Dear Chairperson McClure and Planning Commissioners,

I thank you for your careful review of the 16th Street Station development. Developing some of the underutilized land in West Oakland can provide benefits to the neighborhood and to the city in general; we appreciate the challenges of developing in this location between freeway, residential and industrial uses.

However, I am a fan of railroad history, and I have several major concerns pertaining to the Oakland landmark Southern Pacific 16th St. Station and its site.

1) AVOID DRAWING A PROPERTY LINE THROUGH A HISTORIC LANDMARK

The proposal before the Commission includes many simultaneous approvals, including an EIR, subdivision

of the property, general plan changes, zoning and urban design issues. We particularly urge the

Commission not to approve vesting tentative parcel map 8554, which shows property lines through the

train station, dividing the historic landmark among parcels 2 and 3.

• These ill-drawn parcel lines may make reuse difficult. As shown in the DEIR, the 16th Street

Station is almost inaccessible by vehicles for public event attendance or usage support. It is encircled

by Dev Area 6 [an area of possible rear building access & public parking] and Dev Area 9 [possible front driveway access to the building] and the pocket park on the “re-opened” 16th

Street to the south [no parking or building access from there]. No business, not even the simplest exhibit space can function and be financially feasible without a parking lot or support access.

• With multiple ownership, it will be hard to pursue the best result for the station.

The baggage claim area was designed as part of and is constructed of the same materials as the rest of the building. It is not an annex or an add-on. It is an integral part of the historic property, as are the tracks and platforms; all are part of the original architectural plans.

ANY PROPERTY DIVISION SHOULD COME ONLY AFTER A COMPLETE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR THE HISTORIC BUILDING HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AND APPROVED.

The station, its tracks and platforms, and the baggage claim should all be in one parcel. The EIR is incomplete and inadequate in that it does not specifically address the potential danger to the historic resource of the proposed parcel map itself.

2) PROPOSED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: MAINTAINING ELIGIBILITY FOR TAX CREDITS

We support maintaining the eligibility of the building for historic tax credits and other sources of potential funding. Such support could be critical in achieving a successful project either now or with a subsequent ownership in the future. Whittling away at the historic resource may endanger the station’s eligibility and make its creative reuse more difficult and costly. The State Historic Preservation Office and the National Trust for Historic Preservation should be consulted before moving forward.

One weakness of the analysis has been a vague and incomplete study of available resources, for example exploring tax credits under the New Markets program, which can be combined with historic tax credits, and availability of private funding or philanthropy.

3) FURTHER MITIGATIONS SHOULD BE REQUIRED

Should partial demolition of the landmark be considered, the city should require further specific mitigations, as follows:

• Before any demolition is permitted, work with the State Historic Preservation Office to achieve a suitable design to retain eligibility of what remains, under the Secretary of Interior Standards.

• Before any demolition is permitted, explore with adjoining developers whether the facility can be used to house some or all of the uses intended for “common space” in the development, to help defray the cost of retaining all of the structures.

3) KEEP NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC RESOURCES INTACT

The station’s contributing parts should be preserved to help make a coherent cultural and historic interpretation.

While many tourists and travellers came through the station, another very large number of arrivals from points east were carrying their most important belongings as baggage. As the western destination of migrating American populations, the station played a key role.

There has been much discussion about the fact that the Pullman porters were national leaders and participants in the history of the station and of California. They worked on the train cars.

But what of other workers? Into the 1980s, African-American redcaps were handling baggage at this station, substantial numbers of local people were employed here, and baggage handling was a key function of the workplace.

We feel strongly that some significant portion of track and elevated platform should be retained, to make the building's railroad and transit history apparent. It was an early and fine example of what is now called "multi-modal" transportation—the juncture between railroad and interurban transit.

4) RECONFIGURE THE ADJOINING HOUSING UNITS

From a design perspective, the project seems to have been conceived despite the station, rather than incorporating its presence to add value to the development. The site plan for the housing should be designed so that there is a harmonious whole, not a wedging-in. It appears that all or most of the units can fit within development area 6 without demolishing any part of the station. A double-loaded corridor structure along Wood Street might be one way to achieve this.

As mentioned in the staff report, perhaps the BUILD unit of the project should be assisted by making some arrangement to relieve them of a part of the land purchase where an area may not be available for construction. It was a premature assumption that it would be acceptable to build atop a portion of the landmark. Maybe this honorable developer should not have to bear the brunt of land purchase alone.

Since all parts of the project might reasonably be expected to share the open space, historic value and destination value of the station, perhaps all should join together to subsidize BUILD to the extent that theland available to them might not include areas where the historic structure stands.

5) VISIBLE FROM THE WEST?

EIR plan diagrams indicate that one’s view of the station would be entirely blocked from the west; the station would not be visible from the frontage road nor from the freeway. Some visible presence from the west would greatly enhance the project and would help make the station more viable for reuse.  The station has historically been visible from a western elevation, and this feature should be retained.

6) RETAIN BEA'S HOTEL

The assumption that Bea's must be demolished is mistaken. This modest old hotel forms part of the historic context for the station. Encourage its reuse, rather than supplanting it with an out-of-scale modern building. Bea's could provide a scale transition that may be sorely needed.

7) BETTER HISTORIC TREATMENT OF THE CANNERY

The cannery, while as an industrial complex less spectacular than the station, deserves a careful design review, partial preservation where feasible, and some steps to memorialize its history. It would be wonderful to require a publicly-accessible display related to the history of Lew Hing, early entrepreneur of the Chinese American community. It may be worth considering whether such a public display could be accommodated at the train station site, thus concentrating and maximizing efficient use of any available historic exhibit funds.

8) INSUFFICIENT COMMITMENT FOR ISSUING ALL ENTITLEMENTS

Just as the developer is requesting written entitlements, the community also requires written commitments for the future of an important cultural resource. Since there appear to be plenty of good intentions, but no commitment of funding nor any actual plans, it is inappropriate to approve vesting tentative parcel map 8554 at this point. The mention of potential establishment of a nonprofit (or even a profit-making) corporation has no bearing on the outcome, since no details are given as to how this would be put together, who would be represented, how it would be governed, and how it would be financed. The community and the city government will have no guarantee and little recourse.

Thank you for safeguarding Oakland’s architectural treasures.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Citizen (Your Name Here)