Kalb 8949 Responsive Records PDF

East Bay Housing Organizations
._----------_._------
October 10, 2014

Mr. Henry L. Gardner
Interim City Administrator
City of Oakland
.
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
RE: Disposition of City~Owned "Remainder
Parcel" on East
12th Street
Dear Mr. Gardner:

I am writing on behalf of East Bay Housing Organizations. EBHO is a 30~year-old nonprofit
organization of over 350 members dedicated to promoting affordable housing opportunities in
the East Bay. EBHO is dedicated to working with communities in Alameda and Contra Costa
counties to preserve, protect and expand affordable housing opportunities through education;
advocacy, and coalition building.
The City of Oakland currently owns a parcel at the intersection of East 12th Street and Lake
Merritt Blvd, just east of the Lake Merritt Channel and adjacent to the OUSD Administration
building. The property is a "remainder parcel" left over from the improvements that were
made to the roadway and surrounding park area using funds from Measure DD (Lake Merritt,
Estuary and Creek/Watershed improvements) and State and Federal grants. The site was
acquired with public funds for public purposes.
The City has entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with a developer, Urban
Core, and the City's Project Implementation Division (formerly the Redevelopment Division of
CEDA) is currently negotiating with the developer on a Disposition and Development
Agreement (DDA}. The City plans to sell the parcel to the developer at market value (which
may not reflect the City's total investment costs to acquire and improve the site), and the
developer proposes to build a high-rise condominium on the site.
EBHOhas a number of concerns about this proposed development,
and urges the City to
ensure that these policy issues are addressed in the DDA:

1. Disposition of City-owned land should include community
requirement
benefits - particularly a
to include affordable units when City-owned land is used for new
residential development.
538 Ninth Street. Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94607
510-663-3830
Fax 510-663-3833
www.EBHO.org
Mr. Henry L Gardner

<October 10, 2014
Page 2
2. At a minimum, the DDA should make clear that the development

any housing impact fees that may be adopted in the futura.pending
will be subject to
completion
of the
requisite nexus study that is currently underway.
3. The City should require, as a condition of any transfer or use of the property, that
condo conversion cred.ts cannot be generated by this project. The developer proposes
to finance the development In part hy selling "condominium ccnversioncredlts"
generated by construction of this building.
Pursuant to Oakland's Condominium
Conversion Ordinance, if the developer agrees to rent new condo units for a period of
seven (7) years, then it can .sell conversioncredits
to .an owner of an existing rental
property who in turn can use those credits to gain eligibility to convert the rental
property to condominiums.
This would remove rental units from the City's housing
supply without any permanent replacement, and would displace hundreds of tenants
with little or no relocation assistance or replacement housing payments. This is a
fundamental
loophole in the City's Condominium Conversion Ordinance, which we hope
will be addressed soon by revisions to the ordinance.
But it is particularly
unconscionable that City-owned land could be disposed of in a way that would clear the
way for the loss of vital rental units and displacement of existing tenants.
same limitation
This is the
that is placed on developers of affordable housing that is assisted by the
City.
We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter further. We think it would be best
for the City to address these issues now, as part of its bargaining with the developer, rather
than waiting for the public hearings on the DDA for these concerns to he raised.
Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or require more information.
Sincerelv yours,
/~1L0~~Levin
Policy Director
cc:
Rachel Flynn, Director of Planning & Building

Michele Byrd, Director of Housing & Community Development
Patrick iane,Projectlmp1ementation
Division
Countilmember Pat Kernighan
Oakland Tenants Union
Measure DO Community Coalition
538 Ninth Street,
Suite 200
Oakland,
CA 94607
510-663-3830
Fax 510-663-3833
www.EBHO.org
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Joan Kiley
undisclosed-recipients
12th St parcel
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 8:29:12 AM
As a resident of Oakland, I am outraged that our City Council is planning to sell

public lands to a private developer to build a 24 story luxury apartment building in
the midst of a housing affordability crisis! This development threatens to accelerate
the displacement of working families in the neighborhood. It violates the City's own
goals for expanding affordable housing and is an irresponsible use of prime public
land. I want the proposed project on E 12th to be halted immediately and want to
see affordable housing built on our public lands instead. If we don't build affordable
housing on our public lands, where will it be built? Please stand for affordable
housing today and halt the contract immediately!
I have elderly friends, and working friends, who cannot find a place to live in this
city! They are not poor. They are just average people! Don't just stand there and
ignore this situation by building a "luxury" apartment building on public land. Public
lands belong to the people, not just the wealthy few!
Joan Kiley
Oakland
Oakland Measure DD
Community Coalition
January 27, 2015

