Campbell-Washington Emails All PDF
Campbell-Washington Emails All PDF
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
On behalf of Oakland Rising and our collaborative partners, Im writing to urge you to include strong
community benefits and project labor agreements in all new developments in Oakland, particularly the
Coliseum City development and the E12th St development. In the face of gentrification and displacement its
critical that each development project creates benefit for our communities including affordable housing, job
training and opportunities for the re-entry population, local hire and living wage, union labor, transit access and
environmental protections.
Particularly of concern regarding the Coliseum City and E12th St projects are that they are public land,
purchased at least in part with taxpayers dollars. Public land should be used for public benefit, even in its sale
and development. While we understand that these projects bring opportunities to generate much needed
revenue for the city, we must have a longer-term vision for our city that allows residents to stay here with a high
quality of life. As new developments come into Oakland, we need you as our elected representative to lead
from a place of values that puts Oaklands residents first.
In the E12th St project, the current plan is for the parcel to be sold to a developer for $5.1 mil to build a 24 story
building that will create 300 luxury housing units that will rent for $3k/month each. Not a single affordable
housing unit is included, and thats unacceptable. Additionally, the developer has no plans to use union labor,
pay a living wage, or even use local labor. We deserve better than this.
We stand with the East Lake United for Justice neighborhood group and their demands, which are as follows:
1. We want an Eastlake neighborhood, District 2, and Oakland where long term working class residents
stay and benefit from sustainable development, and the culture, community, and character of the
neighborhood and city are respected, not displaced.
2. We demand any new housing development at the city owned property on East 12th street be 100%
affordable housing. We do not want a luxury high-rise apartment tower.
1
3. We demand the City suspend the current negotiations with UrbanCore Development LLC and put a
Request for Proposals out to bid publicly with a focus on affordable housing.
4. We demand a more extensive, truly inclusive community visioning process to discuss how this
publicly-owned parcel can benefit the community the best.
5. We want the mayor and City Council to create a real affordable housing plan that ensures sustainable
investment in our communities, not development that leads to displacement.
Similarly in the Coliseum City project, you should ensure that this development includes community benefits-everything won on the Army Base development, plus affordable housing, anti displacement, worker retention,
affordable and accessible transit, and environmental protections. Please reference the specific requests outlined
in this East Bay Express Article: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/activists-shape-oakland-coliseumarea-plan/Content?oid=4222715
I hope that we can count on you to take a stand and do the right thing for the residents of our beloved
city. Please dont hesitate to contact me if youd like to talk further about this.
Thank you.
~ Jessamyn
-Jessamyn Sabbag
Deputy Director
510-261-2600 (office)
415-424-2600 (cell)
www.OaklandRising.org
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
-Jessamyn Sabbag
Deputy Director
510-261-2600 (office)
415-424-2600 (cell)
www.OaklandRising.org
2
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
The Measure DD Community Coalition last week voted to request that the city allocate the proceeds from sale of the
remainder parcel on 12th Street (to Urban Core developers for a 20-story residential development) to a maintenance
fund augmenting the overwhelmed and often-cut park budget. When Measure DD Community Coalition originally
came up with the idea to narrow 12th St., they realized this parcel would be created. Devote this money, created by
DD, to maintaining the lake improvements. (The bond measure can only pay for capital projects.)
It would be important to incorporate more waste receptacles (even better if they have
mosaics) around the park--especially missing at North side and more staff to clean
restrooms.
Thanks,
Karen Hester
[email protected]
510-654-6346
www.hesternet.net
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi Annie,
This weeks topic is the E. 12th Street parcel coming to CED on Tuesday. Im sure youve been following the discussions
at Planning Commission and the Eastlake neighborhood groups efforts to stop the deal and have the City start over by
offering this site for affordable housing.
I think they have done a good job of pointing out the flaws in the way the City set up this deal. Under State surplus
property law, the site should have been offered first for the development of affordable housing. Im not sure what
could be considered more surplus than the remainder parcel from a publicly funded project. Even if the site
somehow could be determined to not meet those requirements, the Citys own ordinance called for a transparent
process where bids are solicited publicly, rather than a deal offered to only two developers in secret.
So the Citys process was flawed from the outset by ignoring those requirements. However, we acknowledge that the
developer has acted in good faith based on the Citys representations, and it would not be pragmatic or fair to just undo
the deal. We do want to make sure, though, that the City secures a reasonable market value for the property and that
some of the proceeds from that sale are programmed for affordable housing.
We urge you to get an appraisal that accurately reflects market value for this important site.
Ive attached two appraisals: the Citys January 2015 appraisal of the E 12th parcel, and a June 2014 appraisal of a site
about a half mile away where an affordable housing project has started construction at 11th and Jackson Streets. The
Jackson appraisal is for a site about 2/3 the size of the E 12th site, and is appraised based on a similar number of units.
Yet, Jackson is appraised at $6.8 million, compared to $5.1 million for the E 12th site. If you look at page 34 of the E 12th
appraisal, and page 41 of the Jackson appraisal, you can see that they actually use two of the same comparable sales: #4
(522-532 20th St) and #5 (4700-4770 Telegraph) of the Jackson appraisal are #5 and #2 of the E 12th appraisal. But they
come to very different conclusions. The E 12th appraisal concludes that the set of comparable sales establishes a value
of $15,500/unit. The Jackson appraisal comps determine a value of $25,000/unit. If the $25,000/unit figure were applied
to the E 12th parcel, the value would be $7,450,000.
Other recent data also indicates the E 12th appraised value is very low. Weve just read about Carmel
Properties purchase of a site a mile away in Jack London Square for a reported $20 million to build 330 units in a
property very similar to the proposed E 12th building. And of course, the City secured an appraisal to support its $22
million purchase of the Brooklyn Basin parcels that might fit 400 units.
While we acknowledge that many of the deal terms for the E 12th parcel were set a while ago, the deal was always going
to be based on market value. The appraisal was just completed a few weeks ago, so there is no valid argument about
longstanding commitments that would apply to the purchase price.
A couple of weeks ago, the Council voted against our urging to upzone the Coliseum sites to the max, using its land use
regulatory authority to provide a windfall profit to a handful of private landowners. Here, you have the opportunity to
take advantage of a similar increase in value derived by City land use decisions, but in this case, one that could benefit
the Oakland community. Please dont just give away that value.
We urge you to program some proceeds from this sale for affordable housing.
The Council acknowledged in 2013 that the end of Redevelopment dictated a new approach to supporting affordable
housing development, and specifically that publicly owned land could be a tool in the absence of public dollars. In the
ordinance about boomerang funds, Council provided not only that 25% of boomerang dollars would be used for
affordable housing starting in 2015, but also 25% of the Citys receipts from land sales from the former redevelopment
agency. The E 12th St parcel bounced between the City and the Agency and we acknowledge it is not on the list of
Agency-owned property covered by the boomerang ordinance. But the principle could easily be applied here, with 25%
of the proceeds from this sale dedicated to affordable housing.
Alternatively, we understand that $4 million was the anticipated proceeds from the sale of this site that was
programmed into the current fiscal years budget. Although the timing will not work for these funds to be available in
current budget year anyways, you could choose to keep that $4 million as anticipated for the general fund and dedicate
the amount over $4 million for affordable housing. Or there could be other rationales/calculations. But however it is
calculated, we urge you to salvage some community benefit from this flawed process, and secure some revenue from
this site that serves the community.
Sorry for the lengthy email. Look forward to talking with you at 9:45am on Monday.
Thanks!
Elissa
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
> Thank you for the quick reply. That should work but I'm confirming with my group who can attend. I'll can get back to
you with confirmation and the number of attendees, hopefully by end of day tomorrow but more likely before then.
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ordaz Salto, Karely <[email protected]> wrote:
> Good morning Michael,
>
> Hows Friday, March 20th at 3pm in the Mayors Office? How many attendees should we expect?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Karely Ordaz Salto
> Special Assistant | Office of Mayor Libby Schaaf
> 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza 3rd Floor Oakland, CA 94612
> (510) 238-7340 <tel:%28510%29%20238-7340> |
> [email protected]
>
> From: Michael Katz [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 9:41 AM
> To: Moss, Tomiquia
> Cc: Campbell Washington, Annie; Ordaz Salto, Karely
> Subject: Re: Meeting request for Mayor Schaaf
>
> Good morning Ms. Moss,
> I'm following up on my previous correspondence. The 19th does not work for our group. Could the afternoon of the
20th, 23rd, 25th or 27th work for you?
> Thank you,
> Michael
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Michael Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ms. Moss,
> Unfortunately, the 19th doesn't work for our group. Could the afternoon of the 20th, 23rd, 25th or 27th work?
> Thank you,
> Michael
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Michael Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Councilmember Washington, It was a pleasure to meet with you last week. Thank you for making this introduction to
Ms. Moss.
>
> Ms. Moss,
> As, Councilmember Washington mentioned, I am a member of Eastlake United for Justice. We are a 100+ member
group of neighbors who live in the eastlake neighborhood and are concerned with the city selling tax-payer developed
real estate to private developers for 100% market rate housing.
>
> Thank you for the offer to meet and discuss our concerns. I've reached out to our group confirm if the 19th works for
us and if not other options. Looking forward to meeting you.
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Moss, Tomiquia <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thank you Councilmember Washington. Hello Michael, Id be happy to meet with you and your representatives to
discuss your concerns regarding the 12th St Remainder. Im available on Thursday March 19th between 1-2:30pm if
thats a possibility for you. Please me know or suggest another time.
> Best,
> Tomiquia
>
> Tomiquia Moss
> Chief of Staff | Office of the Mayor
> 1 Frank. H. Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor, Oakland CA 94612
> Office: 510.238.3141 | Direct: 510.238.7168|Email:
> [email protected]
>
> From: Campbell Washington, Annie
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 12:18 PM
> To: Moss, Tomiquia
> Cc: michael
> Subject: Meeting request for Mayor Schaaf
>
> Dear Tomiquia,
>
> Last week I met with a neighborhood group called Eastlake United for Justice. They are concerned about the
housing development on the 12st remainder parcel that Urban Core is working on. They asked if I could connect them
to you. They are interested in meeting with Mayor Schaaf to share their concerns.
>
> Thank you for reaching out to them. Michael Katz is copied on this message and is the liaison for their group.
>
> Warmest regards,
> Annie
>
>
> Annie Campbell Washington
> Oakland City Councilmember, District 4
> (510) 238-7004 <tel:%28510%29%20238-7004>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <meeting.ics>
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
David E. Mix
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi Annie,
This weeks topic is the E. 12th Street parcel coming to CED on Tuesday. Im sure youve been following the discussions
at Planning Commission and the Eastlake neighborhood groups efforts to stop the deal and have the City start over by
offering this site for affordable housing.
