Laurel Community Spells Out Project Faults to City

Note: Following are excerpts of a letter by Laurel neighbors and merchants to Dan Lindheim, nominated to be director of the Coummunity and Economic Development Agency within the City of Oakland. Mr. Lindheim is mayor Dellums' top policy aide.

January 22, 2008

Dear Mr. Lindheim:

We are a group of neighbors and merchants who will be negatively impacted by the proposed AMG senior affordable housing project contemplated by the City. This is a project application that has gone on for years with constant public debate between Council member Jean Quan who is the major project proponent and our attorney, Leila H. Moncharsh on our behalf. We are writing to you because this project has potential ramifications for the entire city in a couple of unusual regards and we feel that the mayor's office should pull the item for further study before it is ruled upon.

1. This project along with others past and future threatens the 580 scenic highway designation which will cost the City potential funding and could open the door to large truck traffic on 580;

2. Oakland has generally followed a policy in recent years of sensitively locating affordable housing. This project represents a real change in that policy, sealing elderly people into their homes as a way to sanction building a project surrounded on all sides by freeway and two major arterials; and

3. The project represents a threat to the Laurel merchants' ability to operate their business district profitably because it seeks to fulfill goals that have nothing to do with the business district. As such, it puts into question the planning direction of the City and why small businesses should continue to invest in Oakland.

This project is another good example of historic problems pre-dating Mayor Dellums taking office. The project involves an application for numerous variances to get around the retail and height limits for the Laurel business district.

By everyone's description, the 115-unit structure is huge at five floors and has almost no retail, although it is located in a retail zoned area. (The site was previously used for retail and a PG&E substation until Alex Hahn purchased it; he is politically influential and is asking a very high price for the land, thus driving the enormous physical size of the proposed AMG project.) Also acknowledged by all is that the project is completely out of keeping with any structures anywhere near it in size, height and mass.

The proposed project looms over the 580 highway. The other two sides of the project are surrounded by heavily traveled MacArthur Blvd. and High St. The developer has acknowledged that the project will require ventilation and air condition systems due to poor air quality problems for the elderly residents. Seniors generally have compromised respiratory systems unable to withstand high levels of air quality pollutants, including roadway dust.

Council member Quan contends that a lot of affordable housing with a tiny bit of retail is the way to go towards bringing more customers into our Laurel business district and that as long as the elderly people are hermetically sealed into the building with a ventilation system the air quality and noise are not of concern. She believes that nothing will ever be built on this large triangular site if not her proposed project and that since we need elderly housing, why not next to the freeway? Ms. Moncharsh, who is an attorney and has a masters degree in urban planning, disagrees arguing that the project is basically inhumane, unsightly and will not generate the business increase that the council member contemplates.

The issues that affect all of us in Oakland are as follows:

1. The project puts the scenic highway designation at risk, which could cause potential loss of transportation funds and partial transfer of truck traffic from 880 onto 580.

During the course of our research into this project, one of the neighborhood volunteers who previously worked for Caltrans alerted us to the problem of the project's close proximity to Highway 580. The City of Oakland enjoys the state granted scenic highway designation – not because it's beautiful to look at buildings as you traverse 580 until you get to Grand Ave. – but because this freeway offers views towards the vegetative hillsides on one side and the ocean on the other. The benefit of the designation is that "Some types of projects on scenic highways may qualify for funding under the Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program." The designation also allows for enhancement of land values and inclusion of 580 in tourist maps encouraging visitors into our city.

Another way in which this designation is important to Oakland citizens involves CalTrans' continuing problem with restricting 580 to smaller trucks. For years we and many other residents along 580 have had an ongoing battle with CalTrans to keep large trucks off of 580. Certainly one argument we have been able to make is that this stretch of the freeway between San Leandro and Grand Ave. is supposed to be "scenic" under CalTrans' own designation.

As a result of the volunteer's concerns, she contacted the person in charge of the designation at CalTrans. He went to the proposed project site and wrote a letter that indeed does suggest that Oakland is on the edge of losing this scenic designation, not because of this one project per se, but because of the creeping effects of Oakland's putting more buildings on the edge of the 580 freeway, especially those that tower above the freeway:

Scenic quality of this corridor is indeed fragile and affected by each new visual intrusion (or development) viewed from the freeway, especially when it involves the placement of a 5-story building directly adjacent to the freeway. The effects of this project won't necessarily impact the present scenic highway designation, however, cumulative impacts of this project as well as future projects may jeopardize subsequent consideration for maintaining the scenic highway designation.

Subsequently, Richard Cowan on behalf of Council member Quan contacted this same CalTrans official and reported, "I spoke with him and there's no problem; this is just a scare tactic," which is contrary to the CalTrans letter, highly questionable as to what Mr. Walker really said, and unsupported by any new, different letter from CalTrans.

The only sure way to maintain the designation is to plan carefully such that new structures constructed near the freeway don't tower over 580.

