What are the issues?

In the community poll that UBA conducted in the summer of 2019 re: the CCA site development these issues were identified: (click on issue to see detail below)

1. affordability
2. design & aesthetics, scale & DEnsity
3. sustainability
- Oakland’s goals
- CCA’s goals
- UBA’s goals
4. traffic, Parking, & safety
5. historic preservation and arts legacy
6. zoning & city planning

SOME COMMUNITY QUESTIONS ARE:
How can we obtain more affordable units to accommodate the many who cannot afford luxury units - workers in the neighborhood - teachers, nurses, restaurant workers, police, etc., and families? The city’s progress in building affordable units has been dismal. Mayor Schaaf’s goal is 28% affordable units. The CCA site development proposal was originally slated for less than 7%. How can we reconcile those two?

Can the architecture in the eventual design be compatible with the neighborhood? What can be done to better respect the cultural and architectural heritage of the site, including the wall and gate, and preserve more historic buildings?

How can the parking/traffic challenges be resolved in a transit-friendly manner, without overburdening neighborhood and the intersections nearby?

How will the City guarantee that the proposed park area will be open to the public in perpetuity?

PLEASE SEND YOUR COMMENTS ON THESE ISSUES TO UBAOAKLAND@GMAIL.COM

1. Affordability

Oakland needs more affordable housing – including mid- to high-rise structures — but we need planned, smart growth. By the end of 2019 of the 9,304 units granted building permits in Oakland, less than 7% (a total of 628) are subsidized affordable projects. Oakland has exceeded building its quota of luxury/market rate units— but has fallen far behind on its stated goals for affordable and below market rate units.

 For every 1 affordable unit there have been 8 market-rate built and the only housing category that has surpassed its quota is market rate housing.

Studies have shown that the ‘trickle-down’ or ‘filtering’ theory of housing—the theory that more market rate units will result in more affordability in the housing stock at large—is a myth:
- The “filtering” theory works in suburbs where land is cheaper, but not in crowded cities with expensive land and extremely high demand from both outsiders and existing residents;

- In fact, a plethora of “market rate” rentals actually pushes working and lower middle-class people further and further out to the suburbs; 

- With vacancy decontrol, rents that were once affordable become unaffordable when rent-controlled tenants move away.

- And as higher paying jobs come to the city, median income is pushed up, which in turn pushes up what is designated as “low income” in comparison, shutting out renters who previously would have qualified. 
(See articles and research on this topic and affordable housing on our RESOURCES page.)

Oakland City Councilmember Nikki Fortunato Bas (District 2) called the filter down theory into question at the Nov. 5, 2019 City Council meeting. “Over the last four years we have approved over 9,000 units of luxury housing,” Bas said, “in that same time our homeless population has doubled. Luxury housing is not working in terms of fixing our housing affordability and displacement crisis.” (SJ Mercury News, Nov. 15, 2019.)

San Francisco currently requires new multi-unit construction to include 20% affordable units. Why can’t Oakland do the same — or better?

Impact fees are committed to projects in the pipeline, so the City says. But where will these projects be built? Building affordable housing only in less affluent districts where land is cheaper further isolates communities. Rockridge and neighboring Temescal started out as diverse, mixed income areas. New housing here should be affordable and provide for residents at all income levels instead of further gentrifying the area.

Average rent for units of all sizes completed from 2016 to 2019 is $3,915, about 20% higher than units in buildings completed before 2016. They did not dip substantially to more affordable rates during the Covid crisis.

Displacement due to rising rents from yet more luxury units could be another unintended consequence of this largely market rate project at the CCA site. The City’s report, “A Roadmap Toward Equity: Housing Solutions for Oakland, California” (2015) states that, “Oakland could adopt and apply a consistent set of evaluative criteria to make informed land use decisions and to understand a project’s potential to displace residents as a result of increasing surrounding rents and sales prices. As public health research has demonstrated, there are also individual and community-health impacts from such displacement.”