I think they have done a good job of pointing out the flaws in the way the City set up this deal. Under State surplus
property law, the site should have been offered first for the development of affordable housing. Im not sure what
could be considered more surplus than the remainder parcel from a publicly funded project. Even if the site
somehow could be determined to not meet those requirements, the Citys own ordinance called for a transparent
process where bids are solicited publicly, rather than a deal offered to only two developers in secret.
So the Citys process was flawed from the outset by ignoring those requirements. However, we acknowledge that the
developer has acted in good faith based on the Citys representations, and it would not be pragmatic or fair to just undo
the deal. We do want to make sure, though, that the City secures a reasonable market value for the property and that
some of the proceeds from that sale are programmed for affordable housing.
We urge you to get an appraisal that accurately reflects market value for this important site.
Ive attached two appraisals: the Citys January 2015 appraisal of the E 12th parcel, and a June 2014 appraisal of a site
about a half mile away where an affordable housing project has started construction at 11th and Jackson Streets. The
Jackson appraisal is for a site about 2/3 the size of the E 12th site, and is appraised based on a similar number of units.
Yet, Jackson is appraised at $6.8 million, compared to $5.1 million for the E 12th site. If you look at page 34 of the E 12th
appraisal, and page 41 of the Jackson appraisal, you can see that they actually use two of the same comparable sales: #4
(522-532 20th St) and #5 (4700-4770 Telegraph) of the Jackson appraisal are #5 and #2 of the E 12th appraisal. But they
come to very different conclusions. The E 12th appraisal concludes that the set of comparable sales establishes a value
1
of $15,500/unit. The Jackson appraisal comps determine a value of $25,000/unit. If the $25,000/unit figure were applied
to the E 12th parcel, the value would be $7,450,000.
Other recent data also indicates the E 12th appraised value is very low. Weve just read about Carmel
Properties purchase of a site a mile away in Jack London Square for a reported $20 million to build 330 units in a
property very similar to the proposed E 12th building. And of course, the City secured an appraisal to support its $22
million purchase of the Brooklyn Basin parcels that might fit 400 units.
While we acknowledge that many of the deal terms for the E 12th parcel were set a while ago, the deal was always going
to be based on market value. The appraisal was just completed a few weeks ago, so there is no valid argument about
longstanding commitments that would apply to the purchase price.
A couple of weeks ago, the Council voted against our urging to upzone the Coliseum sites to the max, using its land use
regulatory authority to provide a windfall profit to a handful of private landowners. Here, you have the opportunity to
take advantage of a similar increase in value derived by City land use decisions, but in this case, one that could benefit
the Oakland community. Please dont just give away that value.
We urge you to program some proceeds from this sale for affordable housing.
The Council acknowledged in 2013 that the end of Redevelopment dictated a new approach to supporting affordable
housing development, and specifically that publicly owned land could be a tool in the absence of public dollars. In the
ordinance about boomerang funds, Council provided not only that 25% of boomerang dollars would be used for
affordable housing starting in 2015, but also 25% of the Citys receipts from land sales from the former redevelopment
agency. The E 12th St parcel bounced between the City and the Agency and we acknowledge it is not on the list of
Agency-owned property covered by the boomerang ordinance. But the principle could easily be applied here, with 25%
of the proceeds from this sale dedicated to affordable housing.
Alternatively, we understand that $4 million was the anticipated proceeds from the sale of this site that was
programmed into the current fiscal years budget. Although the timing will not work for these funds to be available in
current budget year anyways, you could choose to keep that $4 million as anticipated for the general fund and dedicate
the amount over $4 million for affordable housing. Or there could be other rationales/calculations. But however it is
calculated, we urge you to salvage some community benefit from this flawed process, and secure some revenue from
this site that serves the community.
Sorry for the lengthy email. Look forward to talking with you at 9:45am on Monday.
Thanks!
Elissa
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi Annie,
This weeks topic is the E. 12th Street parcel coming to CED on Tuesday. Im sure youve been following the discussions
at Planning Commission and the Eastlake neighborhood groups efforts to stop the deal and have the City start over by
offering this site for affordable housing.
I think they have done a good job of pointing out the flaws in the way the City set up this deal. Under State surplus
property law, the site should have been offered first for the development of affordable housing. Im not sure what
could be considered more surplus than the remainder parcel from a publicly funded project. Even if the site
somehow could be determined to not meet those requirements, the Citys own ordinance called for a transparent
process where bids are solicited publicly, rather than a deal offered to only two developers in secret.
So the Citys process was flawed from the outset by ignoring those requirements. However, we acknowledge that the
developer has acted in good faith based on the Citys representations, and it would not be pragmatic or fair to just undo
the deal. We do want to make sure, though, that the City secures a reasonable market value for the property and that
some of the proceeds from that sale are programmed for affordable housing.
We urge you to get an appraisal that accurately reflects market value for this important site.
Ive attached two appraisals: the Citys January 2015 appraisal of the E 12th parcel, and a June 2014 appraisal of a site
about a half mile away where an affordable housing project has started construction at 11th and Jackson Streets. The
Jackson appraisal is for a site about 2/3 the size of the E 12th site, and is appraised based on a similar number of units.
Yet, Jackson is appraised at $6.8 million, compared to $5.1 million for the E 12th site. If you look at page 34 of the E 12th
appraisal, and page 41 of the Jackson appraisal, you can see that they actually use two of the same comparable sales: #4
(522-532 20th St) and #5 (4700-4770 Telegraph) of the Jackson appraisal are #5 and #2 of the E 12th appraisal. But they
come to very different conclusions. The E 12th appraisal concludes that the set of comparable sales establishes a value
1
of $15,500/unit. The Jackson appraisal comps determine a value of $25,000/unit. If the $25,000/unit figure were applied
to the E 12th parcel, the value would be $7,450,000.
Other recent data also indicates the E 12th appraised value is very low. Weve just read about Carmel
Properties purchase of a site a mile away in Jack London Square for a reported $20 million to build 330 units in a
property very similar to the proposed E 12th building. And of course, the City secured an appraisal to support its $22
million purchase of the Brooklyn Basin parcels that might fit 400 units.
While we acknowledge that many of the deal terms for the E 12th parcel were set a while ago, the deal was always going
to be based on market value. The appraisal was just completed a few weeks ago, so there is no valid argument about
longstanding commitments that would apply to the purchase price.
A couple of weeks ago, the Council voted against our urging to upzone the Coliseum sites to the max, using its land use
regulatory authority to provide a windfall profit to a handful of private landowners. Here, you have the opportunity to
take advantage of a similar increase in value derived by City land use decisions, but in this case, one that could benefit
the Oakland community. Please dont just give away that value.
We urge you to program some proceeds from this sale for affordable housing.
The Council acknowledged in 2013 that the end of Redevelopment dictated a new approach to supporting affordable
housing development, and specifically that publicly owned land could be a tool in the absence of public dollars. In the
ordinance about boomerang funds, Council provided not only that 25% of boomerang dollars would be used for
affordable housing starting in 2015, but also 25% of the Citys receipts from land sales from the former redevelopment
agency. The E 12th St parcel bounced between the City and the Agency and we acknowledge it is not on the list of
Agency-owned property covered by the boomerang ordinance. But the principle could easily be applied here, with 25%
of the proceeds from this sale dedicated to affordable housing.
Alternatively, we understand that $4 million was the anticipated proceeds from the sale of this site that was
programmed into the current fiscal years budget. Although the timing will not work for these funds to be available in
current budget year anyways, you could choose to keep that $4 million as anticipated for the general fund and dedicate
the amount over $4 million for affordable housing. Or there could be other rationales/calculations. But however it is
calculated, we urge you to salvage some community benefit from this flawed process, and secure some revenue from
this site that serves the community.
Sorry for the lengthy email. Look forward to talking with you at 9:45am on Monday.
Thanks!
Elissa
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi Annie This property is being handled by Economic Development. Patrick Lane is the lead on it and can discuss with
you the points raised by Elissa Dennis. Im copying him on this e-mail. Thanks, Rachel
From: Campbell Washington, Annie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 9:58 AM
To: Flores, John; Flynn, Rachel
Subject: FW: E 12th St parcel issue for Tues CED
Hi Annie,
This weeks topic is the E. 12th Street parcel coming to CED on Tuesday. Im sure youve been following the discussions
at Planning Commission and the Eastlake neighborhood groups efforts to stop the deal and have the City start over by
offering this site for affordable housing.
I think they have done a good job of pointing out the flaws in the way the City set up this deal. Under State surplus
property law, the site should have been offered first for the development of affordable housing. Im not sure what
could be considered more surplus than the remainder parcel from a publicly funded project. Even if the site
somehow could be determined to not meet those requirements, the Citys own ordinance called for a transparent
process where bids are solicited publicly, rather than a deal offered to only two developers in secret.
1
So the Citys process was flawed from the outset by ignoring those requirements. However, we acknowledge that the
developer has acted in good faith based on the Citys representations, and it would not be pragmatic or fair to just undo
the deal. We do want to make sure, though, that the City secures a reasonable market value for the property and that
some of the proceeds from that sale are programmed for affordable housing.
We urge you to get an appraisal that accurately reflects market value for this important site.
Ive attached two appraisals: the Citys January 2015 appraisal of the E 12th parcel, and a June 2014 appraisal of a site
about a half mile away where an affordable housing project has started construction at 11th and Jackson Streets. The
Jackson appraisal is for a site about 2/3 the size of the E 12th site, and is appraised based on a similar number of units.
Yet, Jackson is appraised at $6.8 million, compared to $5.1 million for the E 12th site. If you look at page 34 of the E 12th
appraisal, and page 41 of the Jackson appraisal, you can see that they actually use two of the same comparable sales: #4
(522-532 20th St) and #5 (4700-4770 Telegraph) of the Jackson appraisal are #5 and #2 of the E 12th appraisal. But they
come to very different conclusions. The E 12th appraisal concludes that the set of comparable sales establishes a value
of $15,500/unit. The Jackson appraisal comps determine a value of $25,000/unit. If the $25,000/unit figure were applied
to the E 12th parcel, the value would be $7,450,000.
Other recent data also indicates the E 12th appraised value is very low. Weve just read about Carmel
Properties purchase of a site a mile away in Jack London Square for a reported $20 million to build 330 units in a
property very similar to the proposed E 12th building. And of course, the City secured an appraisal to support its $22
million purchase of the Brooklyn Basin parcels that might fit 400 units.
