal. The revisions and amendments are not minor - they will cause significant traffic problems at MacArthur BART (uber, lyft, google and fb buses); they will cast additional shadows (and traffic accidents) across the MacArthur maze and the 51st St on-ramp to 980, and afternoon shadows up Telegraph all the way to 51st St.; there is a ton of new housing in North Oakland that has been developed since the original proposal was approved, alleviating said housing crisis; AND it reneges on an agreement and plan that was already approved with community involvement. It's time to fast-track the original plans and start building to create jobs, and alleviate the eyesore we've been living with in our community since 2008.
I support the 2008 agreement for Parcel B. I oppose the out of proportion 24 story tower. This project should have already been built according to the 2008 agreement. The 24 story tower is out of proportion to the neighborhood and will be disruptive in every way, carrying capacity of the neighborhood has not been addressed.
Relying on a nearly 10 year old EIR is bad practice and sets a terrible precedent, that EIR did not even fully address the 24 story tower. This bait and switch process is highly suspect. Please restore the 2008 agreement and ensure it is built.
I like tall buildings - lived in Manhattan more than 20 years - but I strongly oppose the tower on Parcel B as completely out of scale and character with the surrounding neighborhood. Having lived so long in Manhattan, I understand the difference in how one relates to an area from the 15th floor compared to the 5th. I support the rest of the Transit Village construction, which will bring needed housing to our area. Parcel B should be about the same height. If the argument is that people living in the tower will mainly be BART commuters to/from San Francisco who would live there but can't afford to, then the answer is to build more towers in San Francisco, so more housing stock there will reduce prices.
Please be forward thinking in your decision. To allow a tower that tall at that location is ONLY forward thinking, if you envision a future for this neighborhood in which many other high rises are to be built. That's the only way it could ever be compatible with its surroundings.
I support the original PUD approved by the City in 2008. It was developed after countless community hours and maintains the integrity and feeling of the neighborhood. It provides for 675 terribly needed residential units. If the new proposal goes forward, the requisite community benefits MUST be increased beyond the original amount. For instance, the Mosswood Park allotment should be more than the original $25,000. Since the Tower Proposal of 25 stories would be about FIVE times as tall as the original Parcel B Plan of 4-6 stories, the community benefits for Mosswood Park should be more like $125,000.
I am strongly opposed to the proposed tower. I do not understand why the original plan with area residents' input was ignored. This Tower is ugly and is not in character with the surrounding Mosswood, Temescal and other neighborhoods. There should also be an additional EIR. I commute from the MacArthur BART station during the work week. There is a great deal of traffic congestion in front of the station from shuttles and cars illegally entering the area dropping off passengers. This situation will worsen if the tower is built.
I am in favor of development, but I oppose this revision of the existing plan because the impact to the surrounding community has not been fully considered. If getting something built quickly is an issue, there is an approved plan from 2008 that the community, developers, and the City spent time and effort to agree upon, and which would add up to 250 new units to the site. If the City and developers want to increase density, then they need to spend the time and take part in the process to fully consider the impact to the community. These extreme revisions to the project have the potential to have great impacts, both environmental and economic, on the existing residents and community. If density is the goal, please push these developers to be more creative and come up with a plan that can increase density in a way that supports the growth of our community, rather than disregarding it. Existing residents do not oppose development, just the tower.
I oppose such a large building being built in a very low rise and old historical neighborhood.
Planning Commission has left the City Council in a tough position Rather than doing their job to “promote the orderly growth and development of the City” they have opted to be pro-development and disregard their own studies and policies The community spent years working with each other the developers and City to come to a resolution that was approved in 2008 Why is that agreement now worthless? I wonder what my neighbors in other district feel about their work to create Area Plans? The example from MacArthur Transit Village is community involvement is pro forma and the City can decide to contradict even violate its own codes and studies In addition the proposed tower 1) does not conform to basics of urban design scale relationship because of per Ms. Payne: has significant changes in height 2) Is not sustainable To get the electricity required for the project it would need at a min.PV array about 3.5x the site. All project of this type will be required to do just that starting in 2030.
Although I am in favor of dense development on this site, I strongly oppose a tower of this height. Nothing in the surrounding neighborhood will ever come anywhere near to this height and it will stick out like a sore thumb, visible for miles and miles. Why is the Planning department throwing the General Plan out the window? This flies in the face of all good urban design protocol. This mammoth tower will loom over its neighbors, people who have worked hard for years to improve their neighborhood. This one building will not solve the housing crisis - those who are in support of the project seem to support it for the sole reason that we need more housing. There are many projects along Telegraph that will add new housing to the immediate area and help satisfy demand. The bubble is already flattening. Don't leave our neighborhood stuck with this monstrosity in the name of political expediency. It will never fit in this neighborhood. It belongs in Uptown or Downtown.
An additional EIR should have been ordered. Once again, an out of town developer (Piedmont, CA) and gentrifiers win and Oakland's real low to moderate income residents lose. Lifelong Oaklanders are being shoved aside. Shame on you City of Oakland. The proposal, Staff Reports & documentation ignore CEQA guidelines, do not meet requirements for a Planned Unit Development Permit Revision, and do not comply with zoning regulations or the General Plan. Staff/City representatives have proceeded outside the bounds of "interpretation" to rewrite rules and guidelines - that further compromise the Mosswood and Longfellow communities, and forever impact Temescal, Hoover-Foster, Santa Fe, Golden Gate and other nearby neighborhoods.
A 24-story tower design should have been rejected months ago, instead of wasting everyone’s time and resources exploring ways to side-step established legal frameworks to appease a developer with deep pockets. The proposal, Staff Reports & documentation ignore CEQA guidelines, do not meet requirements for a Planned Unit Development Permit Revision, and do not comply with zoning regulations or the General Plan. Staff/City representatives have gone way outside the bounds of "interpretation" to rewrite rules and guidelines - that further compromise the Mosswood and Longfellow communities, and forever impact Temescal, Hoover-Foster, Santa Fe, Golden Gate and other nearby neighborhoods. I was excited about MacArthur Transit Village. It has the potential to be a wonderful local resource and national example of transit oriented development, but only if it is designed with community and place-based solutions in mind. This proposal is the opposite of a considered, or even legal, option.
This project because of the inappropriate height of the tower should not be approved without a serious look at its environmental impact. Since the last EIR which effectively stopped two towers, the immediate environment has changed to adapt to climate change, by limiting the car traffic to one-lane in each direction on all of the street surrounding the station. Also, this should be a matter of Oakland consciously making decisions on the growth of the city. This area is not zoned for such height and there will be displacement of long-time residents because of the rise of the average rent in the neighborhood. Are we really developing Oakland primarily to accommodate commuters to San Francisco over the needs of long term residents? The development has begun to claim that this a family friendly project, but there has been no consideration of the impact on schools and services. It is ridiculous to permit a building that does not comply with the present LEED requirements.
This proposition is aesthetically displeasing and of great environmental concern.
As a 35 year resident (born, raised, stayed in this neighborhood) I oppose the building of this inappropriate structure.
Since 2010 there have been 500,000 new jobs added in the bay area and only 50,000 new housing units. This 24 story luxury housing tower is being built to satisfy the profit motive of a non-local developer while making the neighborhood less livable for all. It will not make a dent in the housing crisis, especially for the lower income and fixed income residents of our city. OPPOSED.