Living in the O’s Fourth Birthday

Four years is a long time.

Four years marks some significant milestones in my life. I went to UC Berkeley for four years. My wife (then girlfriend) and I lived in our last apartment for just over four years. And as of today I’ve been blogging for four years.

During all of these four-year time periods, much has happened and I’ve grown so much. My years at Berkeley were marked by my evolution into an activist, my years in our last apartment by my growing love for my then girlfriend and my growing love for Oakland, but these four years blogging are a bit more difficult for me to define succinctly.

So I thought I’d mark them here with the blogoaksphere successes that stand out for me. These victories could not have been won without the help of multiple bloggers and blog readers. There are many more blogoaksphere successes, I’m sure, but these are the successes that mark my four years of blogging at Living in the O:

Temescal McDonald’s appeal: A victory for the community, appellants & the business

As I wrote on Monday, last week a group of the appellants of the Temescal McDonald’s plan met with the owner, Ed Smith, to negotiate a compromise plan that everyone could support. We were successful, and last night, in a unanimous vote, the Council approved the compromise plan.

Both the appellants and Smith were so on board with the design that the 18 of us who had signed up to speak agreed not to speak once the Council signaled they would approve the plan. Smith and appellant John Gatewood spoke briefly to thank the Council, staff, everyone involved and to say we were all on board. Everyone in the room (particularly the hundreds of people waiting to speak on the gang injunctions) seemed pleased and grateful that we had found a solution.

So after raising more than $1400 for the appeal, writing the appeal, spending months meeting with staff and councilmembers, generating dozens of emails to the Council and turning out many people to speak at two Council meetings, what exactly did we get?

Bye-bye drive-through on Telegraph: A pedestrian friendly solution to the Temescal McDonald’s redesign

You might be wondering what happened after the City Council directed the Temescal McDonald’s owner and the appellants to meet to try to find a compromise. Well, I have some very good news to share.

The applicant and McDonald’s owner, Ed Smith, met with a small group of the appellants last Thursday and came to an agreement on some design issues. The details are still being hammered out, so I don’t have a design to share here yet, but, most importantly, the drive-through will no longer be next to the Telegraph sidewalk – it will be moved to the back of the building.

Thanks to you, we have the opportunity to find a McDonald’s design that works for the community, pedestrians & the business

As you might have heard via Twitter, last night’s Council hearing on our appeal of the Temescal McDonald’s redesign went quite well. After hearing from many appellants and community members about why the design is inadequate and doesn’t fit the neighborhood, Councilmember Jane Brunner (who represents the district) moved to continue the hearing for two weeks to give the appellants and McDonald’s a chance to meet and work out a solution that we can all support.

This was a great result because ultimately I and all the other appellants want the McDonald’s to succeed. Nobody likes the current building and rebuilding and redesigning it could be a huge plus to the neighborhood. But with a moat of cars surrounding it, as in the current design, it will be a deterrent to growth and will interrupt that vibrant, pedestrian oriented part of Telegraph Avenue.

I am confident that as long as everyone comes to the table with an open mind, we can find a solution that works for the community, pedestrians, and McDonald’s.

Staff report fails to recognize that appellants want to improve McDonald’s, not destroy it

As I mentioned last week, tomorrow night the Oakland City Council will be voting on our appeal of the Temescal McDonald’s redesign. I had planned to go through the staff report point by point today, but upon re-reading the report, I realized that such a blog post would be repetitive, long, somewhat boring, maddening, and useful to probably only a couple dozen people (including councilmembers and their staff). So instead I wanted to focus in on a couple of points.

But before I do that, I’d like to share some diagrams that one of my co-appellants created. It’s very difficult to visualize the traffic flow of the new McDonald’s design by looking at the diagram provided by staff, and if you’re not familiar with the current site, it’s hard to visualize the flow there as well. Here is a diagram of the current flow:

Urge the Council to approve our appeal of McDonald’s auto-centric design and keep Temescal pedestrian-friendly

Remember in December when I wrote about the anti-pedestrian design that had been approved by the Planning Commission for the McDonald’s at Telegraph and 45th? Remember how a bunch of us (including many Living in the O readers) joined together to file an appeal of this decision? Well after many months of working with staff and talking to councilmembers, our appeal is headed to the City Council next Tuesday, May 3rd.