While we acknowledge that many of the deal terms for the E 12th parcel were set a while ago, the deal was always going
to be based on market value. The appraisal was just completed a few weeks ago, so there is no valid argument about
longstanding commitments that would apply to the purchase price.
A couple of weeks ago, the Council voted against our urging to upzone the Coliseum sites to the max, using its land use
regulatory authority to provide a windfall profit to a handful of private landowners. Here, you have the opportunity to
take advantage of a similar increase in value derived by City land use decisions, but in this case, one that could benefit
the Oakland community. Please dont just give away that value.
We urge you to program some proceeds from this sale for affordable housing.
The Council acknowledged in 2013 that the end of Redevelopment dictated a new approach to supporting affordable
housing development, and specifically that publicly owned land could be a tool in the absence of public dollars. In the
ordinance about boomerang funds, Council provided not only that 25% of boomerang dollars would be used for
affordable housing starting in 2015, but also 25% of the Citys receipts from land sales from the former redevelopment
agency. The E 12th St parcel bounced between the City and the Agency and we acknowledge it is not on the list of
Agency-owned property covered by the boomerang ordinance. But the principle could easily be applied here, with 25%
of the proceeds from this sale dedicated to affordable housing.
Alternatively, we understand that $4 million was the anticipated proceeds from the sale of this site that was
programmed into the current fiscal years budget. Although the timing will not work for these funds to be available in
current budget year anyways, you could choose to keep that $4 million as anticipated for the general fund and dedicate
the amount over $4 million for affordable housing. Or there could be other rationales/calculations. But however it is
calculated, we urge you to salvage some community benefit from this flawed process, and secure some revenue from
this site that serves the community.
Sorry for the lengthy email. Look forward to talking with you at 9:45am on Monday.
Thanks!
Elissa
2
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-The formerly dilapidated Eldridge Gonaway Commons on E. 12th, one block east of the Remainder, was
completed renovated last year.--40 affordable units
-EBALDC is soon to start construction on 71 affordable units at 11th and Jackson, also just west of the Lake.
Given the significant amount of affordable housing recently built in the same neighborhood as the Remainder
Parcel and given that there is also a great unmet need for more market rate housing in Oakland, it would be
reasonable to sell this parcel for use as market rate housing. (The Council always has the prerogative to dedicate
some of the proceeds of the land sale to the affordable housing fund--for instance 25%, which was the set aside
amount for Redevelopment money.) Proceeding with this DDA is also the right thing to do because the City
made an agreement with this developer and should abide by the agreement it made.
I urge you to approve the staff recommendation and enter into the DDA with Urban Core and its financing
partner. Thank you for considering my perspective.
With respect and warm regards,
Pat
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Councilmembers,
Please find attached a letter from Eastlake United for Justice regarding the E. 12th St. Parcel, outlining our
concerns and proposals. Also attached is a previous letter sent to the Oakland Planning Commission last month
with more background information and analysis. Please let us know if you request copies of any other letters
from our ally organizations referenced in our letter to the Council--some of which you have already received.
Thank you for your careful consideration and your commitment to Oakland. See you tonight,
Eastlake United for Justice
May 5, 2015
Oakland City Council
Oakland City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Council President Gibson McElhaney, Vice Mayor Kaplan, Council President Pro-Tem
Reid, Councilmember Brooks, Councilmember Campbell Washington, Councilmember Gallo,
Councilmember Guilln and Councilmember Kalb:
We, the members of Eastlake United for Justice (EUJ), have spoken with many of you over the
past few months about our concerns regarding the proposed development on the E. 12th St.
Remainder Parcel. The dialogue and learning that has been engendered within this time has
revealed many lessons to us, the community, and, we hope, to the City and its representatives
about the serious need for Accountability, Transparency, Enforcement and Follow-through,
and a more proactive Commitment to ensuring Real Community Benefits from our
economic development and community engagement processes. Today as you shape your
final proposals, cast your votes and provide your analysis of the events that have transpired, we
call on you to take a stand for these four principles that are necessary for truly equitable
development and cultivation of the cultural and economic diversity that makes Oakland unique.
We call on you also to set into motion today clear action steps to ensure that such a misuse
of public land and a flawed community process do not happen moving forward. Decisive
action is needed now to avoid a losing situation for both the community and the city, as you
consider the sale of a valuable public asset for a highly undervalued price, and the authorization
of a development on this public asset that requires no affordable housing in a city undergoing a
crisis of affordability and displacement.
The community has clearly outlined the direct violations of various city and state laws,
policies and codes that are already in place to protect the opportunity, especially on public
land, to develop affordable housing, and thus ensure adequate housing city-wide for all income
levels. The recent letter from Public Advocates and the Public Interest Law Project, the previous
letter from EUJ to the Planning Commission, and the series of letters to the City from East Bay
Housing Organizationscall for redress of the Citys violations of the state Surplus Lands Act,
the citys Housing Element, the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan, the citys Real Property
Acquisition and Disposition Ordinance, and other laws.
These letters and direct testimony from the community have also documented a nontransparent development process for this parcel, in which no members of the public were
notified about this development until after the approval of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
with UrbanCore, LLC; and only two community meetings were held, 15 months apart, facilitated
by the developer, exclusively in English, and for which notice was given only to landowners and
not tenants within a 300 foot radius of the development site. There was no opportunity for the
community to provide feedback before the RFP was developed and sent out or before a
developer was selected, in order to ensure that the development of this public land parcel require
and prioritize affordable housing. The RFP process was selective and private, not competitive
and open.
In addition to exposing these shortcomings, EUJ has also refuted the claims that it is not possible
to develop affordable housing on this site. We presented to CED and directly to many
councilmembers the attached budget projection for an affordable housing development that
could be built on the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel, drawn from calculations of existing
affordable housing funding sources and the averages of real numbers from in-construction or
soon-to-be-constructed affordable housing developments in Oakland and the East Bay. Mr.
Johnson of UrbanCore, LLC himself has acknowledged the accuracy of these calculations upon
being shown them.
We commend Councilmember Guillns leadership at the CED committee in calling for
reappraisal of the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel, developing a community benefits package for
this development, and engaging with us in dialogue several times in a true effort to be responsive
to his constituents. However, we have also shared with Councilmember Guilln and many of
you that those proposed community benefits do not reflect concerns and needs that we and
other Oakland and Eastlake representatives have expressed. In addition, they were not
developed using any sort of public or deep community engagement process, and thus are not
authentic community benefits.
Thus, Eastlake United for Justice urges you, our Councilmembers, to support the following
proposals that will win real Community Benefits for Oakland from the E. 12th St. Remainder
Parcel. These proposals reflect the recommendations made by the Oakland Planning
Commission on April 14th that City Council use the sales proceeds of the E. 12th Remainder
Parcel for community benefits and affordable housing, and encourage the City Council to
negotiate for Community Benefits to be required in the DDA for the final sale, as well as their
stated intention to examine ways to amend the Planning Code to facilitate stronger community
engagement and noticing requirements for development projects. Our proposals also reflect the
recommendations of the CED Committee to set aside a portion of the proceeds from the sales
of the E. 12th Remainder Parcel for affordable housing and Measure DD Lake improvements.
Our proposals are as follows:
E. 12th St. Project-Specific Demands
1. Any development on the E 12th parcel must include a percentage of on-site, low-income
affordable housing. Affordable housing is one of the most pressing needs in District 2 and
all of Oakland, and District 2 constituents have clearly outlined their desire to see more
affordable housing development. To pursue a housing development on publicly owned-land,
where the city has the capacity to require affordable housing to be built, is irresponsible and a
direct violation of its own laws and policies.
2. Require reappraisal of the E.12th St. Remainder Parcel development site to ensure that the
City is receiving full market value for this prime public land by the Lake. The appraised
value of this site has been set at a level far below that of comparable sites in the City. (The
City purchased land at Brooklyn Basin for $50,000/unit, and is selling land at E. 12th St. for
$17,000/unit. The 11th and Jackson site was appraised at $25,000/unit in June 2014.)
3. Require that 50% of the sale proceeds go directly to fund new affordable housing
construction in District 2, and create a transparent tracking mechanism to ensure the funds
are used for such purposes.
4. Include in the DDA terms under Section 13, Limitations on Property Rights, language
to the following effect: If UrbanCore purchases the E 12th St. Remainder Parcel, they cannot
sell the parcel to another entity, developer or otherwise, until three years after the project is
completed and occupied. If Urban Core, LLC or UDR, Inc. and/or any holders of financial
interest in the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel wish to sell their interest in the project, then the
City would have the Right of First Refusal to purchase back the land at the original sale
price. If UrbanCore, LLC and/or UDR, Inc. wish to sell to a different purchaser at a different
price, then Urban Core/UDR could purchase the City's right at the negotiated new sales price.
Long-Term Equitable Development Policy Solutions to Pursue
5. Create legislation that establishes a clear requirement and plan to develop affordable
housing on any public land parcels within the Citys existing public land inventory that
have been identified as suitable for residential development. Implement continuous
evaluation of this plan in its contribution towards the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
goals for local low-income housing stock.
6. Create an administrative program to implement and enforce the 2014 Tenant Protection
Ordinance. This entails an umbrella administrative office that houses within the city tenant
protections services, housing code enforcement, and the existing Housing Assistance Center
within one fully staffed office.
7. Create legislation that requires the City to provide adequate and appropriate public
notice of the intent to lease or sell land for development, residential or otherwise, and to
provide adequate community engagement opportunities to directly inform the development
of this land.
New notification and community engagement requirements should include, at a minimum:
a) written notice in all of the languages most commonly spoken in the area within 14
calendar days of notice by mail to tenants and landowners within a mile radius of the
proposed development site
b) a series of community feedback sessions throughout the development process, which are
co-facilitated by representatives of both the community and the City, and occur prior to
the RFP process, prior to ENA approval, and prior to approval of permits and DDAs
c) land use decisions regarding public land such as the intent to dispose of a public parcel or
issue an RFP for its development, must be made in public meetings and not in closed
session meetings.
We thank you for the opportunities we have had for direct dialogue with many of you about
these concerns, and appreciate your serious consideration of these recommendations for how you
can best serve the public good with our public resourcesnow, and moving forward.
Respectfully submitted,
Eastlake United for Justice and our 1,500 petition signers
cafghbdcafghbdcafghbdcafghbdcafghbd
Eastlake United for Justices call for affordable housing and real community benefits on the E.
