Developer Pushes Bloated Project on Dimond District
By Charles Pine
Would you welcome a building that busts your community's comfortable two-story height limit and packs your streets with traffic?
That's the proposal that Domus Development Corp., aided by an apparent welcome from councilmember Jean Quan, wants to impose on the Dimond district of Oakland.
At issue is the next life for the land at the corner of MacArthur Blvd. and Lincoln Ave., where the infamous Hillcrest Motel stood. Specifically, Domus proposes to cram as many as 120 apartments into a three- or four-story building, plus a senior health center on the ground floor. The housing would, at least at first, be rented to senior citizens with incomes in a $19-38,000 range.
No building in the area is more than two stories now. The Hillcrest lot sits atop a knoll of MacArthur Boulevard; a three- or four-story box of apartments would overshadow surrounding homes and small businesses. If this monolith comes in, expect more proposals for tall buildings to follow.
The project targets independent seniors not in need of assisted living. Either way, they or their assistants would make their trips to markets and clinics. If just half the tenants had cars, 60 vehicles would be coming and going from a parcel of land no bigger than four average single-family home lots. Frequent visits by moving vans and, unfortunately, emergency vehicles, would compound the traffic burden.
So far, Domus has not suggested how many parking spaces would be on the property. Senior housing often qualifies for a waiver that deeply slashes the normal parking requirements for residential units. Visiting adult children of seniors would park on neighboring streets.
Just two blocks away is one of the slowest intersections in Oakland, MacArthur and Fruitvale.
Real Estate Vaporware
A friend who spent decades in construction and property reviewed the proposal as floated to the public so far. He called it the real estate equivalent of vaporware -- an attempt to get community approval for a shaky deal before the property is even purchased.
Domus has not yet bought the property. It probably has an option to buy. If Domus can sell its snake oil to the neighbors and get the first City approvals, Domus would buy. If not, Domus would tell the owner, sorry, your price is too high because the community will not accept the density needed to make a good profit.
Councilmember Quan's quick welcome of Domus's project is puzzling at best. Her attitude seems to be based on a needless either-or choice. She called the proposed sale price of $2.2 million just for land "outrageous" and noted that it drives the developer's desire for super density. In the next breath she implied neighbors might be compelled to accept this degradation or live with a vacant lot for five years. (Oakland Tribune, Oct. 11, 2003)
There is an obvious third position. Let Dimond residents say "no" to this threat to the quality of life. The current owners, having demolished their Hillcrest Motel, will need to lower the price so a buyer can do an appropriate, neighborhood-conforming development. A vacant lot brings the current owners no income, yet they carry taxes and other costs. Given a firm message from the community, most property owners revise their price to a realistic level.
Councilmember Quan's either-or does a disservice to Dimond residents by excluding reasonable alternatives. Community defense of the neighborhood can stop this deal.
The senior citizen angle, notes my real estate friend, has twists of its own. Most likely, Domus chose low-income senior housing to garner low-cost government money. Domus representative Meea Kang previously worked for another firm, A.F. Evans, where she led requests for nearly $14 million from the State of California for two apartment projects. (See http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdlac/programyear/2001/01_Round_1A/Developer_List.pdf)
The community needs to determine whether the apartments would by law remain senior housing after a government mortgage is repaid. A decade or two from now, the tiny 610-square-foot apartments could become general rentals in the Dimond district.
Developers sometimes receive government grants up front to draft and explore a project. Is your tax money and mine paying Domus its advocacy expenses for a horrible solution in the Dimond neighborhood, while Dimond residents must pour volunteer time and shoe leather into fighting an unacceptable project?
Quan Leans Toward Developer
One would expect an intelligent councilmember like Jean Quan to give the Domus plan a cool reception. Yet Quan, calling a community meeting on the idea, announced that she was excited about it. (Montclarion, Oct. 17)
Dimond residents can see that the Domus proposal is not salvageable. Three stories or four, 120 units or 90 -- the impact on the neighborhood would be devastating. Projects based on a $2.2 million sale price are just not workable for the community.
Quan certainly plays a role in any discussion of the future of the Hillcrest Motel lot. She claims great credit for shutting down the motel, more than she deserves. The neighbors persisted with small claims suits and other actions for years. The law used by the city attorney to move against the owners was in place before Quan won a council seat in 2002. Yet at meetings of Neighborhood Crime Prevention Councils and elsewhere, Quan brings up the closing of the Hillcrest Motel and talks as though she was the only hero. Quan staffer Arturo Sanchez went further, boasting at a September meeting of an NCPC steering committee, "Six months of Jean did more than ten years of Dick [Spees, former councilmember]." Sanchez immediately apologized for the tone of his language, but not his message.