The developer is proposing 5%-10% affordable units, much lower than Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s stated city-wide goal of 28%. All the remaining units in the new construction will be market rate or luxury, particularly the higher floors.

UBA advocates for a significantly higher percentage of affordability as the best way for Rockridge to do its part to make a dent in Oakland’s affordable housing crisis.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE

2. Design & aesthetics, SCALE & DENSITY

CCA’s website states that “(t)he designs for CCA’s campus expansion in San Francisco reflect a model of environmental sustainability…” and “show(s) a connection to CCA’s long and rich history, as architects drew inspiration from materials used on the Oakland campus, its connection to the outdoors, its greenery, and its sense of community.” Further, they are envisioning a “state-of-the-art design by (a) renowned architectural firm…” In contrast, this is not what UBA saw in CCA’s plans for their Oakland campus. Here is an image from their original proposal:

UBA thought that Oakland could do better than what was originally proposed for the development of the California College of the Arts Oakland site. Why settle for something that replicates an anonymous 19-story glass and steel business park or downtown? Because Oakland has already met its goal for market rate housing, let’s make the CCA site a cornerstone of our affordability strategy in one of the City’s most walkable neighborhoods. Isn’t a beautiful, dense, and affordable residential neighborhood what Oakland wants? 


UBA advocates for a design that is congruent with the historic fabric - older architectural styles, largely Arts & Crafts in design, and the highest buildings on larger boulevards at a maximum of 6 stories (75’.) The example of the new residential towers at the MacArthur BART station illustrates how discordant featureless Modernist architecture appears in a neighborhood of mixed older styles; vast areas of highly reflective glass and grey, featureless planes of steel create a ‘dialectic between the old and the new’ that is more argument than conversation. With a few dissenters, the community consensus that UBA has heard is that it is an eyesore. Nineteen stories at Broadway near the top of College Avenue will be another eyesore. We believed that Oakland deserves better.

There is no imperative for new structures to lack architectural interest or to totally ignore surrounding aesthetics; new structures need not have craftsman wooden brackets to be appropriate for Rockridge - but should have a comparable level of fine detailing and interest. There is no reason that the new buildings can’t be modern, larger, and more imposing than surrounding buildings while also being respectful of and harmonious with surrounding building styles.

below is a page from the City’s own ‘design guidelines’…does the proposed project conform?

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE

3. Sustainabilty:

a. What are our City’s own sustainability goals and regulations? We need to ensure that these are adhered to...

City of Oakland’s 2030 EQUITABLE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (ECAP) A Just Transition for Oakland
http://www.oakland2030.com

Here are the four stated goals for BUILDINGS:

• Eliminate natural gas use in buildings

• Provide low cost clean energy to frontline communities

• Prevent refrigerant pollution

• Reduce embodied carbon of buildings

Here are Oakland’s Green Building Ordinances and Code Requirements: https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/green-building

b. what are cca’s stated sustainability goals?

Here is what CCA says on its website in its Statement of Values for new construction in San Francisco:

“… faculty, student, staff, and trustee representation, developed the following values that represent the college's core principles as they pertain to sustainability. These basic tenets are drawn upon frequently to ensure all future growth—curricular, technological, architectural—takes into consideration these best-practice guidelines.

• Minimize harm and optimize benefits to the environment and society in our daily endeavors

• Apply the sustainability values we teach to our students to our facilities, transportation, and purchasing and investing practices

• Provide the tools and resources that motivate our community members to be sustainability leaders

• Draw on and contribute to the resources, knowledge, and initiatives uniquely available in the San Francisco Bay Area

• Foster an academic and operational culture of continuing sustainability innovation

• Identify and promote career opportunities in sustainable practices for our students.”