12th Remainder Parcel is endorsed by the following organizations and institutions:
East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
Causa Justa::Just Cause (CJJC)
Oakland Tenants Union (OTU)
Public Advocates
Alameda County Public Health Department, Place Matters
Urban Strategies Council
SEIU 1021
Oakland Education Association (OEA)
Classroom Struggle
Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)
Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)
East Bay Solidarity Network
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE)
Black Seed
Asians for Black Lives
Oakland Rising
Transform
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE)
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)
TOTAL Costs
per unit
41,023,333
477015.5
733,334
1,500,000
projects
projects
5,100,000
27,933,333
1,333,333
1,966,667
1,423,333
233,333
800,000
projects
projects
projects
projects
projects
projects
41,023,333
Completion 2019
Development Costs
Land acquisition
Appraisal price
Construction (including contingency)
average of 3 current
Architecture/engineering
average of 3 current
Permits and fees
average of 3 current
Construction loan fees/costs/interest
average of 3 current
Legal/ consulting/ tax credit syndication fees
average of 3 current
Other soft costs
average of 3 current
(marketing, furnishings, const mgmt, security, taxes, insurance, title, etc.)
Reserves
average of 3 current
Developer Fee
average of 3 current
TOTAL Sources
Sources of Funds
Perm loan supported by tenant rents
Perm loan supported by Section 8
Land donation
City funds (HOME)
County (Boomerang)
State funds (AHSC)
HOPWA
Housing Authority
State/ County MHSA
FHLB AHP
Investor equity- Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program
Deferred developer fee
A note from Eastlake United for Justice about affordable housing at the E. 12th St.
Remainder Parcel
In the course of our conversations with various Councilpersons we heard the mistaken idea
expressed that building affordable housing on this site was financially unfeasible. So we
consulted with experts in the field of financing affordable housing to determine if a 100%
affordable housing project could be built within the fiscal limits that the City of Oakland is
constrained by. We explored possible sources of funding for affordable housing at the E. 12th
parcel and identified some existing and some new funds for the parcel. We also analyzed the
costs of recently built and/or funded affordable housing projects in Oakland and other Alameda
County cities.
Attached you will find a simplified budget for a 100% affordable project at the E. 12th parcel.
The E. 12th site could fit a project in the vicinity of 90-100 family size apartments, in a mix of
one, two, and three bedroom units. The sources of funding listed are sources that will be
available for projects seeking funding in 2016 and beyond. The amounts included in our budget
from those sources are based on amounts awarded to projects of similar size and with similar
financing. Where a new source is listed, the anticipated award size for E. 12th Street was arrived
at according to the sources guidelines.
Similarly, the project costs are based on projects of similar size and construction type. The costs
come from an average taken of three current projects between 71 and 100 units in size.
Regulations of some of the funding sources determine some of the costs, and when there is a
maximum amount allowable we factored in the average project size of the three projects, an 86
unit project. The last number in the budget is the calculation of what this affordable housing
development would cost per unit. The number calculated fits well into the current average of
many affordable housing projects.
We acknowledge that since the demise of the Redevelopment Agencies, it has been very hard for
Oakland and other cities to honor their affordable housing needs with new units. However, there
are now a few new sources coming on line, and luckily they can be utilized well for this site,
which will score very well in the State of CA competitive rounds. This is another reason why it
is so important to build affordable housing on this public site, because it can better utilize these
competitive sources than other sites could and since the resources from the State of CA are
competitive Oakland needs every advantage it can get.
Maxson, Nayeli
Pattillo, Chris <[email protected]>
Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:02 AM
DL - City Council
25% for Parks Maintenance
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
FASLA
Principal
PGAdesign
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
444 17th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Direct | 510.550.8855
Main | 510.465.1284
PGAdesign.com
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clearly, the parcel in question along with the adjacent parcels was to be developed as a
park, planted with lawn, trees, shrubs, and paved walking paths were likewise installed.
It was maintained as a park and remained as such (over 40 years) until the 12th Street
reconfiguration and expressway in 1951 which swallowed up,the entire parcel. Likewise,
with the OUSD Administration Building, which should have never been erected on that
"open space" parcel, but nevertheless it remains in the public domain. However, with the
School District's recent RFP, that parcel is no doubt the next battle.
Unarguably, the recent completion of the 12th Street project did not create a new parcel
nor create a surplus parcel - it simply removed the roadway created in 1951 returning
the parcel to its original intent, (purpose of purchase) an open space park. Without
question, it must now be graded and planted to bring it back to its original state and
intent.
Unfortunately this issue is not new. I raised it several times at various DD coalition
meetings in the past and with Joel Peters (DD project director) and most recently, at the
first public meeting conducted by the developer in 2013, but to no avail. The City indeed
has a very bad habit of ignoring that which it does not wish to deal with.
The question here and now (as noted above) is WHY? Why is the history of this parcel
not being properly nor honestly exposed? Why have you and the Planning Department
purposely provided to the public a "false" record and account of this parcel - clearly, you
and the City Council are engaged in fraud and deceit.
David E. Mix
Additional comments:
Unfortunately, with the exception of Mr. Gray, no one has bothered to respond to my inquiry and unfortunately
his response simply put the onus on the City surveyor.
Most Council members I spoke with claimed no knowledge of my letter nor of the claims made therein. Hence,
why it is being re-sent to you now. As an observation it is difficult to understand how you can vote on an issue
without being completely informed.
Neither was this issue (land use restriction) presented at the April 14th CEDA meeting by the Planning Dept. or
any of the Council Members on the committee.
In a short conversation with Patrick Lane yesterday he claims the City Attorney has looked into it, but has not
rendered any type of written opinion or comment. This matter clearly deserves a complete analysis and
written opinion. The City Council simply may not vote to sell this parcel without first determining
whether it has a legal right to do so and verifying a "clear title" to the land.
Lastly and most importantly, there is absolutely no reason to sell this parcel for housing. As indicated in the
Lake Merritt Station Area Plan there are several other very suitable sites for housing - market rate or low
income. There clearly is no shortage of buildable lots for this area - this begs the question, why is this developer
so fixated on this particular public parcel. Further, neither can the City show a need for the $5 million when it is
presently waisting $5.9 million for new (totally unneeded) parking meters in Montclair, replacing the recently
installed kiosks.
2
David E. Mix
Maxson, Nayeli
Karen Hester <[email protected]>
Friday, May 01, 2015 9:41 AM
DL - City Council; Office of the Mayor
Wald, Zachary; Farmer, Casey; Bolotina, Olga
supporting affordable housing at E 12th St parcel and maintenance fund for DD
improvements at Lake
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Karen Hester
[email protected]
510-654-6346
hesternet.net
Bites at the Lake: Mobile Food and Family Fun every Sunday
Bites Off Broadway: Fridays starting May 15
1
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
-Justin Rausa
[email protected]
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Annie!
Thanks for the note back. Yes, I'll take a look and get back to you this afternoon.
Pat
On Apr 13, 2015 9:07 AM, "Campbell Washington, Annie" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Pat,
I so appreciate you writing to me about this project. I really value your input. Will you take a look at this email
from Elissa Dennis and let me know what you think about the appraisal of this property?
Thank you,
Annie
Hi Annie,
This weeks topic is the E. 12th Street parcel coming to CED on Tuesday. Im sure youve been following the
discussions at Planning Commission and the Eastlake neighborhood groups efforts to stop the deal and have
the City start over by offering this site for affordable housing.
I think they have done a good job of pointing out the flaws in the way the City set up this deal. Under State
surplus property law, the site should have been offered first for the development of affordable housing. Im
not sure what could be considered more surplus than the remainder parcel from a publicly funded project.
Even if the site somehow could be determined to not meet those requirements, the Citys own ordinance called
for a transparent process where bids are solicited publicly, rather than a deal offered to only two developers in
secret.
So the Citys process was flawed from the outset by ignoring those requirements. However, we acknowledge
that the developer has acted in good faith based on the Citys representations, and it would not be pragmatic or
fair to just undo the deal. We do want to make sure, though, that the City secures a reasonable market
value for the property and that some of the proceeds from that sale are programmed for affordable
housing.
We urge you to get an appraisal that accurately reflects market value for this important site.
Ive attached two appraisals: the Citys January 2015 appraisal of the E 12th parcel, and a June 2014 appraisal of
a site about a half mile away where an affordable housing project has started construction at 11th and Jackson
Streets. The Jackson appraisal is for a site about 2/3 the size of the E 12th site, and is appraised based on a
similar number of units. Yet, Jackson is appraised at $6.8 million, compared to $5.1 million for the E 12th site.
If you look at page 34 of the E 12th appraisal, and page 41 of the Jackson appraisal, you can see that they
actually use two of the same comparable sales: #4 (522-532 20th St) and #5 (4700-4770 Telegraph) of the
Jackson appraisal are #5 and #2 of the E 12th appraisal. But they come to very different conclusions. The E 12th
appraisal concludes that the set of comparable sales establishes a value of $15,500/unit. The Jackson appraisal
comps determine a value of $25,000/unit. If the $25,000/unit figure were applied to the E 12th parcel, the value
would be $7,450,000.
Other recent data also indicates the E 12th appraised value is very low. Weve just read about Carmel
Properties purchase of a site a mile away in Jack London Square for a reported $20 million to build 330 units in
a property very similar to the proposed E 12th building. And of course, the City secured an appraisal to support
its $22 million purchase of the Brooklyn Basin parcels that might fit 400 units.
While we acknowledge that many of the deal terms for the E 12th parcel were set a while ago, the deal was
always going to be based on market value. The appraisal was just completed a few weeks ago, so there is no
valid argument about longstanding commitments that would apply to the purchase price.
A couple of weeks ago, the Council voted against our urging to upzone the Coliseum sites to the max, using its
land use regulatory authority to provide a windfall profit to a handful of private landowners. Here, you have the
opportunity to take advantage of a similar increase in value derived by City land use decisions, but in this case,
one that could benefit the Oakland community. Please dont just give away that value.
We urge you to program some proceeds from this sale for affordable housing.
The Council acknowledged in 2013 that the end of Redevelopment dictated a new approach to supporting
affordable housing development, and specifically that publicly owned land could be a tool in the absence of
public dollars. In the ordinance about boomerang funds, Council provided not only that 25% of boomerang
dollars would be used for affordable housing starting in 2015, but also 25% of the Citys receipts from land
sales from the former redevelopment agency. The E 12th St parcel bounced between the City and the Agency
and we acknowledge it is not on the list of Agency-owned property covered by the boomerang ordinance. But
the principle could easily be applied here, with 25% of the proceeds from this sale dedicated to affordable
housing.