Members of the Oakland City Council
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Mayor Schaaf and Council Members:
Oaklands Measure DD Community Coalition voted on January 19, 2015 to advocate budget
allocations that protect the substantial investment in Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
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 The
Oakland Trust for Clean Water and Safe Parks Measure DD Bond. It is an inclusive coalition
with active participation by community members and 22 Oakland organizations and agencies.
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 longterm investment requires maintaining
landscaping and providing attractive, clean, park facilities to enhance recreation, tourism, and
commerce. Yet, existing maintenance budgets have proved insufficient.
We therefore strongly support an appropriate budget augmentation to preserve and maintain the
new Lake Merritt and channel facilities, which represent a public investment of more than $100
million from the bond and nearly $40 million from matching grants.*
The city is in an ENA with a developer for the 12th St. remainder parcel. At the outset of the
ambitious project to reconceive 12th Street/Lake Merritt Boulevard, the Coalition of Advocates
for Lake Merritt realized that such a 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.
With our huge expenditure and with increased usage of park areas, we must safeguard the
investment with upkeep. We urge that the sales proceeds be deposited with Public Works as a
Lake Merritt Improvements Maintenance Fund.
It was with a farsighted and optimistic view to the future of Oakland that almost 80% of its
citizens voted for this bond measure. We must ensure we dont threaten the improvements with
neglect. We should strongly support the publics investment and faith in its city government by
funding maintenance at a sustainable level.
Sincerely,
Naomi Schiff, on behalf of the 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.
Oakland Measure DD Community Coalition: www.waterfrontaction.org/dd
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Aaron G. Lehmer
Guillen, Abel; Office of the Mayor; At Large; Kalb, Dan; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie;
Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid, Larry
Don"t Sell Off Our Public Assets to Private Developers!
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 3:50:25 PM
Dear Oakland Councilmembers and Mayor Schaaf,

public lands to a private developer to build a 24-story luxury apartment building in
the displacement of working families in the neighborhood.
It violates the City's own goals for expanding affordable housing and is an
irresponsible use of prime public land. The proposed project on E 12th should be
halted immediately and options for building affordable housing should be considered
instead.
Fundamentally, I also believe we should be exploring ways to lease public lands for
public benefit, which would arguably generate far more income for the city than
selling off precious resources to private developers.
Please stand for wise use of our public lands today and halt the contract
immediately!
Thank you for your kind consideration,
- Aaron Lehmer-Chang, Oakland D2 resident (
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
jennifer bobrow
Reid, Larry; Kalb, Dan; Brooks, Desley; Gallo, Noel; City Administrator"s Office; McElhaney, Lynette; Guillen,
Abel; Office of the Mayor; Campbell Washington, Annie; At Large
Michael LaCroix; Susan Bobrow
E. 12th street project
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,

As a resident of Oakland, I am outraged that our City Council is planning to sell public lands to a
private developer to build a 24 story luxury apartment building in the midst of a housing
affordability crisis! I am also deeply saddened that the city would sell us out for 5.1 million-which I understand has already been built into the budget. Managing a broken budget, shouldn't
be dependent on short-sighted uses of PUBLIC land. Why aren't we leasing this land? Why
wasn't the bidding process open to everyone, including non-profits, some of which could have
afforded a 5 million dollar contract? Why were public meetings about this development so poorly
publicized and poorly attended? Why were they held in English only when the East Lake
community is made up of so many residents who speak languages other than English? And why
when folks demanded affordable housing then, were their voices ignored? If public meetings to
gather feedback about projects don't matter or affect the process moving forward, they why
bother wasting our time and having them? I think Oakland residents deserve answers to these
questions. And I think we deserve more from our City Leaders.
As you know, this development threatens to accelerate the displacement of working families in
the neighborhood. Some people believe the housing crisis is because there isn't enough market
rate housing. That is false. Folks who earn 100,000+/year, have many housing options,
including homeownership. Current residents are mostly renters and need affordable and lowincome housing, not market rate. The median income on the East side of the lake is
$38,000/year. Many landlords want as much money as possible, and delight in raising the rent
legally or illegally, to try and catch up to expensive market rate prices. Remember, most people
don't get significant salary increases every year to match the rising cost of all of our bills. I'm a
working professional and I know that I don't. We also need much stronger rent control laws-currently laws are weak and burden the renter with holding their landlord accountable for illegal
behavior. I can't even imagine who folks who don't speak English are expected to know their
housing rights, much less navigate a rent board complaint. And it is time to change the archaic
policy that makes buildings built after 1983 free from our rent control laws and protections. That
policy is also rapidly displacing people and makes no sense.
Lastly, this development project violates the City's own goals for expanding affordable housing
and is an irresponsible use of prime public land. I want the proposed project on E 12th to be
halted immediately and want to see affordable housing built on our public lands instead. If we
don't build affordable housing on our public lands, where will it be built? Please stand for
affordable housing and protecting current residents today and halt the contract immediately!
Sincerely,
Jennifer Bobrow
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Jeremy Rachesky
Kalb, Dan
E12 st High Rise/ Office of Race and Equity
Monday, March 23, 2015 9:11:25 PM
Council Member Kalb,

