Developer's Last-Minute Plans Insult Oakland

It was never clear why southern California developer AMG & Associates brought back its MacArthur and High St. proposal to the design review committee of the planning commission.

AMG scheduled the item even though it had no new plans to offer. Then, three hours before the Dec. 12, 2007 meeting, the size of AMG's arrogance became clear when it submitted revised plans, expecting the planning staff, commissioners and the public would evaluate them seriously!

The design review committee permitted AMG chief Alexis Gevorgian to make a superficial presentation of three or four pretty drawings in a PowerPoint show. However, the committee rejected AMG's railroad attempt. Instead, if AMG wishes to proceed:

• AMG may appear at the next design review meeting in the third week of January 2008. If it so chooses, it must submit plans early in January.

• AMG must appear at another community meeting.

Councilmember Quan has backed this project unconditionally since she first hatched the deal with AMG. Her chief of staff was in the audience on Dec. 12. Did Quan not warn AMG that it was a bad idea to set an appearance at design review without new plans, or that it was an even worse idea to spring new plans on everyone only hours before the meeting? Whether arrogance or whatever, something corrupted the councilmember's political sense.

As for the substance of project, it was difficult at first glance to find anything in the new plans that addressed major community and social concerns. The building would remain as tall and bulky, but with a nominal split into two structures. On key isses:

• Safety: Community resident Scott Lamb noted that other relevant projects in Oakland added considerable street lighting for security. He observed that the nearby stretch of MacArthur Blvd. had suffered a series of assaults and other crimes against persons in recent weeks.
  West Oakland residents, developers, and the police department have recently begun working together on surveillance video cameras hooked up to the Internet for the benefit of faster police response.

• Pollution: Suddenly, the developer says he in effect did not do his homework when he previously stated that the property line of the site was 22 feet from the edge of interstate 580, a source of pollution for the senior citizen occupants. Now he says the distance is 45 feet. AMG is going against the trend in Oakland, which is to protect senior citizens (and children) from air pollution near freeways. Indeed, the proposed site for a portion of the Central Station housing project was recently moved to get it farther back from a freeway. State law protects children for a distance of 500 feet; do senior citizens deserve any less?

• Traffic: The new plan retains the vehicle entrance/exit on the MacArthur Blvd. side. However, as has been noted since almost the beginning of the proposal, a MacArthur exit has serious problems negotiating traffic because of the configuration of MacArthur Blvd. as it goes under the 580 freeway. The problem is compounded because the senior citizen occupants will need a shuttle service.

• Subsidies: It appears that AMG hopes to get all the exceptions and variances it wants, then come back and say, we need a City subsidy. AMG played this game in Alhambra, but the city council there rejected its project. To this day, AMG has refused to disclose financial numbers for its High and MacArthur proposal.
  The community might reluctantly agree to a proposal that a developer can finance himself, but it is another matter to ask that the residents accept all the negatives that this project poses to the Laurel district and then agree to help pay for it with City money.

The next step is a community meeting once AMG has provided a definite set of plans with sufficient advance notice. One outcome is already clear: councilmember Quan has shown residents that a backroom deal means more to her than community concerns.