The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

7.7 16-0709 Subject: MacArthur BART Revision To PUD And Amendment To Development Agreement From: Planning And Building Department Recommendation: Adopt An Ordinance, As Recommended By The City Planning Commission, (A) Amending The Development Agreement By And Between City Of Oakland And MacArthur Transit Community Partners, LLC Regarding The Property And Project Known As "MacArthur Transit Village" To Allow For Increased Height On Parcel B, And (B) Relying On The 2008 MacArthur Station Project Environmental Impact Report And Addenda, Finding That No Additional Environmental Review Is Needed Pursuant To California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15162-15164, 15168 And 15180, 15183, And 15183.3 And Adopting Related CEQA Findings, For Parcel B, Located At 532-391th Street, Oakland, Ca (Assessor Parcel Numbers 012 102501100 And 012 102501200)

  • Default_avatar
    eden brukman over 7 years ago

    Fundamentally, this shouldn't be a debate about the pros/cons of a 260' tower in a "neighborhood mixed-use" area. It is not a question of whether Oakland residents are for or against a tower – it is a question of the integrity of Oakland’s planning process and the people involved.
    It is imperative that you take your roles seriously as stewards-TO HELP THE CITY SERVE ITS CITIZENS. This proposal should have been rejected outright by Staff, instead of wasting everyone’s time and resources side-stepping established frameworks to appease a developer with deep pockets. This proposal is the opposite of a considered, or even legal, option for Parcel B.
    I was excited about the potential for 700 homes and retail at MacArthur Transit Village. It could have been a wonderful local resource and national example of TOD. Instead, you’re rubber-stamping a proposal that merely adds ~150 shoebox-sized units (which could be better integrated in the area) and destroying the fabric of our neighborhoods.

  • Default_avatar
    Ed Cullen over 7 years ago

    This is not a net positive for Oakland. While density at transportation hub may be a good thing, this 19th Street style development (through a proposed special ordinance to grant a special exception to a single developer) is potentially too much of a good thing at MacArthur. There are currently a number of examples of development, e.g., 3000 Broadway, 1750 Webster, 2015 and 2016 Telegraph, 3093 Broadway, and more. A 24/25-story tower might fit the corner of 19th and Broadway but it doesn’t belong in a neighborhood transportation hub (be it Mosswood, Longfellow, Temescal or Rockridge with its wonderfully large parking lot). The proposed 24/25-story tower might not fit downtown, either, but at least there it would not rely on an old EIR for a 6-story project, it would get a new one based on this specific project.

  • 10224847204702728
    Deirdre Snyder over 7 years ago

    This project was once a community-approved, high density village that provided about 200 units, including some affordable housing. In a rather Trumpish move, the developers are now refusing to build the project as approved and are using an alternative that was never discussed in public, The Planning Commission failed to due the appropriate new EIR - even though the area has changed in terms of lanes of traffic, and even though the wind study shows that the plaza and the entry to the parking garage, the areas of highest use, will already be uncomfortable for standing or sitting. This is a rash and dangerous move that abdicates the City government's responsibility for intelligent, fair and deliberate planning, and permits the big money of Boston Properties to dictate what happens in Oakland. Uptown and Downtown are not high rise neighorhoods - they are four and five stories, which is a livable, community oriented size. If you rubber stamp this, do not expect our votes.

  • Default_avatar
    Clea Matson over 7 years ago

    Throughout the process that began with a new proposal to increase the height of a residential building by over 300%, a frustrating false dichotomy has been set up, the strength of which was evident in Council Member Kalb's comments following the approval of this tower. Despite comments to the contrary, community members who oppose this REVISION to an already approved project DO NOT oppose development on this site, and in fact welcome it. The constant references to a choice we are all making between a dirt pit and a 24-story tower are disingenuous. If City Council insists on bending over backwards to give these self-proclaimed billionaire developers whatever they want, I ask you to please be honest with your constituents about why you are doing this. We are not NIMBYS fighting development in our backyard, we are members of a community who want an actual voice in what changes come to our backyard. We need City Council to push developers to work with the community. Why haven't you?

  • Default_avatar
    Ann OConnor over 7 years ago

    The proposed special ordinance to grant a special exception to a single project and individual developers is especially ethically suspect. Please remember over 300 residents have signed the petition against this. Please do your job and stand up to big money, honor the 2008 agreement. Excessive density is damaging to neighborhoods. The original EIR did not significantly address a tower, at least a new EIR is needed. 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. 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, and irresponsible -- terms that are antithetical to the very nature of a building code.

  • Default_avatar
    brian pearson over 7 years ago

    As an article in the Economist says about land use regulation reform. "Landowners work to strengthen development restrictions while politicians cash in on their ability, through selective development approval, to grant fortunate supplicants a windfall.” This is certainly what is happening here in Oakland. This project privileges a single land owner over all of Oakland. It will do nothing to address the issues: healthy, sustainable, affordable housing for all of Oakland. We need real action on housing not political gestures. We need to work toward support of Local and State laws such as AB32. Lets look to the future of Oakland and not the past. Vote no to the Tower of Privilege.

  • Default_avatar
    Deb Levine over 7 years ago

    This decision to approve a 26-story tower shows a blatant disregard by the Current City Council members of their constituents. The developers are the largest COMMERCIAL developers in Massachusetts. Our City Council is voting in the interests of these outside developers over their constituents.

    Our City Council is overriding policies in place to safeguard Oakland communities by waiving traditionally required reviews, such as environmental reviews and shadow studies. In 2008, a 24-story tower for the same area was rejected by Oakland City planners, Oakland City Council and community residents. A collaborative plan was developed for the three parcels located in the MacArthur transit village that was subsequently approved. The first parcel of affordable housing is now sitting next to an empty lot where Boston Developers have stopped work while Oakland City Council members held staged community meetings and pushed their new plans through without proper review.