First of all, thank you for taking the time to read this. I am writing you about a
couple of issues that are going to be talked about by the council soon. They might
sound completely different but they do have similarities and effect each other.
We have a good problem in Oakland, people want to live here! The high rise project
on E12 st gives people who want to live here a place to live without competing
against other people. More choices drives down the cost of housing. According to
many papers who have studied the problem, lack of housing supply is driving home
prices and rents sky high. To put it simply, we have not caught up with demand. It
will also provide many construction jobs and longer term jobs working on the
building and the retail aspect of the project. The residents will also spend lots of
money at the many businesses in the Eastlake neighborhood. Not approving this
project, which I believe has already been negotiated sends a bad message to people
wanting to do business here. Our unfriendly reputation regarding business is
probably the reason why there hasn't been too much building during this hot
housing market in the first place. Please remember this during the sure to be rowdy
city council meeting! Don't envy you there!
Although the Office of Race and Equality sounds like a good idea on the surface, I
am skeptical of how much it would cost, especially with a budget deficit of $18
million this year. Reports say it will cost over 800k a year, most likely more. I don't
think that the city needs a new level of bureaucracy that will cost almost 1 million a
year. Especially with the problems we have here: crime, lack of police, bad roads,
dumping, graffiti, etc. Those problems all cost money and need to be made the
priority. More importantly the city has a strong progressive history of diverse
Leadership, since '77 with Lionel Wilson up to the current Council and Mayor. The
workforce also is reflective of its citizens, from the workers on the streets to the
department heads. If people are not getting services in certain parts of town it is up
the their council to request it and to educate that neighborhood.
Thank you for your service.
Lifelong Oaklander,
Jeremy Rachesky
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Jeffrey Levin
Reid, Larry; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Kaplan, Rebecca; Brooks, Desley; Gallo, Noel;
Guillen, Abel; Kalb, Dan
Gloria Bruce
East 12th Street Remainder Parcel
EBHO Letter to Oakland CED re 12th St Remainder Parcel.pdf
Oakland Housing production 1999-2014.pdf
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.
JeffreyP.Levin
Policy Director
East Bay Housing Organizations
538 9th Street, Suite 200 | Oakland, CA 94607
510-663-3830 x316
jeff@ebho.org
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.
Visit us at www.EBHO.org and follow us on Facebook and Twitter!
Celebrate affordable homes: May 8-17th is EBHO's Affordable Housing Week! Click here for a full
calendar of events and join us for our Kick-Off Celebration on May 8th. Sponsor or buy
tickets today!
April 14, 2015

Oakland City Council
Community and Economic Development Committee
Oakland City Hall
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, California
Dear Chairperson Reid and Councilmembers Campbell-Washington, GibsonMcElhaney and Kaplan:
On behalf of East Bay Housing Organizations, we are writing to comment on the highrise residential project proposed to be located on City-owned land located at Lake
Merritt Blvd and 2nd Avenue (the 12th Street Remainder Parcel). Our members are
very concerned about failures of policy, process and precedent associated with this
development on prime public land, and we urge you to consider the issues raised by
multiple stakeholders before considering this DDA.
As you know, EBHO is a 30-year-old membership-based coalition based in Oakland
and devoted to preserving and creating affordable housing opportunities in Alameda
and Contra Costa Counties through education, advocacy and coalition building. Our
350+ members include several developers and architects with affordable housing
properties in the project area, as well as other advocates and residents active in the
area.
We object to this sale on a number of grounds, and we offer four recommendations to
address our concerns. The process for disposing of the land was neither open nor
transparent, allowed little or no opportunity for the public to comment on how this land
would be offered for sale, and violates the States Surplus Land statute. The sale of a
publicly owned parcel for a private, market-rate development with no consideration for
any affordable housing benefits is inconsistent with the Citys own adopted policies in
the Housing Element and its stated goals for the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan.
To be clear, EBHO does not object to the development of market-rate housing in
Oakland. We recognize that the City needs housing for all economic levels, and while
EBHOs focus is primarily on housing for those with the greatest need low and verylow income households we have never maintained that the City should exclusively
promote affordable housing. What we seek is balanced development that takes into
account the needs of existing Oakland residents and not just higher income households
moving to Oakland.