Alternatively, we understand that $4 million was the anticipated proceeds from the sale of this site that was
programmed into the current fiscal years budget. Although the timing will not work for these funds to be
available in current budget year anyways, you could choose to keep that $4 million as anticipated for the
3
general fund and dedicate the amount over $4 million for affordable housing. Or there could be other
rationales/calculations. But however it is calculated, we urge you to salvage some community benefit from this
flawed process, and secure some revenue from this site that serves the community.
Sorry for the lengthy email. Look forward to talking with you at 9:45am on Monday.
Thanks!
Elissa
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Councilmembers:
Attached please find a letter from East Bay Housing Organizations regarding the sale of the City-owned East
12th Street Remainder Parcel. This item is on the Community and Economic Development Committee agenda
for this afternoon (April 14), and will be heard by the full Council on April 21.
Please feel free to contact me or Gloria Bruce if you have any questions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jeffrey P. Levin
Policy Director
East Bay Housing Organizations
538 9th Street, Suite 200 | Oakland, CA 94607
510-663-3830 x316
[email protected]
NOTE: I am generally in the office only on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, so I may not be able to reply to your e-mail right away.
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
y our priv acy ,
Outlo ok
prev ented
auto matic
download of
this pictu re
from the
In ternet.
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Attached please find a brief letter from the Measure DD Coalition, rearding proceeds from the potential sale of
the 12th Street remainder parcel.
------------------------------Naomi Schiff
Seventeenth Street Studios
410 12th Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94607
510-835-1717
www.17th.com
Just a few steps from the 12th Street BART station
Oakland Measure DD
Community Coalition
April 13, 2015
Members of the Community and Economic Development Committee
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Council Members:
Oaklands Measure DD Community Coalition voted on January 19, 2015 to advocate budget
allocations to protect the substantial investment in Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
Enormous excitement, increased visitation, and media attention have focused on the popular Lake
Merritt and Channel improvements, and have spurred interest in nearby development. However,
these enhancements require upkeep that by law cannot be funded by Measure DD bond proceeds,
which are restricted to capital projects. The taxpayers long-term investment requires maintaining
landscaping and providing attractive, clean, park facilities to enhance recreation, tourism, and
commerce. Yet, existing maintenance budgets have been cut, and are now totally insufficient.
The DD Coalition therefore requests that the CED Committee recommend devoting at least
50% of the proceeds from sale of the Measure DD remainder parcel to preserve and
maintain the new Lake Merritt and channel improvements, which represent a public
investment of more than $100 million from the bond and nearly $40 million from matching
grants.*
At the outset of the ambitious project to reconceive 12th Street/Lake Merritt Boulevard, the
Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt (CALM) realized that this remainder parcel would result.
We envisioned that its sale could help support the continued improvement of the Lake Merritt
environment. Now, we respectfully request that funds from the sale be devoted to the
longterm maintenance and repair of the Measure DD improvements.
Almost 80% of Oakland citizens voted for the DD bond measure. We must ensure that these wellloved improvements are not threatened with neglect. We should strongly support the publics
investment and faith in its city government by funding maintenance at a sustainable level.
The Measure DD Community Coalition was formed in 2003 and sanctioned by the Oakland City
Council to provide public input concerning projects and expenditures designated in the 2002
Oakland Trust for Clean Water and Safe Parks Measure DD Bond. DD is an inclusive coalition
with active participation by numerous community members and Oakland organizations and
agencies.
Sincerely,
Naomi Schiff
Committee on Funding for Measure DD Improvements
Oakland Measure DD Community Coalition
*Of $60 million in grants so far, $40 was for Lake Merritt and Lake Merritt Channel. Of $100 million allocated by the
bond measure to Lake Merritt and channel openings, about $85 million has been spent to date.
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Zo Levitt
Local Policy Associate | Place Matters
Health Equity Policy and Planning | Office of the Director (OOD)
Alameda County Public Health Department
P: 510-268-4290 | F: 510-268-7012
1000 Broadway, 5th Floor | Oakland, CA 94607
[email protected] | www.acphd.org | www.facebook.com/PlaceMattersAC
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Good Morning,
At 0803 hrs. the Oakland Police Communications Section received notification of a small protest in the 1200 bulk of
Lakeshore Av. Currently there are approximately 50 protestors in the street blocking traffic. They have stated that they
are protesting the East 12th Parcel Building.
Officers are enroute to monitor the group.
Thank you,
Nancy S. Parlette
Police Communications Supervisor
Oakland Police Department
Communications Section
(510) 777-8801
[email protected]
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Maxson, Nayeli
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:35 AM
Maxson, Nayeli
FW: 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Nayeli Maxson
Council Aide
Office of Councilmember Annie Campbell Washington
City of Oakland, District 4
Office: (510) 238-7273
Fax: (510) 839-6451
From: Campbell Washington, Annie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:49 PM
To: Maxson, Nayeli
Subject: FW: 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Dear Councilmembers The refashioning of the area where 12th Street runs by the lake is a tremendous success. The way Oaklanders
have embraced it far exceeds my optimistic expectations. Every time I'm there I see flocks of people having a
wonderful time doing a wide variety of things - walking, skateboarding, bike-riding, picnicing, and talking to
people they've just met. We need to sustain this treasure and make it even better.
The CED Committee has recommended that 25% f the proceeds from the sale of the "remainder parcel" created
by the realignment of 12th Street be dedicated to maintenance of the Measure DD improvements to Lake
Merritt. Please adopt their recommendation when you take action on the remainder parcel. This area is a big
part of what's making Oakland better. Don't turn back.
Dennis Rothhaar
555 - 10th St. #119
Oakland, CA 94607
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Maxson, Nayeli
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:38 AM
Maxson, Nayeli
FW: Please support the CED Committee's recommendation
Nayeli Maxson
Council Aide
Office of Councilmember Annie Campbell Washington City of Oakland, District 4
Office: (510) 238-7273
Fax: (510) 839-6451
[email protected]
www.sharedground.org
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Councilmember,
We are writing you as members of the Oakland Heritage Alliance (OHA) and urge the Council to
approve the the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's CED Committee that 25% of the
12th Street "remainder parcel" land sale proceeds be devoted to a fund for needed maintenance of
Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space improvements
around the city in decades, including accessible walking and bike paths. However, Measure DD's
capital funds cannot be used for maintenance and protection of the lake improvements. With its
greatly increased usage, the park needs more care and maintenance than the current park staff
can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the realignment of roadway through Measure DD's
pedestrian, bicycle, and park visitor enhancements, now known as Lake Merritt Boulevard. The
CED Committee's recommendation deserves your support. We urge you to include this
recommendation in your action on the remainder parcel.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Christopher Hadley
Helen Bersie
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Best regards,
Claire Castell
[email protected]
As a computer professional, I find your faith in technology amusing.
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Maxson, Nayeli
Campbell Washington, Annie <[email protected]>
Friday, May 29, 2015 3:47 PM
Maxson, Nayeli
FW: $$$ for Lake Merritt Maintenance
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
FASLA
Principal
PGAdesign
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
444 17th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Direct | 510.550.8855
Main | 510.465.1284
PGAdesign.com
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
to protect and safeguard the huge investment made to successfully transform the Lake's trafficways,
as well as beautifying the now popular Lake Merritt, its environs and parks well into the future.
Thank you !
Sincerely,
James E Vann
Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt
and Measure DD Community Coalition
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sincerely,
Gregory Jurin
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Maxson, Nayeli
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:32 PM
Maxson, Nayeli
FW: Lake Merritt improvements
Nayeli Maxson
Council Aide
Office of Councilmember Annie Campbell Washington
City of Oakland, District 4
Office: (510) 238-7273
Fax: (510) 839-6451
From: Campbell Washington, Annie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:45 PM
To: Maxson, Nayeli
Subject: FW: Lake Merritt improvements
Dear Councilmember,
I am writing you as a member of Oakland Heritage Alliance. I urge the Council to approve the the
April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's CED Committee that 25% of the 12th Street
"remainder parcel" land sale proceeds be devoted to a fund for maintenance of Measure DD
improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space improvements
around the city in decades. However, Measure DD's capital funds cannot be used for maintenance
and protection of the lake improvements. With its greatly increased usage, the park needs more
care and maintenance than the current park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the realignment of roadway through Measure DD's
pedestrian, bicycle, and park visitor enhancements, now known as Lake Merritt Boulevard. The
CED Committee's recommendation deserves your support. We urge you to include this
recommendation in your action on the remainder parcel.
Thank you!
Edith Yhuel
1
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Maxson, Nayeli
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:33 PM
Maxson, Nayeli
FW: Maintenance of Lake Merritt
Nayeli Maxson
Council Aide
Office of Councilmember Annie Campbell Washington City of Oakland, District 4
Office: (510) 238-7273
Fax: (510) 839-6451
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Maxson, Nayeli
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:33 PM
Maxson, Nayeli
FW: Measure DD maintenance funds
Nayeli Maxson
Council Aide
Office of Councilmember Annie Campbell Washington
City of Oakland, District 4
Office: (510) 238-7273
Fax: (510) 839-6451
From: Campbell Washington, Annie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:45 PM
To: Maxson, Nayeli
Subject: FW: Measure DD maintenance funds
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I urge the Council to approve that at least 50% of the proceeds from sale of the 12th Street
"remainder parcel" be devoted to a fund for maintenance of Measure DD improvements at
Lake Merritt.
Bond funds from the passage of Measure DD were approved to make the most significant and broadlyrecognized open space improvements around the city in decades. However, Measure DD's capital funds cannot
be used for maintenance. Care and protection of the various improvements must be increased to match the
greatly increased usage. Lake Merritt and its adjacent parks need more service and maintenance than the
current one-&-one-half park employee positions can provide.
The "remainder parcel," created by Measure DD, resulted from realignment of the former mini-freeway into
attractive lanes, new pedestrian and bicycle paths, and landscaping and visitor enhancements, now known as
Lake Merritt Boulevard.
This recommendation deserves your support. Please take the long-term view of guardian of these prominent
Oakland assets. Please protect and safeguard the huge investment Oakland voters made to successfully
transform the Lake's environment for the 21st century.
Thank you!