Fortunately, Dimond residents have time to organize and insist that their years of suffering and struggle against the Hillcrest Motel not turn into a gift to a greedy seller and developer. Find a reasonable use for land that changes hands at a reasonable price.
Great, more NIMBY fear mongering!!!!!
Like the rest of the limosine liberal Bay Arians, you view the word "renter" as a pejorative. If you can't BUY a house, your solution is live in a cardboard box under a freeway overpass.
Posted by: larry fine on October 20, 2003 10:45 AMAnd I am probably the only person who is aghast at the waste involved in bulldozing the Hillcrest Motel. How many board feet of old growth timber went to the landfill (yes, they were still using old growth timber in the 1950s), that could have been salvaged? And gee, I seem to recall that the City has a construction and demolition debris recycling ordinance, apparently never enforced. Apparently most of the neighbors, as well as Jean Quan, cheered the demolition, in a classic case of blame the building.
And, as I have mentioned before, but which the city and the developers do not seem to get- THERE IS NO GOD-GIVEN OR LEGALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT TO MAKE A PROFIT! If Meea Kang wants to pay too much for the property, then she can lose money on the development- that is how capitalism ostensibly works!
As for Larry's comments, we all know that NIMBY stands for Not Intimidated Much By Yelling, and I hope that Dimond District residents manage to see through the feel-good "we're helping low income seniors" BS.
Posted by: Jane Powell on October 20, 2003 11:56 AMIn fill development is good for oakland, it discourage sprawl. I think devloping and creating detached Townhomes that are 1200-1900 sqaure feet single family homes would be better thus,keeping in character with the nieghorhood.
Posted by: anthony on October 20, 2003 12:35 PMIt has been pointed out to me that one existing building is more than two stories. An aparment building across the street is three stories plus a parking level. That building sits on a lot that is a fraction the size of the Hillcrest Motel lot. The overall problem - Domus proposes to bust the existing scale of the neighborhood - remains.
Meanwhile, Jean Quan's broadcast email #46 confirms, "Domus is still attempting to finalize financing of the purchase. If she [Meea Kang] is successful, I will host a meeting in the spring where she hopes to bring back more definite designs..." Dimond residents should not be presented with a purchase at a huge $2.2 million price. Let it be made clear now, not next Spring, that Dimond needs neighborhood-appropriate development, perhaps the townhomes suggested in a preceding comment.
Infill development does not discourage sprawl- nothing we do here is going to keep developers from paving over farmland as long as there is money to be made and a demand for housing.
by the same token, as long as there is money to be made, developers don't give a damn about ruining your neighborhood with inappropriate out of scale buildings.
It was interesting that(architect) Yui Hay Lee's notion of single family homes or townhouses being not feasible was based on something like 2000 square feet. Most of the houses around the site aren't more than 1200 square feet.
Posted by: Jane Powell on October 21, 2003 10:23 PMOne point remains: Council member Jean ("When I was on the School Board")(and the state had to take OUSD over immediately after your 13 years on the Board, Jean) Quan already supports the developer and the development.
Is this what you want from your council member? Her
guardianship of a developer who paid "an outrageous amount" (Jean's statement in the Trib? And said developer is now in the gimme line to get both city housing funds and (improbable) state funds? All because Jean Quan, property manager, thinks that the developer has a "right" to recoup her investment?
Larry, this isn't NIMBYism at all -- it's all about Jean Quan's protection of a developer's down payment. I doubt that anyone in the neighborhood would object to good, safe senior housing if the building didn't blow the zoning wide open. The proposal is for 4 storys, the neighborhood is almost exclusively 2, and the property is on top of a hill. That's a considerable visual impact, and not every neighborhood wants its own version of
a Mormon Tabernacle on its biggest hill.
Jane's point about recycling the building materials is well-taken. We have a business at the old Army base that salvages and resells exactly this type of wood, and we have a city council that routinely pays lip service to environmental protection -- yet
does nothing.
I like Anthony's idea.
By the way, Meea Kang used to work for A.F. Evans
Stinker all the way around, isn't it?
Posted by: Jeannette on October 22, 2003 04:03 PMI'm happy to see the Hillcrest die, and I continue to have hope that the new owner/developer will not only replace it with something less crime-ridden, but ALSO attempt to ADD to the neighborhood. As a nearby resident, I'd love to see a multi-use facility that combines residential and commercial development, such as a cafe, specialty grocery, Peet's coffee, and the like.