April 14, 2015
Page 2
We are concerned that approval of this development as currently proposed does not
advance this balance, and reflects a misunderstanding about the continued need for
below-market-rate housing. The City has maintained that most housing developed in
the past few years has been affordable. This is not accurate. City staff have repeatedly
stated that there are some 1800 affordable units developed or in the pipeline, while few
building permits have been issued for market-rate housing in the last couple of years.
But many of the affordable units in the pipeline do not have full funding some have
been seeking funding for a number of years. This is no different from the thousands of
market-rate units that have received land use approvals but have not yet started
construction.
When we look at projects completed or under construction, a much different picture
emerges, particularly if we look beyond the timeframe of the housing bust and
recession. Over the past two Housing Element cycles, from 1999 through 2014, the
City issued building permits for construction of 11,047 new housing units. Of these,
73% were for market-rate units for upper income households. Only 26% were for very
low and low income households, despite the fact that over half of Oaklands population
are very low and low income and have substantial unmet housing needs including
overpayment, overcrowding and substandard conditions. Please see the attached chart
for specific details.
Because of all this, the City needs to use every tool at its disposal to encourage
affordable housing production. Our objections to the disposition of the East 12th Street
Remainder parcel are as follows:
1. This is bad public policy - scarce public land should be used for public
good, especially now that the City has few other resources for affordable
housing, refuses to adopt mandatory inclusionary housing, and has already
upzoned the specific plan areas in ways that make future incentives and bonuses
unlikely.
2. The disposition process violates State law regarding surplus public land.
Despite the requirements of Government Code section 54220 et. seq., this parcel
was never offered for use as affordable housing and nonprofits were discouraged
from submitting a proposal. The City appears to be relying on a distinction
between "surplus" property and "property for development." That distinction is in
the City ordinance on property acquisition and disposition. But the State statute even before AB 2135 passed last year and went into effect on January 1, 2015 defines surplus property as "property not needed for use by the public agency,
except property held for exchange." By seeking to sell the property for
residential development, the City is making clear that the parcel is not needed for
use by the City, nor is it being held for exchange for another parcel.

April 14, 2015
Page 3
3. The Request for Proposals (RFP) process was not public - the decision to
solicit from only two or three market-rate developers was not discussed publicly
and appears to have been discussed only in closed session in December 2012
before the RFP was issued in Jan 2013. This violates the Citys Municipal Code,
sections 2.42.050.B and 2.42.170, both of which require the City Council to make
findings justifying the disposition of property through anything other than a public
and competitive process. There was no such finding when the Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement (ENA) was approved, and there is no such finding in the
ordinance approving the sale.
4. City staff has said that the RFP was done in a limited and hurried way because
the parcel had been sold to the Redevelopment Agency (in an effort to get
redevelopment funds to the City instead of being recaptured by the State). But
by the time the ENA was awarded in July 2013, the staff report already
acknowledged that the State was going to "claw back" that sale and the parcel
would be returned to City ownership. The staff report cited this as an advantage,
as it meant the property could be sold without waiting for the State to approve the
successor agency's Long Range Property Management Plan. So as early as
July 2013 the City already knew this was not a redevelopment parcel, but a
regular City parcel and thus should have gone through a deliberate and
public RFP process.
5. The appraisal prepared by the City seems to be much too low. We have
compared the City's appraisal on the E 12th site to the appraisal from last
summer for the 11th and Jackson site. There are two recently sold properties
that are used as comparable properties in both appraisals - but the appraisal for
the East 12th Street property values those comparables far below the values
used in the appraisal for 11th and Jackson. The City site may be worth
substantially more than the appraisal says. If the City is going to sell scarce
public land, improved by bond funding and in a prime location, for private,
market-rate development, it should not accept anything less than full market
value.
6. The City says that the sale is needed because $4 million of land sale proceeds is
projected as revenue for the current (FY 2014-2015) budget. But according to
the staff report, the sale won't happen until Spring 2016 at the earliest, and Fall
2016 at the latest. Thus, regardless of how this proceeds, there will not be any
land sale revenue in FY 2014-15.
7. Over the past year, the City Council has adopted four new Specific Plans,
including for the Lake Merritt Area which includes this parcel. In each instance,
the Council has declined to establish policies that require inclusion of affordable
housing within market-rate developments and has not designated any sites
specifically for affordable housing. Instead, the Council has pointed to the