Aileen Frankel
1
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sincerely,
Patricia Durham
Oakland Community Advocate
Maxson, Nayeli
To:
Subject:
Maxson, Nayeli
FW: Support of Measure DD improvements and land sale to fund them
Nayeli Maxson
Council Aide
Office of Councilmember Annie Campbell Washington
City of Oakland, District 4
Office: (510) 238-7273
Fax: (510) 839-6451
From: Campbell Washington, Annie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:45 PM
To: Maxson, Nayeli
Subject: FW: Support of Measure DD improvements and land sale to fund them
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Councilmember,
I am writing you as a member of Oakland Heritage Alliance. I urge the Council to approve the the April 14,
2015 recommendation of the Council's CED Committee that 25% of the 12th Street "remainder parcel" land
sale proceeds be devoted to a fund for maintenance of Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space improvements around the city
in decades. However, Measure DD's capital funds cannot be used for maintenance and protection of the lake
improvements. With its greatly increased usage, the park needs more care and maintenance than the current
park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the realignment of roadway through Measure DD's pedestrian, bicycle,
and park visitor enhancements, now known as Lake Merritt Boulevard. The CED Committee's
recommendation deserves your support. We urge you to include this recommendation in your action on the
remainder parcel.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Barbara Cohen
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I am writing you as a concerned citizen from your district. I urge the Council to
approve the the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's CED Committee
that 25% of the 12th Street "remainder parcel" land sale proceeds be devoted to a
fund for maintenance of Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space
improvements around the city in decades. However, Measure DD's capital funds
cannot be used for maintenance and protection of the lake improvements. With
its greatly increased usage, the park needs more care and maintenance than the
current park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the realignment of roadway through
Measure DD's pedestrian, bicycle, and park visitor enhancements, now known as
Lake Merritt Boulevard. The CED Committee's recommendation deserves your
support. We urge you to include this recommendation in your action on the
remainder parcel.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
J Elaine Macey
Maxson, Nayeli
Campbell Washington, Annie <[email protected]>
Friday, May 29, 2015 3:44 PM
Maxson, Nayeli
FW: supporting affordable housing at E 12th St parcel and maintenance fund for DD
improvements at Lake
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Karen Hester
[email protected]
510-654-6346
hesternet.net
Bites at the Lake: Mobile Food and Family Fun every Sunday
Bites Off Broadway: Fridays starting May 15
Maxson, Nayeli
To:
Subject:
Maxson, Nayeli
FW: Funding for Lake Merritt maintenance
Nayeli Maxson
Council Aide
Office of Councilmember Annie Campbell Washington
City of Oakland, District 4
Office: (510) 238-7273
Fax: (510) 839-6451
From: Campbell Washington, Annie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:43 PM
To: Maxson, Nayeli
Subject: FW: Funding for Lake Merritt maintenance
Elizabeth Callaway
Maxson, Nayeli
Subject:
Attachments:
Nayeli Maxson
Council Aide
Office of Councilmember Annie Campbell Washington City of Oakland, District 4
Office: (510) 238-7273
Fax: (510) 839-6451
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
However, as noted in the letter, we continue to have a number of serious concerns about the
proposal itself, the failure to comply with State law, and the lack of a transparent and public process:
1. We believe that balanced residential development across the income spectrum is crucial for
Oakland's diversity and prosperity. In the last 15 years, Oakland saw the development of over
7,700 new market-rate units and just 2,800 affordable units. Nearly all of the market-rate units
were developed on privately owned land, and we fully expect that trend to
continue. However, we believe that publicly owned land should be used for the public good; it
is too valuable a resource to be used to develop projects that are exclusively market rate and
will rent at levels that require 3 - 4 times the median income of current Oakland renters,
especially with no strong community benefits or fee requirement. This is of particular
importance in the City's Specific Plan areas, where the City is providing considerable
incentives for development of market-rate housing but has no strategy for ensuring inclusion of
affordable housing. The encouragement of high income enclaves close to transit is not
consistent with the City's stated values of diversity and housing for all economic segments, nor
is it consistent with Plan Bay Area (the region's Sustainable Communities Strategy) and
ABAG's Priority Development Areas program. In fact, promotion of luxury housing close to
transit without adequate safeguards against displacement of existing lower income households
in the neighborhood will increase rather than decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Since we
are still waiting for the city to pass a citywide framework for funding affordable housing in the
form of an impact fee, it is imperative that we value our public land as a leveraging resource for
affordable housing development.
1
2. As noted in our letter, we believe the City has not complied with the requirements of the State's
Surplus Property statute. State law requires that first consideration for disposition of surplus
property go to developers proposing to provide at least 25% affordable housing - not only did
the City not invite any affordable housing developers to submit proposals, we know of at least
one affordable housing developer who was actively discouraged by City staff from submitting a
proposal. Moreover, the decision to make the parcel available only for market rate housing
was apparently made by City staff with no public consideration by the City Council. The
statute also requires that if the City does not reach an agreement with an affordable housing
developer, and the land is subsequently conveyed for residential development of more than 10
units, then 15% of the units in that development must be affordable to lower income
households.
3. We continue to have concerns about the proposed sales price. The City's appraisal at
$17,000 per unit is far out of line with recent sales. The property at 11th and Jackson - where
an affordable housing development is about to begin construction - was appraised at $25,000
per unit. Two of the comparable properties used for the 11th and Jackson appraisal were
also used for the 12th Street appraisal, but the latter appraisal assigned much lower values to
those comparable sales. In addition, the City itself paid $50,000 per unit for the affordable
housing parcels in the Brooklyn Basin development - based on an appraisal prepared for the
City over a year ago that found property values to be in the range of $30,000 to $70,000 per
unit. These discrepancies are too great to be explained by differences in location or
entitlement status (and the Brooklyn Basin site is in many respects and inferior site, located
adjacent to a freeway and not easily accessible by public transit).
4. The City should prepare a more accurate appraisal that takes these factors into account. We
understand that City staff have already completed solicitations for a new appraisal contract. It
would therefore be possible to select one of the responding firms for a single appraisal
contract, which could be approved by the City Administrator. Under these circumstances, a
new appraisal could be prepared in far less than the 8 weeks that was stated at last week's
CED Committee meeting.
5. Finally, we are concerned that the entire decision-making process around this parcel has been
made outside of the public eye. Not only was the decision to limit the parcel to market rate
housing made without public discussion, but the "community meetings" around the proposed
project were limited to presentations about the design of the property and were coordinated by
the developer, not by City staff. Disposition of scarce and valuable public land should be
subject to broad community input.
We ask that the City both respond publicly to these concerns and adopt new policies that will ensure
that future disposition of public land complies with both State law and City ordinance requirements,
and that the process be open and transparent and afford ample opportunity for community input.
Jeffrey P. Levin
Policy Director
East Bay Housing Organizations
538 9th Street, Suite 200 | Oakland, CA 94607
510-663-3830 x316
[email protected]
2
NOTE: I am generally in the office only on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, so I may not be able to reply to your e-mail right away.
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
y our priv acy ,
Outlo ok
prev ented
auto matic
download of
this pictu re
from the
In ternet.
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
However, as noted in the letter, we continue to have a number of serious concerns about the
proposal itself, the failure to comply with State law, and the lack of a transparent and public process:
1. We believe that balanced residential development across the income spectrum is crucial for
Oakland's diversity and prosperity. In the last 15 years, Oakland saw the development of over
7,700 new market-rate units and just 2,800 affordable units. Nearly all of the market-rate units
were developed on privately owned land, and we fully expect that trend to
continue. However, we believe that publicly owned land should be used for the public good; it
is too valuable a resource to be used to develop projects that are exclusively market rate and
will rent at levels that require 3 - 4 times the median income of current Oakland renters,
especially with no strong community benefits or fee requirement. This is of particular
importance in the City's Specific Plan areas, where the City is providing considerable
incentives for development of market-rate housing but has no strategy for ensuring inclusion of
affordable housing. The encouragement of high income enclaves close to transit is not
consistent with the City's stated values of diversity and housing for all economic segments, nor
is it consistent with Plan Bay Area (the region's Sustainable Communities Strategy) and
ABAG's Priority Development Areas program. In fact, promotion of luxury housing close to
transit without adequate safeguards against displacement of existing lower income households
in the neighborhood will increase rather than decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Since we
are still waiting for the city to pass a citywide framework for funding affordable housing in the
form of an impact fee, it is imperative that we value our public land as a leveraging resource for
affordable housing development.
1
2. As noted in our letter, we believe the City has not complied with the requirements of the State's
Surplus Property statute. State law requires that first consideration for disposition of surplus
property go to developers proposing to provide at least 25% affordable housing - not only did
the City not invite any affordable housing developers to submit proposals, we know of at least
one affordable housing developer who was actively discouraged by City staff from submitting a
proposal. Moreover, the decision to make the parcel available only for market rate housing
was apparently made by City staff with no public consideration by the City Council. The
statute also requires that if the City does not reach an agreement with an affordable housing
developer, and the land is subsequently conveyed for residential development of more than 10
units, then 15% of the units in that development must be affordable to lower income
households.
3. We continue to have concerns about the proposed sales price. The City's appraisal at
$17,000 per unit is far out of line with recent sales. The property at 11th and Jackson - where
an affordable housing development is about to begin construction - was appraised at $25,000
per unit. Two of the comparable properties used for the 11th and Jackson appraisal were
also used for the 12th Street appraisal, but the latter appraisal assigned much lower values to
those comparable sales. In addition, the City itself paid $50,000 per unit for the affordable
housing parcels in the Brooklyn Basin development - based on an appraisal prepared for the
City over a year ago that found property values to be in the range of $30,000 to $70,000 per
unit. These discrepancies are too great to be explained by differences in location or
entitlement status (and the Brooklyn Basin site is in many respects and inferior site, located
adjacent to a freeway and not easily accessible by public transit).
4. The City should prepare a more accurate appraisal that takes these factors into account. We
understand that City staff have already completed solicitations for a new appraisal contract. It
would therefore be possible to select one of the responding firms for a single appraisal
contract, which could be approved by the City Administrator. Under these circumstances, a
new appraisal could be prepared in far less than the 8 weeks that was stated at last week's
CED Committee meeting.
5. Finally, we are concerned that the entire decision-making process around this parcel has been
made outside of the public eye. Not only was the decision to limit the parcel to market rate
housing made without public discussion, but the "community meetings" around the proposed
project were limited to presentations about the design of the property and were coordinated by
the developer, not by City staff. Disposition of scarce and valuable public land should be
subject to broad community input.
We ask that the City both respond publicly to these concerns and adopt new policies that will ensure
that future disposition of public land complies with both State law and City ordinance requirements,
and that the process be open and transparent and afford ample opportunity for community input.
Jeffrey P. Levin
Policy Director
East Bay Housing Organizations
538 9th Street, Suite 200 | Oakland, CA 94607
510-663-3830 x316
[email protected]
2
NOTE: I am generally in the office only on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, so I may not be able to reply to your e-mail right away.