2. The project involves hermetically sealing elderly people into their apartments and is contrary to Oakland's current attitude toward sensitively locating affordable housing.

Oakland planners and politicians have normally avoided supporting placement of any affordable housing projects, whether for elderly or others, in the least advantageous city locations adjacent to freeways. Instead, the majority of our current affordable housing projects are located sensitively within the city and with access to public transportation. As such, they allow for enjoyment of our good weather outdoors and provide the same opportunities for enjoyment of life as anywhere else within our city.

As former Mayor Elihu Harris said, "It's not a crime to be poor – not yet anyway!"

The only viable solution to combat the noise, dust and air pollution from the project's surrounding freeway and two major arterials is to basically seal the seniors inside with forced-air systems. This solution in turn negates the open space requirement. Yes, there's a courtyard that complies with the open space zoning requirement, but nobody can enjoy it due to roadway dust and air pollution. Since the project is located on one side of busy four-lane High St. and the grocery store and shops are on the other side, the solution is to run a shuttle service, something the developer is fighting. Thus far, the city planner is only recommending two shuttle trips a day while the community is asking for at least four trips daily.

In stark contrast, we have attached a news story showing that Oakland has made extra efforts to place affordable housing away from freeways. On December 9, 2007, the City Council voted unanimously to spend $8 million for an affordable family housing land purchase, $3 million more than they could have spent "but it [the prior planned location] was too close to the freeway and unhealthy air quality, said Margaretta Lin of the East Bay Community Law Center, an architect of the revised plan." Nancy Nadel commented that the plan was expensive, but "It's a better location right across the street from the park and farther away from the freeway, so it's healthier."

Council member Quan's rationale that Oakland has to build senior affordable housing wherever there is the opportunity actually is contradicted by ABAG. The current draft regional ABAG plan revealed that Oakland and Antioch have supplied a lot of the East Bay's affordable housing, way out of proportion with Oakland's population and the contribution by other cities. To correct the overconstruction of affordable housing, ABAG's plan provides that "cities such as Oakland that historically supplied a larger share of affordable housing would be asked to build fewer low-income units and more market-rate housing" during the period from the present to 2014. Other cities are expected to start doing "their fair share" of affordable housing construction.

Moreover, AMG and Council member Quan have failed to produce a market study identifying what AMI (Area Median Income) level population the project will serve and that there is a demand for housing that same AMI level in Oakland. The market study is required for tax credit eligibility, is a public document, and the council member and AMG should now produce it. It is not sufficient for them to boldly claim that there is a huge demand for the project with all of its downside risks and back up that demand with nothing but their own opinions.

3. The City needs to allow the merchant groups in Oakland to have strong say in the development of their own business communities; otherwise, the public improvements paid for by merchant groups will fall back on the City.

The merchants in the Laurel District signed a petition with almost everyone of us indicating to AMG that we wanted a smaller structure in height and more retail on the ground floor. As is, the project is overwhelmingly residential with a tiny bit of token retail on the first floor in response to our complaints. The City's insistence on disrupting this retail area with a very different type of structure and little to no retail has long-term consequences for small retail in Oakland.

Like many small retail communities in Oakland, those of us in the Laurel District have operated for many years with bottom-up management rather than top down management. The City was unable to financially help small business communities and so several of them formed business districts in which they raise their own funding for public improvements. In the last three years since the Laurel formed its business district the merchants have raised about $500,000 most of which has gone into streetscape public improvements. We put on an annual Festival and manage our own business affairs so as to increase incomes for all of us. We have sunk our life savings into the Laurel District and are heavily invested financially in improving the area.

By contrast the proposed project will cost the City Redevelopment Agency (ORA) millions of dollars to construct. Council member Quan and AMG have been less than forthcoming with truthfully reporting the costs to Oakland of this proposed project, ridiculously claiming that the whole project will be funded by tax credits.

At a community meeting last year, a neighbor who specialized in funding affordable housing predicted that the AMG project will need an infusion of between $5.0 and $15.0 million Oakland dollars. Other consultants looking at the project have similarly agreed. Council member Quan and AMG have produced absolutely not one iota of financial data for this project although it will be required for the tax credit application, a fully public document.

We need the City to give substantial weight to our views about future development of the Laurel business area. Otherwise, it makes no sense for us or for any other Oakland small business community to sink our life savings, sweat and emotional energy into trying to build the business district. While we can appreciate that Council member Quan has strong desires to help elderly people with their housing needs and to assist Alex Hahn with his financial goals, that is not what a business district is designed to accomplish.

No business district can survive for long with top down City management that wants to serve goals having nothing to do with our business district.

Signed by Steering Committee members:
Dr. Maureen Dorsey, Oakland Veterinary Hospital
David Vahlstrom, Laurel Ace Hardware
Lease Wong, Komodo Toys
Luan Strauss, Laurel Book Store