April 14, 2015
Page 4
possibility of adoption of an affordable housing impact fee, pending completion of

the long-delayed nexus study and feasibility analysis. Each time that a specific
plan was adopted, Councilmembers have publicly stated their intention that
all projects developed within these areas should be subject to a future
impact fee. However, unless otherwise specified, if the City enters into a binding
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with the developer before a fee
is adopted or goes into effect, this project will have "vested development rights"
and will be subject only to the fees in effect at the time of the DDA.
The entire process surrounding the disposition of this parcel is deeply flawed and likely
in violation of both State law and City ordinances. At a minimum, the City should do
the following:
1. Prepare a new appraisal to ensure that the parcel is being sold at its full market
value, particularly in light of other recent appraisals and land sales.
2. Consistent with Housing Element Action 2.7.3, deposit 25% of the sales
proceeds from this parcel into the Citys Affordable Housing Trust Fund for
development of affordable housing for lower income households.
3. Ensure that this project is subject to any housing impact fee adopted upon
completion of the pending nexus study.
4. Modify the Citys property disposition ordinance and procedures to ensure that
future sales of property are done in a public and competitive manner, as required
by Housing Element Action 2.7.3.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey P. Levin
Policy Director
Gloria Bruce
Interim Executive Director
Attachment
cc: Councilmembers Desley Brooks, Noel Gallo, Abel Guillen, and Dan Kalb
March 17, 2015

Oakland Planning Commission
Oakland City Hall
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, California
Dear Commissioners Patillo, Bonilla, Coleman, Moore, Myres, Nagraj and Weinstein:
On behalf of East Bay Housing Organizations, I am writing to comment on the high-rise
residential project proposed to be located on City-owned land located at Lake Merritt
Blvd and 2nd Avenue (the 12th Street Remainder Parcel). We are concerned that this
project sets an unfortunate precedent of giving away land value in the form of
discretionary approval of additional height and relaxed parking requirements, without
consideration for the call for a bonus and incentive strategy outlined in the Lake Merritt
Plan and other specific plans, and without leveraging public land as one of the City's few
remaining strong tools to facilitate the creation of much-needed affordable housing.
As you know, EBHO is a 30-year-old membership-based coalition based in Oakland
and devoted to preserving and creating affordable housing opportunities in Alameda
and Contra Costa Counties through education, advocacy and coalition building. Our
350+ members include several developers with affordable housing properties in the plan
area, as well as other advocates active in the area.
Over the past year, the City has adopted three major specific plans (Broadway-Valdez,
West Oakland, Lake Merritt BART Station Area) and a fourth (Coliseum) is scheduled
for adoption in the next month. In every instance, community residents and affordable
housing advocates, including EBHO, have urged the City to adopt mandatory affordable
housing requirements as part of these plans, to ensure that future development serves
a range of incomes consistent with the Citys Housing Element and other policy
documents. In each instance, City staff and policy-makers have argued that it is not
appropriate to adopt affordable housing requirements for individual areas, and that this
needs to be considered as part of a City-wide housing policy. As a result, these plans
have been adopted with vague and often inadequate goals for affordable housing, with
no concrete mechanism for ensuring that affordable housing will be cited within the plan
areas.
The Lake Merritt BART Station Area Plan (LMBSAP), which includes the Eastlake
neighborhood where this project is located, rejected mandatory affordable housing
requirements in favor of a system of bonuses and incentives to induce developers of

March 17, 2015
Page 2
market-rate housing to include affordable housing within their developments. We have
cautioned the City that such an approach does not appear workable, particularly given
the limited success the City has had with its existing Density Bonus ordinance. We
have also argued that the City should not increase allowable density and height, or
provide additional concessions on development standards, without seeking affordable
housing in return for these valuable measures. Nonetheless, the City has proceeded to
increase density and height in many of these areas while holding out the promise of
future incentive programs.
In the case of the 12th Street Remainder Parcel, we are faced with a situation where the
developer is seeking a highly valuable conditional use permit to increase allowable
height from 85 feet to 275 feet, along with other development incentives such as further
reductions in required parking. We have a number of concerns about this proposal,
and are concerned as well that this project not set a precedent for how the City
approaches future projects, particularly those to be situated on publicly owned land.
1. The LMBSAP provides for an 85 foot height limit in the Eastlake area. The Plan
allows for limited exceptions to this limit (one project at 275 feet and two projects at
175 feet) subject to a conditional use permit. The project is applying for an
extremely valuable and scarce concession by the City. This is exactly the sort of
situation envisioned by the Plan an opportunity to include affordable housing in
return for additional height and density.
Section 17.134 of the Planning Code sets forth requirements for granting Conditional
Use Permits. One of those is a finding that the proposal conforms with all applicable
City Plans, including the General Plan and any district plans. Inasmuch as the
LMBSAP (a) identifies a need for affordable housing to preserve the mixed income
character of the area, and (b) calls for the use of development incentives such as
increased height and reduced parking requirements to provide affordable housing,
we question whether the proposed CUP is in fact consistent with LMBSAP. In
addition, the proposed development must not cause a harmful effect upon desirable
neighborhood character. At a minimum the City should assess the extent to which
this development might cause displacement of existing lower income renters in the
surrounding area.
2. We are concerned that this parcel, which was created through the expenditure of
taxpayer funds in the form of Measure DD bond funds, was not made available
through an open and competitive process. Instead, the City chose to solicit
proposals only from those developers who had previously expressed interest in the
site. The City did not seek any affordable housing on the site.
3. The City Council recently adopted a policy that surplus public land would be offered
first to affordable housing developers. As noted above, there was no opportunity for
affordable housing developers to submit proposals.