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
y our priv acy ,
Outlo ok
prev ented
auto matic
download of
this pictu re
from the
In ternet.
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sincerely,
David Jaeger
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
May 5, 2015
STAFF
Ken Lupoff
Executive Director
PO Box 13267
Oakland, CA 94661
Tel 510.465.1850
Fax 510.465.1852
www.oaklandparks.org
We are writing to you today to express our support for the CED Committees
recommendation to set aside 50% of the proceeds from the sale of land located at the
12th Street Remainder parcel for the support of affordable housing and the
maintenance of the improvements made to the Lake Merritt area as a result of the
Measure DD Bond.
We are particularly concerned about the 25% portion of proceeds that the CED
Committee recommended for DD-related maintenance.
Lake Merritt and Lakeside Park are truly Oaklands Central Park, drawing visitors from
all neighborhoods in our great city, as well as surrounding communities in California,
other states, and even other countries. The DD-related improvements show Oakland
as the magnificent city it was meant to be. But these improvements need to be
maintained so that future generations can enjoy the fruit of our labors.
Research has shown that well maintained parks increase the viability of businesses,
help to attract new residents, improve the value of homes and other properties in
surrounding areas, and reduce crime, all of which lead to increased property tax and
sales tax revenues.
We hope that you will support the CED Committees recommendation at the City
Council meeting on Tuesday, May 5.
Sincerely,
-Ken Lupoff
Executive Director
Paul Vidican
President of the Board
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lake Merritt and the surrounding land boarding the newly developed channel to the
estuary to be known as Peralta Park. All of the land, from the estuary to the lake, (as
the City petitioned The State Land Commission) was to be (and was) dedicated and
deeded to the people in perpetuity as open space "park land".
Clearly, the parcel in question along with the adjacent parcels was to be developed as a
park, planted with lawn, trees, shrubs, and paved walking paths were likewise installed.
It was maintained as a park and remained as such (over 40 years) until the 12th Street
reconfiguration and expressway in 1951 which swallowed up,the entire parcel. Likewise,
with the OUSD Administration Building, which should have never been erected on that
"open space" parcel, but nevertheless it remains in the public domain. However, with the
School District's recent RFP, that parcel is no doubt the next battle.
Unarguably, the recent completion of the 12th Street project did not create a new parcel
nor create a surplus parcel - it simply removed the roadway created in 1951 returning
the parcel to its original intent, (purpose of purchase) an open space park. Without
question, it must now be graded and planted to bring it back to its original state and
intent.
Unfortunately this issue is not new. I raised it several times at various DD coalition
meetings in the past and with Joel Peters (DD project director) and most recently, at the
first public meeting conducted by the developer in 2013, but to no avail. The City indeed
has a very bad habit of ignoring that which it does not wish to deal with.
The question here and now (as noted above) is WHY? Why is the history of this parcel
not being properly nor honestly exposed? Why have you and the Planning Department
purposely provided to the public a "false" record and account of this parcel - clearly, you
and the City Council are engaged in fraud and deceit.
David E. Mix
Additional comments:
Unfortunately, with the exception of Mr. Gray, no one has bothered to respond to my inquiry and unfortunately
his response simply put the onus on the City surveyor.
Most Council members I spoke with claimed no knowledge of my letter nor of the claims made therein. Hence,
why it is being re-sent to you now. As an observation it is difficult to understand how you can vote on an issue
without being completely informed.
Neither was this issue (land use restriction) presented at the April 14th CEDA meeting by the Planning Dept. or
any of the Council Members on the committee.
In a short conversation with Patrick Lane yesterday he claims the City Attorney has looked into it, but has not
rendered any type of written opinion or comment. This matter clearly deserves a complete analysis and
written opinion. The City Council simply may not vote to sell this parcel without first determining
whether it has a legal right to do so and verifying a "clear title" to the land.
2
Lastly and most importantly, there is absolutely no reason to sell this parcel for housing. As indicated in the
Lake Merritt Station Area Plan there are several other very suitable sites for housing - market rate or low
income. There clearly is no shortage of buildable lots for this area - this begs the question, why is this developer
so fixated on this particular public parcel. Further, neither can the City show a need for the $5 million when it is
presently waisting $5.9 million for new (totally unneeded) parking meters in Montclair, replacing the recently
installed kiosks.
David E. Mix
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Councilmembers,
Please accept the attached comments on behalf of Dr. Muntu Davis, Health Officer and Director for the Alameda County
Public Health Department, regarding the Development and Disposition Agreement for the East 12th Street Remainder
Parcel (Item #13 on tonights City Council meeting agenda).
Thank you for your consideration.
Zo Levitt
Local Policy Associate | Place Matters
Health Equity Policy and Planning | Office of the Director (OOD)
Alameda County Public Health Department
P: 510-268-4290 | F: 510-268-7012
1000 Broadway, 5th Floor | Oakland, CA 94607
[email protected] | www.acphd.org | www.facebook.com/PlaceMattersAC
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dan,
As always, good seeing you again and at tonight's City Council Meeting.
I was formally signed up to comment on item #13 DDA for 12th Street Remainder Parcel on tonight's docket.
Ironic that this was the item that drew the protestors' ire. I had no prior knowledge of this protest. I'm all for
protest. #OaklandUprising. The disruption was to be expected.
I came because I needed to offer an empathetic voice to the protesters. I, however, needed to do this with your
colleagues in the room when I offered up my S.E.E.C. Home solution offering--which is only one component of
my REST in Urban Ag schema I have been working on these past 5 years.
My 2 minute comment is below my signature line that I was going share with you, your colleagues and the
gallery. I, however, was appreciative the protesters let me use their bullhorn to dispense my empathy, and offer
what I think is an attainable solution to the gallery audience; a solution to the homelessness problem.
I understand from my brief chat with Rebecca Kaplan, she was going to propose a motion regarding affordable
housing. I'd like to hear more what this constitutes.
I have also been in contact with Lynette McElhaney's staff since last year, and more recently to talk more
about S.E.E.C. Home [my recent Thin Film Solar Hack-a-thon Contest Entry and my first permutation for
the SMUD Tiny House Competition as part of the Laney College Tiny House Team] and REST in Urban Ag.
I hope this idea can come to fruition, because I don't want Oakland to end up like my beloved Baltimore.
Best,
__________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
kimberlyking | out think the box | [email protected] | http://www.linkedin.com/in/kimgerly | m: +1
415 832 9084 | skype: kimgerly
This electronic message transmission contains information which may be confidential or privileged.
The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the
1
intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
this information is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by
reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. This communication may be monitored and
collected without consent, in secret, by the NSA. Thank you.
My name is Kimberly King. I'm a student in Laney's Industrial Maintenance Certificate program. I am also
renewable energy engineer.
I have been homeless since 31 Oct 2013 when my unemployment ran out. I've been couch surfing, housesitting
and camping out on the concrete to survive. I hope I won't have to camp out on the concrete again on June 1st.
As of this past Sunday, I have moved 50 times in 87 weeks; essentially, on average I have been moving every 12
days these past 18+ months. I am vanquished.
Addressing diminishing returns is PARAMOUNT more than ever now. The system is BROKEN. NO ONE IS
IMMUNE. WE ARE ALL VULNERABLE. We need leadership to be proactive not reactive to PREPARE.
RESPOND. ADAPT. to disasters, be they natural or financial.
I have a viable, sustainable solution.
Part of my solution is a net zero agile, mobile 172 sq ft tiny house. This house has thin film solar as the
main renewable energy system technology feature. The building envelope can be comprised of repurposed
materials from the waste stream. I call it S.E.E.C. Home, the Sustainable Energy Efficient Comfortable Home
which is everyday brilliance for disaster resilience. This way one can PREPARE. to RESPOND. and ADAPT.
to disasters, be they financial or due to the indifference of Mother Nature--because climate instability is only
going to escalate, and will likely to render more citizenry homeless.
I need your assistance to make S.E.E.C. Homes a reality. This type of housing can meet one of the basic needs
of safe, secure shelter for a decent quality of life on a daily basis, and during disasters. I would hope the City of
Oakland could find a way to help me make a livable wage to bring this vision to fruition, so I and others never
have to camp out on the concrete again.
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Maxson, Nayeli
Subject:
Attachments:
Nayeli Maxson
Council Aide
Office of Councilmember Annie Campbell Washington
City of Oakland, District 4
Office: (510) 238-7273
Fax: (510) 839-6451
From: Campbell Washington, Annie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:41 PM
To: Maxson, Nayeli
Subject: FW: Remainder Parcel
Hi Annie,
Take a look.
AG
From: Mike Pyatok [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 12:09 PM
To: Guillen, Abel
Cc: Cappio, Claudia; Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Remainder Parcel
since come to see the benefit of that policy on the life of downtown Oakland and understand the critical need to provide
housing for all levels of income.
But those who argue that the tower will escalate rents in the adjacent neighborhood are absolutely correct. They may
not realize that immediately nearby are several affordable housing developments serving lower income families (one of
which I designed more than 3 decades ago). But many more residents are not living in these rent-protected settings and
are vulnerable to the forces of the market. For this reason I think mitigating actions must be taken to relieve the
pressure on the Eastlake Neighborhood that will result from the introduction of 300 higher paying households in the
tower. Including affordable housing with the market-rate housing on the remainder parcel would require a subsidy
(perhaps a lowered land price) but it would be a poor use of taxpayers dollars since that construction type (concrete)
would yield far fewer units than if built with wood-frame construction nearby. I have a few suggestions for how this
might be accomplished:
1. While 25% of the land sale proceeds should be earmarked toward the maintenance of the new lakeside park areas,
the remaining 75% should be dedicated to the creation of affordable housing in the Eastlake neighborhood.