Further, CCA states that their Strategic Plan aims to “…cultivate diversity, foster excellence, connect communities, and lead responsibly.” UBA hopes CCA will ensure that these same values and aims are echoed in the development they leave behind in Oakland.

c. here are UBA’s sustainability goals:

UBA envisions a development on the site that:

• maintains open space and mitigates the tremendous loss of trees; (click here to see Arborist’s Report)

• uses green and sustainable construction methods and meets a minimum Bronze LEED certification;

• addresses issues revealed after an exhaustive traffic study, (including public transportation and parking analyses) within 1.5 miles of the site, and assessing the traffic congestion burden on Clifton street (including second entrance option. See TRAFFIC section for detail);

• provides adequate space for ride-sharing pick up and drop off, electrical charging for cars and scooters;

• includes a reduced parking ratio per unit. This ratio should reflect realistic neighborhood traffic, parking, and public transit conditions as studied by an independent traffic consultant;

• exceeds all ADA access requirements;

• doesn’t burden the City with infrastructure costs;

• meets requirements for adequate underground utilities;

• ensures privacy is maintained nearby at 1-2 story homes;

• maintains current amount of shade and ensures no glare impacts from any tall structure;

• ensures hazardous material removal during construction; and

• lessens the negative social justice impact of yet another luxury housing development.


UBA will be closely monitoring sustainability and environmental aspects of this project throughout the process.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE

4. traffic, PARKING, & safety

current issues:

Would current conditions around Broadway/51st St./Pleasant Valley Road area and in the infrastructure enable the absorption of 600 - 1000+ new residents in the area - in addition to the recently added 400+ at Merrill Gardens (MG) and Baxter? This added to the jump in shopper traffic from the re-opening of Safeway at The Ridge? Traffic and safety planning for these three developments was not well coordinated; severe congestion, wrong way drivers, speeding, cut through traffic and overflow parking from MG are now serious issues. See neighbors’ traffic report here. The City has already rated the intersection at Broadway & 51st St. as Level of Service F, the most severely problematic. When RadUrban and Whole Foods open at 51st at Telegraph, this will bring 400+ more residents, plus shopper traffic along busy 51st St, a thoroughfare between Hwy 580 and Hwys 24 & 13.

For any development on the CCA site, the City must be actively engaged with the community as well as with traffic engineers. We neighbors who live on these streets effectively foresaw the problems we now live with, and no one listened. This time, let’s prevent problems before they happen with a well-thought out traffic re-design involving all stakeholders.

SAFETY:
Access to the development: Is it realistic to build such a huge development for approximately 600 - 1000 new residents with ingress and egress limited to narrow Clifton Street? Would emergency vehicles, plus cars, delivery trucks, scooters, bikes, wheelchairs and strollers be able to function with only one access road on a daily basis? What about during a major disaster? Would fire and rescue be able to reach multi-story structures at the far south of the site from this one access road?

CURRENT TRAFFIC AND SAFETY PROBLEMS:

Neighbors NW of Broadway and 51st St. identified serious existing traffic and safety issues and proposed solutions in a 10 page report, submitted to and discussed with City officials in October 2018. The City promised follow up but has never done so. (See the neighbors’ traffic report here.)

• Pedestrian safety is already an issue for children, seniors at two residences (some with impaired mobility, vision, and/or hearing), and for teens rushing between Oakland Tech high school and off-campus classes near the CCA site. Stop lights are ill-timed and badly placed. Drivers frequently ignore stop signs or are confused by poor signage. Neighbors report an increase in traffic and pedestrian near-accidents as well as actual accidents.

• One of two required traffic studies was conducted prior to the redevelopment of the Safeway/Ridge Shopping Center at Pleasant Valley & Gilbert. Meanwhile, Merrill Gardens and Baxter opened increasing traffic and congestion. As part of the planning process for any new development at the CCA site an in-depth area-wide traffic study must be conducted by a neutral party (not the developer) to assess conditions that have worsened so notably since before the new three developments.

• Results of the upper Broadway “road diet” are not as anticipated: very few riders use the new bike lanes, while reduced vehicle lanes have increased vehicle congestion. Traffic and signage reconfiguration in the approach to Hwy 24 confuses motorists and endangers pedestrians.