March 17, 2015
Page 3
4. The City claims that since loss of redevelopment, it has few resources for affordable
housing. City-owned land is a critical resource that can not only provide subsidy for
affordable housing, but also enable the siting of affordable housing in areas
undergoing development to ensure mixed-income communities close to transit.
5. While inclusionary zoning per se is a challenge given recent court decisions, when
the City is disposing of public land it can (and should) require public benefits as part
of that deal. The limitations imposed by the Palmer decision do not apply in these
situations.
We urge the Planning Commission to consider these issues carefully, including the
dangerous precedent that may be set by allowing considerable concessions to
development standards without gaining community benefits, particularly affordable
housing.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey P. Levin
Policy Director
cc: Neil Gray, Bureau of Planning
April 1, 2015
Oakland City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Commissioners Bonilla, Coleman, Moore,
Myres, Nagraj, Patillo and Weinstein:
Eastlake United for Justice (EUJ), a neighborhood group of more than 130 Eastlake renters,
homeowners, individuals and families, submits this letter to share our concerns about the
proposed sale to and development by UrbanCore, LLC of the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel.
Oakland voters citywide passed Measure DD and provided the city funding to improve Lake
Merritt and the vicinity for the benefit of all residents. The Measure DD-funded alignment of 12th
and 14th Streets created the Remainder Parcel, and thus this land is a publicly owned resource
created directly by Oakland taxpayer investment. The members of EUJ and our neighbors are
directly impacted by the kind of development that will be approved on this site.
We urge the Planning Commission to make decisions in the broader context of the housing
affordability crisis in Oakland. This proposed development will negatively impact the Eastlake
neighborhood, the last majority working class and low income neighborhood adjacent to the Lake,
and located in a Plan area where the median 2-person household income is $27,786. Almost
three-quarters of low-income renters in Oakland already pay more than 30% of their household
income on housing, and two-thirds of the lowest income renters pay more than half of their
household income on housing.1 Rents in Oakland had the second highest rate of increase in the
whole nation in 2014, higher than the rate of rent increases in San Francisco. Rents increased by
12.1% in this year while employment only increased by 2.7%.2 The Planning Commission is
charged with promoting the orderly growth and development of the City through studies,
decisions on development proposals, policy recommendations to the City Council, and related
activities,"3 and as such, has a responsibility to examine not just whether a proposal has met
technical requirements, but also whether it enables healthy and sustainable development in the
City. Development of our citys housing market must allow for long-time residents and families
to thrive and stay in Oakland, and must create and preserve a balance of housing that is affordable
to residents at all income levels.
We have identified four major areas within existing City laws and policies with which
the development proposed by UrbanCore on the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel are
clearly non-compliant. These are:
1) The City of Oakland Planning Code: Failure To Comply With The Oakland
Planning Codes Criteria For Approval Of Conditional Use Permits, and the Citys
Standard Conditions of Approval (SCA) for new developments;
2) Affordability and Community Benefits Policies: Failure To Meet The Affordable
Housing Goals And Community-Benefits-For-Developer-Incentives Policies Set
Forth In The Lake Merritt Station Area Plan and the Housing Element of the Citys
General Plan;
1
3) Public Land Policies: Failure To Comply With California Government Code
Section 54222, The Surplus Lands Act; Housing Element Policy Action 2.7.3, Sale
of City-Owned Property for Housing; and City Resolution #85324, Establishing A
General Policy To Lease, Rather Than Sell, City Property; and
4) Adequate and Transparent Public Processes for Selection, Review and
Community Feedback: Insufficient RFP, ENA, Design Review, and Community
Engagement Processes
Based on these areas of non-compliance, we make the following requests of the Planning
Commission to ensure that any development on the parcel moves forward in a transparent,
inclusive way and concretely meets the legal requirements and stated policy objectives of all
applicable City planning documents, legal codes and resolutions for housing development and
development agreements, affordable housing, community benefits and the use of public land in
the City of Oakland. Each set of requests will be followed by an examination of the evidence that
constitutes the grounds for these requests.
cafghbd
Our Requests Addressing Concern #1: The City of Oakland Planning Code
Failure To Comply With The Oakland Planning Codes Criteria For Approval Of
Conditional Use Permits, and the Citys Standard Conditions of Approval (SCA) for
new developments
1) OUR PRIMARY REQUEST: Do not approve the conditional use permits and
variances requested by UrbanCore for height extension to 275 feet, reduced
