Local Merchant: "Play By the Rules"

Luan, a Maxwell Park resident and Laurel merchant, writes:

"Senior" for the proposed project is 55. Most 55-year-olds I know still own a car, drive, and work. There is just under half a parking space allotted for each residential unit. There is very little space for parking on adjacent streets unless you're a resident.

The space is zoned for retail commercial purposes, which in this case means no parking on the ground floor of the building, the first floor must be retail, and the height is restricted to two floors above the first. The developer maintains that he could put the parking underground but it "won't pencil out," taken to mean it would eat into their profit margin. The same goes with keeping it to two floors of housing.

The initial plan had no retail. They've added a few thousand square feet of retail space which includes a "kiosk" on the High St. side that appears to be a few feet deep and several feet long.

The traffic study doesn't appear to take into consideration the actual traffic at the most congested times. One entrance and one exit onto MacArthur south of High will put additional cars into an odd maze of traffic that comes from the freeway, goes onto it, connects to the Mills area and part of MacArthur.

Despite being first encouraged then told to work with community people, the developer largely hasn't.

I'm not against senior housing or even senior housing at this spot. I'm not against higher density in areas that are zoned for it. There are a number of real estate listings for locations in Oakland that are not as difficult to work with or put a project of the size the developer would like. There are quite a few in Alameda County in fact.

I'd be quite happy to welcome this developer and any type of dwelling project if it kept the ground floor retail, which I believe we sorely need, and put two floors of housing units above.

One of the things I have a hard time with is that the developer and the councilperson, knowing the zoning restrictions as well as the stated desires of the community, have kept this going so long. Zoning can change and be accommodated to my understanding – when there is an overwhelming compelling need. If this were the only piece of property left in Oakland, I'd understand the drive. Allowing as many factors outside the zoning as it stands sets a bad precedent. The whole adjacent block from High to Maybelle will be developed at some point, and I would imagine the owner is watching this proceeding.

I don't think of development as a bad thing, but if the rules of the game are in place and the players are largely in support of those rules (and I mean the deliberate zoning of an area, not this project specifically), and someone comes with a project that grossly ignores the plan and then says they can't comply because they can't make money at it ... well, perhaps it's not the right place for them. And it's unfortunate that they were encouraged to keep going by people who are supposed to uphold the plan.

The lack of imagination isn't evident on the part of those discussing this, it's on the part of the councilperson and her chosen developer.