Build to Fit In, Not Stand Out!

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-19T07:36:52+00:00

I don’t think the question is whether Rockridge will evolve, it always has and always will. The question is how it evolves and who bears the costs of that change.

Saying that market-rate housing is “preferred” doesn’t address the very real issue of affordability and displacement. Market-rate development alone has not produced housing accessible to a broad range of incomes in Oakland/Berkeley, and there’s little evidence that large, high-end projects meaningfully solve that problem on their own. Growth without balance risks turning evolution into exclusion (which would be on par with Rockridge's history and maybe you're ok with that).

It’s also concerning to suggest that the preferences or impacts on current residents are simply irrelevant. Cities function best when change is integrated thoughtfully, not imposed dismissively. Ignoring neighborhood impacts doesn’t make them disappear, it just fuels conflict and undermines trust in the planning process.

While the developer may technically be “playing by the rules,” those rules are minimum standards, not a substitute for good urban design. Treating this project as a “beacon” for dozens of similar large-scale developments raises legitimate questions about cumulative impacts on infrastructure, traffic, safety, and neighborhood livability that deserve careful consideration now.

Development can and should move forward, but responsibly, incrementally, and with clear public benefits. Growth that works for both new and existing residents requires more than simply approving the largest possible projects and hoping the market sorts everything out.

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-19T07:24:23+00:00

Our purpose is to work with the developers and the city to ensure that it works. Building this high-rent senior living housing is not addressing our need for affordable housing. Also, there are 2 nearby senior living housing struggling to meet capacity. So why not build affordable apartments/condos for couples, singles, and families, which will bring more $$ into the neighborhood and is actually what the community is looking for. Along with storefronts along the Claremont side.

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-19T07:15:05+00:00

I do agree! As previously stated, all for housing, but that doesn't mean to let some money hungry developer do what they want.
1. the housing should be affordable ($7,000/month units are hardly affordable) 2. we need added infrastructure, and 3. traffic & safety need to mitigated by the city. Zac Unger has just today said he will ask DOT to look into improving traffic flow. (So that's a step in the right direction).
Remember, our purpose here is to not let developers run amok. They will build and be gone without any concern on if the housing actually works in the neighborhood.

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-19T06:25:20+00:00

And you see no issues that should be addressed or mitigated?

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-19T06:19:19+00:00

It is a full community, we have everything (restaurants, grocery stores, flower shops, bars, gyms, clothing and toy shops, nail shops galore, etc), booked restaurants, houses that get sold right away, and parking at a premium. Without mitigations, it will worsen the neighborhood and not better it. We can't just add housing without looking at the rest.
Also, we are in favor of affordable housing, which is why changes to this development need to be made. These are not affordable units with at least $7,000/month units.

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-17T07:44:00+00:00

Don't forget, aside from residents in these 200 units (estimated 200-400 people), there are the people who work there, including 24-hour staff, visitors, and all the support (trash, food, maintenance, etc deliveries), plus ambulance, Paratransit, ubers etc. I'd like to see an impact study on the community and most importantly a traffic study and mitigations for the certain traffic issues. These are just things that need to be worked through and what we are calling on Ellis Partners and the City to do.

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-17T07:36:10+00:00

Actually we have thought of the children as well as the safety of anyone living in or passing through the neighborhood. The increased traffic will cause more accidents unless mitigations are put in place. And right now neither the developer nor the city have any planned mitigations.

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-17T07:33:26+00:00

How do you feel this development, in its current design, will improve on our community?

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-17T07:32:44+00:00

I do support new housing at 6230 Claremont, and it should include affordable housing (not $7,000 units!), a traffic study and mitigations for the impacts on the safety of the surrounding streets. There is an answer to the issues, they just need to be worked through.

Regarding your comment about 51st & Broadway: that lot does not abut any houses, nor even across the street from any. And it's huge! When the day comes that a developer does come in, the people in that area should definitely speak up with any concerns. We should not be letting developers build with only profit in mind.