parking spaces, reduction of storefront depth, separation between the grade and
ground floor living space, and any other approval requests in their submitted
proposal; due to lack of compliance with the criteria for approval of conditional use
permits in the City of Oakland Planning Code section 17.134.050.
2) Require the developer, UrbanCore, LLC to submit a Traffic Demand
Management (TDM) plan, including ongoing vehicle trip reduction (VTR)
strategies to be implemented on an ongoing basis during project operation. If
the development is approved, the developer must also submit an annual compliance
report for the first five years following completion of the project, which will be
reviewed by a peer review consultant, to be paid for by the developer. This is
required by the Citys Standard Condition of Approval SCA TRA-1.4
3) Require the Citys Planning department, Housing and Community Development
department, and/or Economic and Workforce Development department to provide a
Local Housing Market Impact Study that will demonstrate the projected increases
in rents, demographics of in- and out-migration following development, change in
frequency of reports of landlord misconduct, ratios of additional luxury (market-rate)
vs. affordable housing units added to the local housing market following
development of the E. 12th St. parcel, the changing gap between household income
2
and median rent, and the number of people affected in the Eastlake neighborhood and
city-wide within one to five years of the planned development on the E. 12th St.
Parcel. The study must utilize comparison data from documented trends in the
housing markets of other metropolitan cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The City of Oakland Planning Code section 17.134.050 provides general criteria that new
developments must meet in order to be granted any Conditional Use Permits requested.
According to these criteria, the development must not adversely affect the livability or
appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood, with
consideration to be given to harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density; to the availability of
civic facilities and utilities; to harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character;
to the generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets; and to any other
relevant impact of the development. The proposed development must also enhance the
successful operation of the surrounding area in its basic community functions, or will
provide an essential service to the community or region, and conforms in all significant
respects with the Oakland General Plan and with any other applicable guidelines or
criteria, district plan or development control map which has been adopted by the Planning
Commission or City Council.
The proposed E. 12th development has failed to meet these requirements, and thus should not be
approved.
cafghbd
As for the generation of traffic and capacity of surrounding streets, the Planning Commission
staff packet contains a brief report by Fehr & Peers providing a transportation assessment,
including a traffic analysis of 2 intersections adjacent to the development that were not analyzed
in the LMSAP EIR. The report also points out on page 7 that [s]ince the proposed project will
generate more than 50 net new PM peak hour trips, the Citys Standard Condition of Approval
(SCA), which requires the preparation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
planis applicable. By city law, the developer must provide a TDM plan that demonstrates
how they will achieve 10-20% vehicle trip reduction (VTR), utilizing a variety of strategies listed
on pages 8-9 of the Fehr & Peers memo. The Plan must include an ongoing monitoring and
enforcement program, and the developer must submit annual reports of compliance with the plan
to be reviewed and approved by the City.5
The developers decision to request reduced parking spaces for this development have been
characterized as aligned with the goals of Transit-Oriented Development. While TOD is an
admirable planning principle, it implementation must be backed by a clear plan to demonstrate
that the intended changes in transportation behavior and patterns are actually realized, instead of
merely contributing to further traffic and parking congestion in a local area that already suffers
from much congestion due to its location on a complex street intersection and major throughway
to downtown and the 880 freeway, and neighboring Lake Merritt, a large school campus, and a
number of high-density apartment buildings, including 1200 Lakeshore.
Karen Kunze of the 1200 Lakeshore tenants association sent a letter to City Planning staff Neil
Gray on March 21, 2015, expressing her concerns about the potential exacerbation of
longstanding parking problems about which she and fellow residents of 1200 Lakeshore have
petitioned the City staff on an going basis. They have not received a response to their request for
a neighborhood parking plan.6 1200 Lakeshore residents have told EUJ members that they have
witnessed morning commuters parking their vehicles by the Lake before getting on BART and
leaving their vehicles in prime parking areas for the entire day.
From a long-term perspective, these parking management problems will be a barrier in the near
future to efforts to revitalize commercial development and enhancement of the east of the Lake
area, including the parts of E. 12th St. and International Blvd. that start from the Lake and extend