I had hoped to write a more extensive post this week to go over the staff report, which recommends the Council reject our appeal and approve the McDonald’s design because apparently to staff, circulation of cars is more important than the pedestrian experience and pedestrian safely. But I just haven’t found the time this week so you’ll just have to wait until Monday for that.

I did want to at least let folks know that the appeal is moving forward, and that we could use some community support for the appeal. About a dozen of us have been meeting with councilmembers about our appeal, but it’s important that the Council hears from many Oaklanders about why the approved design is bad for Temescal and bad for Oakland.

Thanks to your help, we’re appealing the pedestrian-unfriendly McDonald’s redesign

As you might have seen on my updates of the last post, we met our fundraising goal, raising $1407 to appeal the redesign of the McDonald’s on Telegraph and 45th. The incredible part to me was that we raised the vast majority of the funds in 26 hours! I was a bit concerned that it might be difficult to raise funds online after the successful crowdfunding efforts of The New Parkway and Awaken Cafe, but I think the success of all of these fundraising efforts show how invested Oaklanders are in our community and that we’re willing to financially invest as well.

Over the weekend, Max Allstadt and Josh Thorp drafted the appeal and did a very thorough job of it. Thanks to them and to John Gatewood, Christopher Waters, and many other ULTRA members for providing edits. Thanks also to John Gatewood for stepping up as the official appellant (and to the many co-appellants).

The appeal was filed on Monday. I encourage you to read the appeal in full, but if not, there are some highlights about why the redesign not only makes no sense but also does not comply with the General Plan and specifically the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE):

As stated in the General Plan Analysis of the Planning Commission Staff Report of December 1, 2010, the drive-through element of the current facility is acceptable only because it was established before the LUTE element of the General Plan was enacted. What is not addressed, however, is why it is acceptable that the property be redesigned to highlight this feature in particular—the new design insulates the entire property on all sides with drive-through lanes, making it impossible to enter on foot from either Telegraph Avenue or 45th Street without crossing one or more interior vehicle drives. It is not surprising that the proprietor would want to increase visibility and capacity of the drive-through element—at the December 1, 2010 meeting he estimated that drive-through traffic accounted for 70% of his business. What is surprising is that after meeting with select local groups including ULTRA (Urbanists for a Livable Temescal Rockridge Area) and in full light of current General Plan guidance, the Planning Commission has approved a new design that is actually more antagonistic to pedestrians, increases drive-through impacts on the neighborhood, and weakens the concentration and continuity of the shopping frontage. The appellants feel that this signifies a lack of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission on the most basic level.

Nicely said – not much to add there.

The appeal goes through several required findings by the Planning Commission and explains why their findings were inadequate. These are all worth reading, but I especially appreciate this one that focuses on how this decision will impact the future of the area:

Section 17.136.070 (B)-Regular Design Review Criteria, Nonresidential Facilities:

Required Finding

2. That the proposal will be of a quality and a character which harmonizes with, and serves to protect the value of, private and public investments in the area.

Adopted Planning Commission Finding of December 1, 2010

The remodeled project will enhance Temescal neighborhood’s appearance compared with to the status quo. The improvement will retain a restaurant business which draws customers to the Temescal retail area, providing an improvement in quality of materials, design and landscaping from the existing 1977 restaurant design.

Inadequacy of Planning Commission Finding

The character of the proposed design is inherently at odds with the goals of private and public investment in the area. Effectively, the design is a do-over of an existing use of the parcel which is in conflict with current LUTE element of the General Plan, which explicitly calls for pedestrian-oriented development in the area.

Telegraph Avenue is a “Growth and Change” corridor under the LUTE designation, but the proposed project does not offer significant growth. In fact the project presents a long-term liability for growth by allowing major investment in new construction of a design which is out of step with long-term goals for the neighborhood. There are long- term consequences for permitting this level of investment in a project which is profitable but underutilizes a 3/4 acre lot. Particularly, it can be expected that this low-density anti-pedestrian design will persist many decades into the future while the rest of the neighborhood grows around it in ways more consistent with the LUTE. In short, the project amounts to complete reconstruction of an anachronism.

Thanks so much to everyone who contributed by writing or editing the appeal or by contributing to the filing costs. The Council will hear the appeal sometime in the next couple of months and we’ll need your help again writing emails and speaking at the Council meeting. Until then, enjoy reading the appeal.