• The new exit from The Ridge onto Pleasant Valley at Gilbert was described by an Oakland Department of Transportation official as “an abomination.” Seniors and disabled are particularly endangered at this intersection.

UBA is asking the City to take a more active role addressing current serious traffic and safety issues. And the City must also ensure that these efforts thoroughly and effectively incorporate conditions anticipated by the size and scale of planned development on the CCA site.

PARKING

We support reduced parking ratios (proposed plan is a .67/unit ratio) if this reduction is accompanied by well-planned access and parking for shared cars, bikes, ride-share services, motor scooters, and other alternate forms of transport. The independent traffic study (cited above) would help determine a parking ratio appropriate to actual on-the-ground conditions. Free or reduced bus passes and a jitney to BART would support public transit use.

Transit oriented developments (TOD) with reduced parking, previously unheard of, are becoming more popular with several East Bay and SF examples. These developers are betting that there will be plenty of old and young tenants happy to leave their cars behind if they are near convenient and dependable public transit, and alternative transit modes are accessible. A well-planned TOD makes it much easier to live without a car, which is an increasingly desirable alternative for many, though not for all. Although just outside the optimal half mile to major transit at BART (a 12 minute walk) and adjacent to the 51A AC Transit line, proximity to The Ridge shopping center and one of the most appealing shopping districts in Oakland, the CCA development will have great appeal.

However, while reduced vehicle usage is imperative, studies show that as income level rises so does vehicle ownership. If luxury units predominate at this development, this may become an issue. This could be mitigated by residential permit parking which excludes development residents, preventing them from parking in the surrounding community. The developer should subsidize this program, including ensuring regulation enforcement.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Reduced parking works where public transit is robust and dependable. There must be a commitment to significantly improve and expand public transportation. Although the developer, CCA and the City bear no responsibility for this, it is an important piece of the transit puzzle. When public transit is excellent, the majority of people do not need a car.

AC Transit must expand routes and improve on-time service if ridership is to increase and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are to be reduced. (See AC Transit’s 2018 report here.) There are encouraging moves to integrate the 27 different transit districts in the Bay Area - but this will be years in the making.

An alternative form of public transit would be smaller, more flexible and economical jitney and van-type public transit like Emery Go-BART. These vehicles should be electric. They could be up and running very quickly; this idea would make sense not just for this site but for our whole transit system.

BART, currently overwhelmed, is scheduled to improve capacity and frequency of service if federal funds are received to supplement funds from the passage of Measure RR. Currently, it is often impossible to board at Rockridge during morning commute hours.

Private for-profit ride share services are convenient and flexible, but more expensive than public transit. In addition they drain resources that otherwise would be spent supporting public transit. Bike rentals and electric scooters are convenient, but only for the able-bodied, and are also run by for-profit companies. Accommodation for these services must be built into any new development, but not to the detriment of space and access that supports and enhances public transit service.

As more and more of the public’s transit dollars go to these private, for profit ride-sharing and rental services, AC Transit languishes. We must advocate for investment in the future of public transportation for everyone. See Resources page for more information.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE

5. historic preservation and arts legacy

UBA wants a concrete plan to create, preserve, and re-use more of the existing historic buildings and surrounding landscape, and to retain more of the mature trees.

The Oakland Planning & Building Dept. engaged the firm Page & Turnbull to conduct the Historic Resources Evaluation. The report summary reads, “Page & Turnbull finds that all twelve buildings on CCA Oakland campus are historic resources for the purposes of CEQA. Six buildings on the CCA Oakland campus qualify as individual historic resources for the purposes of CEQA—Macky Hall, Carriage House, Martinez Hall, Founders Hall, Noni Eccles Treadwell Ceramic Arts Center, and Barclay Simpson Sculpture Studio. The campus as a whole, including the twelve extant buildings and associated landscape features, was found to be a California Register-eligible historic district and an Oakland Area of Primary Importance (API), and is, therefore a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. 