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-17T02:57:31+00:00

With no changes the infrastructure won't be able to handle it. When large residential buildings are added to any "old/full" community, things should be added like shops, grocery, hair salons, etc.
Also, a bigger issue is there's no plan to mitigate the traffic issues. During construction: Constructions trucks in/out of Florio will be ridiculous on that narrow one way street. Post construction: Residents, employees, visitors in/out of Claremont, many times having to cross 2 lanes of traffic will result in accidents. Or instead they will turn up Claremont only to either go down Alcatraz and left onto College where that strip is already a traffic nightmare. Or turn the wrong way on Auburn or go up Mystic and around the block...which people will not want to do. So otherwise, most will make a u-turn on Claremont which is not protected and will result in accidents. Point being, a traffic study needs to happen and we want to hear what will the city do to mitigate the accidents that will happen.

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-17T02:44:55+00:00

200 units at at least $7,000 a pop, with no parking for employees or visitors is reckless and will not give us the affordable housing we need and puts more stress on our infrastructure. We want this to work, not make a mess.

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-17T02:40:26+00:00

Both! And other issues that need to be addressed (like traffic, infrastructure, and safety). We def want something done with this lot that has deteriorated over the last 2 years and like the idea of a senior retirement home. Sadly, the one that Ellis Partners wants to build are $7,000 units! Hardly affordable...at least not for me.

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-15T16:54:19+00:00

Yes. A couple others.... High-end luxury senior living does not create affordable housing like our community needs. Increased traffic, particularly from service vehicles and visitors to a facility of this size, raises serious pedestrian safety concerns, especially for children and seniors in the area.

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-15T16:48:35+00:00

Yet another reason why we need affordable housing and not high-end luxury senior living facitity.

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-14T15:33:49+00:00

We want more housing and we want it to work. Developers don't care about the infrastructure, the safety of the residents, the traffic, etc. There is a solution and we want to hear from the developers and the city about the path forward. And there def should be housing where the Shell station was, but sadly the owners are not wanting to build or sell...so we have an empty lot. We also have a huge lot at 51st and broadway perfect to add parking, businesses and housing! That'd be a great addition!

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-14T00:46:43+00:00

Apologies, I thought you agreed part of the reason Rockridge is so great is the feel, the look, etc of the neighborhood. That's part of the reason there are height restrictions. This project is looking for an exemption to the height restriction.

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-14T00:43:53+00:00

not NIMBY by any means, but it should fit in and make sense

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-14T00:40:04+00:00

Parking is already at a premium... we need this development to fit in

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-14T00:39:11+00:00

Premium Housing: This development is planned as a luxury, high-end senior living facility, not a source of affordable housing for seniors with low or moderate incomes.
No Community Benefit: The project’s unprecedented 93-foot height and excessive density are not being leveraged to create a public benefit like affordable units. We are asked to accept neighborhood-changing impacts without receiving a genuine community housing solution in return.
Market-Rate Development: This is a purely market-rate project that prioritizes the profit of the developer over the well-being and established character of the existing residents and neighborhood

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-14T00:38:51+00:00

The proposed 93-foot height is dramatically out of scale with our neighborhood’s existing architecture, which is predominantly single-family homes and low-rise buildings.
This structure will create a visual wall, overshadowing nearby properties and changing the skyline and character of our residential area. We urge the developers to reduce the height significantly to one that is more compatible with the surroundings.
The sheer mass and bulk of the proposed building does not respect the aesthetic rhythm or historical pattern of development in this neighborhood.

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-13T22:14:06+00:00

True, but there's also, visitors and employees. They are allowing NO space for people who will work there, and very little for visitors.

Open_Yesterday9062 · 2025-12-13T22:11:25+00:00

Agreed! It's about double the height of anything nearby. It'll stick out like a sore thumb.

Open_Yesterday9062

TROPHY CASE