Community Feedback

Summary of comments submitted at UBA Committee Meetings

There were many concerns about negative impacts on traffic, parking, transportation, fire safety.  In general, people embraced the need for denser housing. Most comments were in favor of affordable housing with percentages ranging from 5% to 40%.   Participants wanted to see a formal application from the developer before the EIR (Environmental Impact Report), which should contain land use planning and significant emphasis on environmental sustainability.  Many, many people were affronted by the height of the building, lack of public space, and loss of trees.

Click here to see details on how to take action now!

Comments submitted in writing during meeting covered a wide range of concerns.
Community members during both meetings submitted their comments via post it notes.
We then organized them by category and transcribed them verbatim on our website.

Sampling of the 340 comments made at the two community meetings on 7/13/19 and 7/31/19

  • The Oakland firestorm of 1991 came within a mile of the CCA site. Fire safety and evacuation are tremendous concerns!
  • Inappropriate size of building. Ruins character of neighborhood. Too tall.
  • Creates more traffic & congestion
  • Loss of historic trees. Ruins view
  • As a graduate of CCAC it is hard to believe that the School of Architecture hasn’t weighed in with something more in character with original campus and gardens.
  • This is an historic landmark that is being obliterated.
  • Bldg height: there are no bldgs this height in neighborhood. RR is a residential neighborhood w/tallest bldgs at 4-5 stories. Tall bldgs are 4-5 miles away in industrial & downtown areas. Building this height will be detrimental to residential neighborhood
  • Appropriate SCALE scale scale scale
  • Include affordable units for families that can house a family of 4 under or at $2,500 mo.
  • Require a % of units to be affordable housing to support inclusion and diversity – with many calling for a minimum of 10 to 30 % affordable housing.
  • Forget affordability for “artists” – make it affordable for teachers, include dislocated folks & workers in area…
  • Affordable housing in the main buildings, not just the existing dormitory
  • 19 stories is outrageous. Shame on CCA for being such a bad neighbor in their departure
  • Coordinate planning and development of the two adjacent parcels before ANYTHING is allowed
  • Impacts on current infrastructure – i.e., schools, fire dept., sewer, access for garbage pickup, fire, etc.
  • Broadway infrastructure for traffic is currently not in place. Current traffic on Bwy is a big problem since Road Diet did not anticipate all the growth already
  • Current infrastructure cannot handle current traffic. More lights (which tends to be
  • Oakland’s solution don’t and can’t work. Need detailed traffic and parking studies.  With one lane in each direction on Broadway – noxious car fumes are already a problem from cars idling
  • Already bad backup on Bwy since Merrill Gardens. No flow. Pedestrian safety
  • Consider traffic problems exiting Hwy 24 already at rush hour. Add Uber/Lyft circulating even if new residents don’t own cars GRIDLOCK & pollution
  • Lack of parking to units (ratio), traffic flow, service access
  • Concerned about traffic cars/bikes/scooters in the 3 surrounding blocks-Impact on traffic on Broadway east of 51st ??
  • Impact on traffic – 4 traffic lights w/in 5 blocks on Broadway
  • Traffic: will Broadway become a freeway? Will the recent traffic calming and bike lanes be for naught?
  • Parking: 330 spaces for 586 units? They will fill the whole neighborhood with their cars
  • Eliminate parking minimums. Encourage walking and biking.
  • How will project interact with AC Transit/BART? will there be a shuttle service? How will project promote transit use? How will it affect transit capacity?
  • How will the developers incentivize AC Transit & BART to mitigate traffic?
  • There isn’t a good egress plan for an emergency situation for the # of units & people who will potentially live in skyscraper at this site.
  • I’m concerned about pedestrian & bicycle access in this area (esp. Oakland Tech students & residents)
  • The aesthetics of design are most important. These buildings belong in Manhattan, not Oakland
  • I hate that the Arts & Crafts style & heritage is being so entirely ignored in the proposed plan
  • No more glass & metal! Painted stucco! Balconies!
  • Housing density doesn’t have to be ugly…
  • Given that housing is in crisis in this area, I think we should encourage large buildings like this. I would love to see the zoning changes needed to be used to leverage a better-looking design for these 19 stories, however.
  • PLAN the whole area, please, Oakland City. Include Broadway/51st St/Pleasant Valley
  • Don’t change zoning w/o land use planning
  • Save trees & grounds
  • Public health: Need trees, green space & sunlight – this project doesn’t have those in scale to surrounding area
  • Require green infrastructure, e.g., no natural gas utilities in new buildings and implement solar and other alternative energy
  • Oakland needs high density building & sustainable growth, should be eco-friendlier
  • Environmental sustainability- low carbon footprint in construction and ongoing low
  • Energy Use
  • I am concerned that the process is being subverted, paving the way for further erosion
  • Insist that a formal application be submitted