|
Councilmember On Scenic Highway Designation
One dispute over the apartment project that southern California developer AMG & Associates wants to drop at High St. and MacArthur Blvd. concerns State designation of I-580 there as a scenic highway. Loss of scenic designation would cost the City of Oakland money and open the way to allowing big-rig trucks on 580. On Jan. 31, 2008 councilmember Jean Quan's chief of staff, Richard Cowan, posted to an email list his attempt to dismiss this concern. He wrote:
I just want to add what I was told by my source at Caltrans. If there is a straw that breaks the back of the 580 Scenic Highway designation, most likely it will be in the area of signage and not a building screened by vegetation. As another emailer said, signage is what is seen as most objectionable, and, interesting enough, the AMG project will actually result in the elimination of a large billboard sign [Note: this billboard is next to MacArthur Blvd., not 580. –ORPN]. It will also provide a vegetation buffer between the building and the freeway.
Additionally, as other emailers have noted, the absence of trucks on 580 results from a special exception in the California Vehicle Code and not from the Scenic Highway designation per se. Of course, if a bunch of neon signs are put up next to the freeway and a bunch of unscreened ugly buildings are put up as well, this will jeopardize everything. However, this is not the situation with the AMG project, which, as noted, eliminates a billboard and – thanks in large part to the community process has become something that many people view as quite handsome – and is also not a 'skyscraper,' being well under 75 feet in height.
To conclude, all of us who live in the area are, rightfully, glad for no trucks on 580, and it is true that this wonderful feature is under almost continuous pressure. However, not only is it relatively safe right now, but, more importantly to this discussion, the vegetation-screened AMG project, which reduces rather than adds to signage, will have little if any bearing on the vehicle code, let alone the scenic highway designation. I like the project, but if you do not, say so on its merits and not on some somewhat misconstrued fears.
"Every Single Representation Misleading or Misstates Facts"
Mr. Cowan's claims elicited this reply from a representative of the Laurel merchants and neighbors opposed to approving and subsidizing the AMG project:
I am the land use attorney representing the Laurel merchants and residential neighbors objecting to the proposed AMG project. I have been publicly debating this project with Jean Quan and her aide Richard Cowan.
This most recent email from Richard Cowan is a perfect example of why I simply blow up every time Ms. Quan herself or through Richard writes anything or even speaks about this AMG project. Every single representation Ms. Quan makes about this project is either intentionally misleading or negligently misstates the facts. It is especially annoying because Council member Quan uses her office in an effort to somehow glorify her misrepresentations as reliable since they are coming from a city government source.
The current dispute of the scenic designation started out with Richard making the statement that he "had a phone call" with the CalTrans landscape architect who assured him that the AMG project would not at all harm this important designation despite the architect's letter to the contrary. That letter is available for review. In his letter, he warned that this project in combination with other future projects threatens what he calls a "fragile" designation. Due to prior construction and future construction including this AMG project, Oakland has been and will continue cumulatively blocking views to the hills and ocean. Every five years Caltrans reviews the scenic designation and can remove it at any time if we no longer qualify for the designation in Caltrans' opinion.
Screening does nothing to preserve the designation. As the architect explains in his letter, tall buildings specifically like the AMG project block views to the hills and the ocean. I can't seen for the life of me how putting trees in front of the AMG building will fix that problem. Certainly the architect doesn't suggest that trees are a way to keep the designation and that Oakland should now feel free to load up the area along 580 with tall buildings and trees in front of them!
Also significant is the cost to Oakland of losing the designation both in potential transportation funding hooked to the designation and in arguing that large trucks should continue to be prohibited from using 580. Right now there is legislation in place that the community fought hard to get in 2000 prohibiting large trucks on 580. As any attorney will tell you, that legislation can be changed at any time. With the amount of pressure to get some of the large trucks off 880 and onto 580, we need the scenic designation to argue we should be able to keep the legislation in place that we have. The community previously argued that Caltrans shouldn't allow trucks on 580 in part because of Caltrans' own scenic designation intended to preserve the natural views along the stretch of 580 qualifying for the designation. (By the way, according to Caltrans, 580 is the only commerce interstate freeway in the U.S. enjoying this restriction!)
As to Council member Quan and her misrepresentations – we have invited her to submit a letter from Caltrans guaranteeing and confirming her and Richard's representations: Show us in writing where Caltrans has changed its mind about their warning letter concerning the AMG project that they submitted to the city. Show us in writing where Richard has obtained a guarantee from the legislature that the current restrictions on trucks will always remain in place. Don't just tell us that her aide "had a phone call," an obviously flimsy attempt to obfuscate the facts.
The real question in my mind is why for heaven's sakes, Ms. Quan is so very committed to a project that reliable professional people have repeatedly shown is bad for elderly residents, violates zoning and environmental restrictions and in many other ways represents poor land use planning. Ms. Quan has claimed repeatedly that her AMG project is strongly supported and recently came forward with that support after showing us very little. I understand that the community is investigating Ms. Quan's "support" and will be coming forward with some interesting information about her support that maybe helps explain her commitment to this project. More soon... Leila H. Moncharsh.
| 