http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/attachments/20578.pdf

It goes to council next week for approval of funding. I’m going to try to do a detailed writeup this weekend, but I wanted to get the information out just in case I don’t make it in time.

I know people are probably a little pooped with politics right now, but the waterfont belongs to every Oaklander and they should make their voices heard in the planning that is about to go forward. Don’t be one of those people that doesn’t get involved and then 5 years later complains that the waterfront is screwed up because the city is in the pocket of developers or NIMBYs or whichever group ends up exerting the most sway in what is about to happen right now. We don’t get a do-over if it’s done wrong. Demand excellence from your city.

Your article on the Central Waterfront was wonderful. It put into clear language much of the history of this area and the importance of a Specific Plan to help the area, as it changes, to continue to relate to the surrounding assets of the waterfront.

Thanks to your article, I reviewed the RFP for the Specific Plan and was stunned to realize that the Estuary Policy Plan (1999) chapter on the San Antonio/Fruitvale District is still missing from the Port of Oakland’s web site. Unfortunately, the RFP references the Port web site for the EPP. I believe that consultants responding to this RFP deserve the benefit of reviewing that chapter.

When Waterfront Action noted this omission a few years ago, we contacted the Port to advise them of the missing portion in their posted copy of the EPP. We then we used a hard copy to scan the chapter make it available on our web site at http://www.waterfrontaction.org/plans/estuary_plan.htm

In addition, I have contacted City of Oakland staff to alert them to this missing element, and they are working to correct the error.

I used Uptown as an example because that used to be like 25 parcels, we can quibble over whether you love every detail of the development, but it’s better than a hodgepodge of surface parking lots, tiny warehouses, and auto repair shops, and nothing could have happened without the intervention of the redevelopment agency to assemble the land into five large developable lots (including using eminent domain).

This isn’t about big versus small developers (though the city staff’s lack of concern for eliminating outdated zoning restrictions, as the General Plan commands, shows they don’t really care for small developers). Most lots in Oakland are too small for large development. Theere are many opportunities for small-scale infill development – what we’re talking about here is large-scale redevelopment to accomplish large goals.

But Uptown isn’t exactly a shining example of success. Way too much dead street frontage. The opportunity to create a new public square wasn’t taken.

5000 sf parcels are probably too small, but in terms of humanity, two acre parcels are pretty ridiculous too. Particularly when things like private streets (west end commons) become part of the situation. If we do relax zoning rules and development costs for smaller parcels, then why not parcel off land in smaller chunks. Large developers shouldn’t be the only ones who make money off of city land.

The city can encourage small-scale development by relaxing outdated zoning rules that make small parcels difficult to develop, like set-back and private open-space requirements. But large-scale redevelopment requires large parcels. There are more than enough tiny parcels unsuitable for major development to go around without imposing those problems on new neighborhoods.

If you want local contractors and developers to get most of the action, keep the parcels small, and don’t allow them to be combined. Larger development groups won’t want to bother with them, and the local little guys will be able to do something much more in sync with the culture of our city.

I’m with you on the continuation of the bay trail, chris. I’m skeptical about trying to attract any one kind of business to the industrial portions. Instead, zone for versatility and let tenants be determined by what the demand is. As for work/live, well you know I’m all over that. Planning has really done us a solid there, I hope we can get the council to bite on their report when its issued.

Another thing that I think it key that you didn’t mention: Oakland’s general plan repeatedly mentions emphasis on transportation corridors. That’s all well and good, but I can’t help thinking that this obsession is why we have very few “squares”. Jack London is sort of a square, but it’s dead because it’s not easy to get to on transit, and its merchant’s association is too uptight to let any rambunctious nightlife or street musicians or street vendors bring the place to life.

Frankin square is teeny, but promising. City Hall Plaza has tons of potential, but again, too uptight. Temescal is so hurting for a square that they have to put their farmers market in the DMV lot. Lame! The mall above the 12th street BART isn’t a square, it’s a mall. Fruitvale BART is quite a bit better, but still rather mallish. This is in part related to that problem of assigning huge projects to single developers.

So what am I saying? Divy it up as much as possible, and put a square there! Too many lines in Oakland’s street grid, not enough boxes.

I think this is an opportunity for all of Oakland to rally around something positive. There is enough potential in this area that we may just end up creating something that everyone can rally around.

Here’s one idea: Since, as a society, we value artist communities that spring up organically in transitioning industrial areas, and then end up losing them as development progresses, let’s create a fund through the SAP process that helps creates affordable housing in the Jingletown area specifically for artists (not at the exclusion of low income people in general, but in addition to). Perhaps this would allow the purchase of some key artists work/live sites by artisits collectives?

Another idea: Create the first “green zone” waterfront area in the nation.