UBA attended the City’s Landmark Preservation Advisory Board meeting to advocate for:

• consideration of the CCA campus as an historic site reflecting in its entirety the development of Oakland over time and the history of the Arts & Crafts movement in California.  It features architecturally significant structures and a mature historic landscape, and is associated with important artists who attended and taught there.  For good reason the Treadwell Mansion/Macky Hall is a City Landmark and it and its associated Carriage House are on the National Register of Historic Places.  

• a comprehensive examination of the CCA campus and buildings as a cultural resource.  As confirmed by the Historic Resource Evaluation, the entire site could be declared eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Macky Hall and the Carriage House reflect only a part of the rich history of the site, which is in fact a functioning arts heritage historic district.

• assessment of the artistic/aesthetic character of the architecture, both high-style, highly designed buildings and vernacular work, from the Treadwell Mansion to the original CCAC 1920s studio building on Clifton Street. The physical place was built over time and reflects the history and culture of Oakland and has become an artistic artifact in itself.

• research regarding possible archaeological material on the site, and the monitoring of construction excavation to locate such remains.

• analysis of the historic horticulture, differentiating between plantings of different times.  The variety and extent of plantings as a value in itself.

• documentation of the art installed on the campus; the sculpture and sculpture garden and mural  

• research into persons of note associated with CCA(C), as well as artistic movements or styles that developed at CCA(C), or were part of its educational or arts practice.

Here is the report from the Oakland Heritage Alliance

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE

6. zoning & city planning

The developers were seeking a massive rezoning (height increase from 35’ to 190’) and a change to the City’s General Plan. This is unprecedented in Oakland and should not be allowed without further study of the impact. UBA advocated for a height reduction to better harmonize with existing neighborhood construction to 75’, the same as the adjoining Safeway/Ridge development. So far, as a result of UBA and community input, developer plans have been revised to a maximum height of 90 feet, with building heights to 5-8 stories.

Additionally, if the City should grant any such changes then the community deserves commensurate community benefit.

The applicant is seeking to rezone the campus CC-2, the same zoning as the adjacent Safeway project. The Safeway project is an example of what the CC-2 zoning designation is meant to allow, as well as what can go wrong. The CCA proposal is radically different. It pays lip service to the zone’s commercial requirements with one cafe and some art space. Unlike the Safeway project, which is entirely commercial and may, some day, have some residential on top of additional commercial development, the proposed CCA redevelopment is overwhelmingly residential. And the CC-2 zoning received by the adjacent Safeway parcel has a height limit of 75 feet, not 190 feet - or even 90’.

There is a critical need to evaluate land use issues NOW, with the public, to make sure that the zoning and General Plan changes resultant from this project are appropriate. Then we can consider what kind of redevelopment project makes the most sense. If the City (and the applicant) expect to garner public support for this project, and if they hope to avoid (unnecessary) litigation, there must be meaningful engagement with the public now.

The CCA redevelopment has potentially profound land use implications for the City, not just in its immediate area, but also along the entire Broadway corridor towards the Kaiser Center. UBA believed that a 19-story tower built on the CCA campus would provide one bookend, with Kaiser providing the other, for substantial vertical development along Broadway. We questioned whether this is the type of development the City - or the public - want. UBA believes the City should engage the public about such issues before evaluating a specific project.

Certainly, there should be a comprehensive plan for the north east corner of Broadway and 51st St./Pleasant Valley. With the failed “Phase II” of the Ridge/Safeway project, the City has an opportunity to encourage unified planning for the entire area, including the CCA site.

Without overall planning Oakland will lose what makes Oakland attractive — neighborhood communities and character. Districts such as the proposed Jazz district create a sense of pride and belonging, and promote engaging destinations and discovery, whereas a sterile design that could be found anywhere would only detract from the current neighborhood character. Oakland has a vibrant character and deep architectural heritage. City planning can leverage this development surge to create an even more vibrant set of districts.


BACK TO TOP OF PAGE