2. There are three parcels nearby that are promising locations for such housing (see attached aerial plan):
a) State-Owned Land. One block away from the remainder parcel, the State owns an entire city block bounded by
3rd and 4th Avenues, between East 12th Street and International Boulevard. It is occupied by a one-story building of
back offices, where staff process unemployment benefits. There is no public interaction with this facility. It is an
activity that can easily take place in an office park or office building and not be occupying valuable inner-city
residential land within 2 blocks of Lake Merritt. The parcel, at almost 2 acres or twice the size of the remainder
parcel, could easily support approximately 200 households of varying sizes and incomes (all within 4 stories of
wood-frame construction above a concrete garage), with some retail along International Boulevard. This could place
lower income families within a two-block walk of Lake Merritt and all of its assets for children. Why couldnt the City
negotiate a deal with the State to sell that land at a below market price to facilitate the development of affordable
housing? The City could sponsor a competitive RFP process to find a competent development team. The
respondents could be a public-private partnership providing both market- and below-market housing. We are the
architects for Phase 2 of the Fruitvale BART Village whose design was approved last night by the Planning
Commission. It will have 275 units, 80 of which will be affordable for households below 50% AMI, the rest being
market-rate. This is a joint venture between the Unity Council and L&M developers from NYC.
b) Motel Site (Americas Best Value Inn). Immediately across the street from the remainder parcel is an aging
motel with a large parking lot. In its recent past it had a nefarious reputation. Now under new management, it
seems to have improved, but it is still a very poor use of such a valuable residential location. Perhaps the funds from
the sale of the remainder parcel tower could be dedicated to purchasing this site. Approximately an acre in size, it
could easily support about 80 families and seniors in 4 stories of wood construction above a concrete garage.
c) Oakland Unified School District. This parcel is presently in negotiations with developers. Much larger in size than
the remainder parcel (about 3 acres vs slightly less than 1), it could more easily support a market-rate component
and an affordable one. Including an office building for the school district, the site could absorb about another 400+
units, many of them in wood frame construction which would be less expensive to build and more appropriate for
affordable housing.
I offer these ideas as a resident of Oakland and your district, concerned about retaining its rich cultural and income
diversity, as an advocate of affordable housing, and as a realistic architect trying to find a constructive way to achieve
the goals of all concerned parties, while avoiding another unproductive City Council non-meeting like this past Tuesday.
I look forward to hearing from you and would like to thank you for all your constructive efforts to satisfy all who want
whats best for all Oakland. I have ccd Claudia Cappio and Rachel Flynn, both of whom may assist in this effort to find
a workable solution.
Sincerely,
Michael Pyatok, FAIA
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
option 2 - Smoke him out -as my grandfather would say. Do not sell the property to the developer by delaying decision
making.
a) Delay the council decision and
b) Meanwhile, work with back channels to the advocacy community to create bad press, demonstrations, etc. so its the
advocates that run him out, not the City leadership. The main thing that I believe makes this all so much worse for the
affordable housing community is that the City is naked without an affordable housing strategy -for
renters protections, preserving existing and funding new affordable housing. Use that ire for now while a strategy is put
in place that leads to certainty for private developers.
option 3 - Reappraise the value of the property with another appraisal company. Its almost half a year after the last
one, and likely the land value has gone up. Have UrbanCore pay the full price of the land and:
a) Provide some community benefits in the surrounds (to be worked out over time. Almost everything but housing itself
is comparatively cheap for developers).
b) Put 60-75% in the general fund and 25-40% of it in a fund for affordable housing. (REMEMBER these are rough
numbers) This would get you about $1.5m-2.6m for an affordable housing fund. Note that with todays costs,
that wouldnt get you more than 3-8 affordable units -depending on other financial tools. Not exactly something to have
a party about. But might strike a balance in such a way that allows everyone to move towards the aforementioned
affordable housing strategy.
option 4 - Reappraise .. start negotiating for a lot of affordable homes to be included on the site -like you did requiring
25% affordable units. Keep negotiating and it can probably realistically get to 10% or 30 units. Since UrbanCore wants
the units to start as rentals and move to condos, he likely wont be open to depths of affordability under 80% AMI
(electricians, teachers, architects, cafe owners, nurses). Note, this 30 units is better than the 3-8 homes in option 3.
OK, I am done for today. But would be glad to talk anything through tomorrow. My cell is 510-910-4328. May the force
be with you! ~Heather
*assumptions:
- the area median family income (AMI) in Oakland MSA is $92.9k (this is a HUD figure and includes a bunch of Alameda
and CC Counties so high for Oakland since oakland and Richmond would be much lower than the rest of their
counties) Its the best number we can find.
- rent on a 1BR unit for 80% AMI is about $1500 given this, the income group UrbanCore is targetting is ($3000/month)
earns about 160% Oaklands median income
- at $3000/month, a unit would be worth about $600k
- SOonto the property: 300 units total, 20% affordable would be 60 units the capitalized value difference for the rent
lost to the developer for him to create an affordable rather than a market rate unit is about $333k/unit less
- so 60 of the units were affordable, UrbanCore would translate that into the property being worth $20m less in total
value
Heather Hood
Deputy Director, Northern California
Enterprise Community Partners
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1350
San Francisco, CA 94104
[email protected]
direct line: 415.400.0973
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
option 2 - Smoke him out -as my grandfather would say. Do not sell the property to the developer by delaying
decision making.
a) Delay the council decision and
b) Meanwhile, work with back channels to the advocacy community to create bad press, demonstrations, etc. so
its the advocates that run him out, not the City leadership. The main thing that I believe makes this all so much
worse for the affordable housing community is that the City is naked without an affordable housing strategy -for
renters protections, preserving existing and funding new affordable housing. Use that ire for now while
a strategy is put in place that leads to certainty for private developers.
option 3 - Reappraise the value of the property with another appraisal company. Its almost half a year after the
last one, and likely the land value has gone up. Have UrbanCore pay the full price of the land and:
a) Provide some community benefits in the surrounds (to be worked out over time. Almost everything but
housing itself is comparatively cheap for developers).
b) Put 60-75% in the general fund and 25-40% of it in a fund for affordable housing. (REMEMBER these are
rough numbers) This would get you about $1.5m-2.6m for an affordable housing fund. Note that with todays
costs, that wouldnt get you more than 3-8 affordable units -depending on other financial tools. Not exactly
something to have a party about. But might strike a balance in such a way that allows everyone to move
towards the aforementioned affordable housing strategy.
option 4 - Reappraise .. start negotiating for a lot of affordable homes to be included on the site -like you did
requiring 25% affordable units. Keep negotiating and it can probably realistically get to 10% or 30 units. Since
UrbanCore wants the units to start as rentals and move to condos, he likely wont be open to depths of
affordability under 80% AMI (electricians, teachers, architects, cafe owners, nurses). Note, this 30 units is
better than the 3-8 homes in option 3.
OK, I am done for today. But would be glad to talk anything through tomorrow. My cell is 510-9104328. May the force be with you! ~Heather
*assumptions:
- the area median family income (AMI) in Oakland MSA is $92.9k (this is a HUD figure and includes a bunch
of Alameda and CC Counties so high for Oakland since oakland and Richmond would be much lower than the
rest of their counties) Its the best number we can find.
- rent on a 1BR unit for 80% AMI is about $1500
given this, the income group UrbanCore is targetting is ($3000/month) earns about 160% Oaklands median
income
- at $3000/month, a unit would be worth about $600k
- SOonto the property: 300 units total, 20% affordable would be 60 units
the capitalized value difference for the rent lost to the developer for him to create an affordable rather than a
market rate unit is about $333k/unit less
2
- so 60 of the units were affordable, UrbanCore would translate that into the property being worth $20m less in
total value
Heather Hood
Deputy Director, Northern California
Enterprise Community Partners
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1350
San Francisco, CA 94104
[email protected]
direct line: 415.400.0973
-Amanda Brown-Stevens
510-816-2978
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sheila Ibanez
Confidential Secretary
Executive Office
Phone: 510-273-2280
Fax: 510-663-2771
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emeg45efhgm/worst-cities-for-renters-9/
outcomes such as cancer rates, incidence of asthma, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, as these
marginalized residents are often priced out of neighborhoods with healthy housing, healthy food, and
healthy urban environments.
According the Center for Disease Control, displacement also has many health implications that
contribute to disparities among special populations, including the poor, women, children, the elderly,
and members of racial/ethnic minority groups. These special populations are at increased risk for the
negative consequences of gentrification. Studies indicate that vulnerable populations typically have
shorter life expectancy; higher cancer rates; more birth defects; greater infant mortality; and higher
incidence of asthma, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.
With what we know about the serious implications of gentrification and displacement, the
Citys decision to move forward with the sale of the East 12 parcel is especially problematic. A market
survey conducted for UrbanCore in 2013 by the Riverstone Residential Group, and made public by the
city, put the rental price for a one-bedroom apartment in the proposed tower at $3,150 a month, making
the units affordable only to households with $113,000 or more in yearly income. Yet the median yearly
household income in the 94606 zip code (which roughly encompasses the Eastlake community
surrounding the East 12 parcel) is $38,363, according to the US Census as of 2013. These figures make
it clear that this development would not offer options for most of the nearby community and instead
would likely drive prices up in the surrounding area.
Further, the decision making process around the East 12 parcel sale and development has not
included adequate involvement and input from impacted community members or public health
advocates for consideration of the adverse impacts the project would have.
The development of cost-exclusive luxury high rises that raise rents and exacerbate
displacement directly contradicts the Oakland City Councils stated mission of building community
and fostering livable neighborhoods. As working families are finding it increasingly difficult to stay in
Oakland, prioritizing affordable housing and public benefit is crucial to protect and improve the health
of Oakland residents.
As such, we urge you to do everything within your power to address the concerns associated
with the proposed sale and development of the East 12 parcel and in doing so, ensure that any potential
sale and development of this public piece of land be for the true betterment of public health for the
entire Oakland community, including housing for low-income residents and other community benefits.
Sincerely,
Zenei Cortez, RN
Co-President, California Nurses Association (CNA)
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ty Hudson
Research Analyst
UNITE HERE Local 2850
http://www.unitehere2850.org
http://www.unitehere.org
cell: 213-509-9114
Maxson, Nayeli
Campbell Washington, Annie <[email protected]>
Friday, May 29, 2015 3:39 PM
Maxson, Nayeli
FW: 25% for Parks Maintenance
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
FASLA
Principal
PGAdesign
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
444 17th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Direct | 510.550.8855
Main | 510.465.1284
PGAdesign.com
Maxson, Nayeli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Patrick,
Im sorry, it looks like this Tuesday is getting quick busy. Well be in be in touch soon if we need to find a time later this
week. But thank you for your willingness to give us a briefing.
All the best,
Nayeli
Nayeli Maxson
Council Aide
Office of Councilmember Annie Campbell Washington
City of Oakland, District 4
Office: (510) 238-7273
Fax: (510) 839-6451
From: Lane, Patrick
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 1:18 PM
To: Campbell Washington, Annie; Simons, Adam J.; Maxson, Nayeli
Subject: RE: East 12th Street
Yes I can meet with you. My complete schedule is available in Outlook. But some good times are tomorrow afternoon
or next Tuesday afternoon.
1
Hi Patrick,
Could we find 30 minutes for a meeting on the East 12th Street remainder parcel project?
Thank you,
Annie