-Rocket
I want to thank people for their enlightening comments. I certainly wouldn't
mind having a senior center of some type, but not of this size. I would agree to
something smaller and more suitable for our neighborhood.
I am two blocks away from the site, so the parking and traffic would definitely
have an effect on my quality of life. I agree with Rocket, I'd like to see a
combination commercial/residential development.
Lisa
Posted by: Lisa Ferreira on October 23, 2003 03:46 PMThanks for the Coverage !
I am thrilled to see the Hillcrest go but I have concerns about the senior housing proposed. Unfortunetely this site could prove very hazardous to seniors without cars.
The Lincoln/MacArthur Blvd intersection has quite dangerous traffic. The MacArthur Blvd/Fruitvale intersection is the third most dangerous intersection in Oakland. Most of the crime and the worst crime in the Dimond concentrates along this stretch of MacArthur and along Fruitvale. Dimond has lots of high density and subsidized housing. We had over twenty verified blight complaints against this housing in the last year. Twice in the last year I have been contacted by frightened seniors terrorized by activity at poorly managed housing. One problem property is less than two hundred yards from the Hillcrest. An assailant who stabbed a local shop keeper was arrested in front of this property.
As neighbors we spend a great deal of time addressing these problems. The developer and the council person should at least consider these issues. I would love for my family members to be able to live at this site without a car, but right now it is not safe.
Providing adequate and secure parking would make this a much safer development for seniors. The City and the developer should also work together to mitigate the traffic safety issues at the Lincoln/Macarthur intersection before seniors get plowed down trying to cross the street.
Let's hope they do it right.
Ann Nomura
Posted by: Ann Nomura on October 27, 2003 03:36 PMRe: Ann Nomura et al--
If the former Hillcrest lot WASN'T on a busy street, the oaklandnews choir would be singing a different tune: namely that all these seniors would be too far from the bus stop to walk, so therefore the location is inappropriate or that it was an apartment building foisted on a quiet neighborhood of single family homes. Let's not forget that it's a conspiracy that will steamroll over the neighborhood. Oh, yeah, and we received no notice from the planning commission. And by the way, the fix is in.
Oh someone was stabbed 200 yards from there? Oh-oh, better not visit Jack London Square, Lake Merritt, the Oakland Museum either, or for that matter the Oakland Hills--the Tilden Park Strangler might get you.
Ya'll Bay Aryans really crack me up!
best,
I take it from Mr. Fine's comments that he is not from Oakland. I suggest that in that case we ignore him.
Posted by: Jane Powell on October 30, 2003 08:36 PMNo rooting from the peanut gallery
Posted by: Larry Fine on October 31, 2003 09:23 AMLarry...Have you outed yourself as a non-Oaklander as
Jane guesses? I sent you a perfectly pleasant email
asking you some qustions re you, and was surprized
at the silence.
We are wary of outsiders since Jerry Brown deposited himself on us and announced that he knew what was good for Oakland. He lied, we are paying a steep price for his lies.
I didn't know that anyone outside of such an exclusive KKKommunity as Oakland is not entitled to an opinion. I live in JingleTown. Is that Oakland enough for you?
Posted by: Larry Fine on November 3, 2003 11:23 AMJingletown is a perfectly darling part of Oakland, a true hidden treasure. However, you should probably get your soil tested if you have children, pets bringing dirt in, or want to grow tomatoes et cetera. But you knew that.
And I'm pleased that you do live in Oakland.
Posted by: Jeannette on November 4, 2003 03:32 PMOpposition to the Domus Development project is growing. In her "Boulevard Bites" column, Toni Locke, beloved editor of the MacArthur Metro neighborhood newspaper, summarizes the project's flaws, objects to Jean Quan and a professional development team "rushing neighbors" into accepting the proposal, and concludes, "Let's count to ten and think it over."
Locke welcomes discussion. The same issue of the Metro carries a column by Hoang Le Banh, who tries to answer community objections over traffic and height -- without recounting the objections! However, she reveals that the project would have only a 45-car garage for 120 apartments. Perhaps some residents could scramble for surface parking on the lot, but commercial operations occupying the entire first floor will claim parking spots, too. Traffic and parking in and around this project would be a mess.
It would have been nice if Ms. Hoang had disclosed that she was once Jean Quan's chief of staff, if I heard correctly from a neighborhood activist.
The MacArthur Metro is available in Dimond area stores and the Dimond branch library and on the Web at http://www.macarthurmetro.org. I hope the November issue, in which these two items appear, is up on the site soon.
*This discussion has been closed. No more comments may be added.*