east into the city. This must be coordinated with the additional parking and traffic management
plans that will be developed for the construction of the Bus Rapid Transit line down International
Blvd.
cafghbd
As for the impact of this development upon the livability, successful operation, essential
service to and neighborhood character of the Eastlake area surrounding this
developmentall of which are criteria for approval of Conditional Use Permits cited in
Planning Code section 17.134.050EUJ members are concerned that there have been no impact
studies done to demonstrate that the proposed luxury high-rise development on the E. 12th St.
Remainder Parcel will not contribute to the ripple effect of rising rents, landlord malpractice,
evictions and displacement that have been documented to follow the luxury housing construction
booms in cities like San Francisco and New York City. Such trends in these cities certainly have
disrupted the livability, successful operation, essential service to and neighborhood character of
longstanding working class and middle class neighborhoods.
Instead of freeing up the non-luxury housing supply for low and moderate income residents, as
the argument goes, the concentrated building of luxury housing merely spurs additional demand
for luxury housing as developers seek the highest profits and create a housing market catering to
the highest bidder. In such a housing market, the additional housing supply that is created only
serves those above an upper income threshold, while decreasing the competitiveness of, and
incentives to build, affordable and workforce housing. We can see this clearly in San Francisco,
where despite its aggressive upzoning such that it has become one of the most densely developed
city in the nation, the median apartment rent in San Francisco has surpassed New York City to
become the most expensive rent in the nation, at $3,410 median rent for a one-bedroom
apartment. Thus, we can see that focusing narrowly on increasing the supply of high-end housing
does not solve the housing affordability problem, but intensifies the problem. Building in
requirements for development of mixed income housing is a more effective way to supply
adequate housing for all income levels.7
The concentrated addition of luxury housing also builds in incentives in the housing markets for
landlords to increase rents, intimidate tenants, neglect repairs and maintenance, and evict tenants
in order to make room for higher income tenants who are willing to pay higher rents. The
Oakland rent board currently receives up to 200 calls per month regarding complaints about
landlord intimidation or harassment. Stories proliferate in the recent local news about tenants
facing 50%, 60%, even 110% rent increases and being forced to leave Oakland in search of more
affordable rent.8 Moreover, investigative research of condo ownership and occupancy shows that
4
large percentages of these high-end luxury condos tend to be 2nd or 3rd homes or investment
ventures of absentee owners that stay vacant for a good part of the yeardoing little to fill actual
housing need locally.9
All of this negative evidence warrants the need for real, empirical impact studies that can
demonstrate the actual housing need that is filled at all income levels from the building of luxury
high-risesrather than throwing the future of our local economy, housing market, and overall
health and wellness of our city to whomever who has the loudest argument between supply-side
vs. community benefit theories. Thus, EUJ requests that a Local Housing Market Impact Study as
described above in Request #3 be required to inform the type of development the city will allow
on this public parcel. Such a study will also be invaluable to informing the Affordable Housing
strategies in the Citys Housing Element and Housing Equity Roadmap.
cafghbd
In the subsequent section, we will demonstrate the proposed developments lack of compliance with
the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan (LMSAP) and the Housing Element of the Citys General
Planthus in direct violation of Planning Code section 17.134.050s criteria for approval of
Conditional Use Permits.
cafghbd
Our Requests Addressing Concern #2: Affordability and Community Benefits Policies
Failure To Meet The Affordable Housing Goals And Community-Benefits-For-DeveloperIncentives Policies Set Forth In The Lake Merritt Station Area Plan and the Housing
Element of the Citys General Plan
4) Require an analysis of how and to what extent the proposed development meets the
Affordable Housing goals for the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan and the overall
Housing Element to which it is accountable. Do not approve any conditional use
permits or variances in UrbanCores development proposal, due to the current
absence of any such analysis.
5) Require such an analysis to be included and reviewed in all future development
proposals submitted for the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel.
The E.12th St. Remainder Parcel is located in the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan (LMSAP) plan
area. The final version of the LMSAP was approved and released in December 2014. The
LMSAP states that affordable housing is needed in the Planning Area to ensure that the areas
unique character, which includes a range of income levels, accommodating recent immigrants,
young professionals, families and socially connected seniors, is preserved and enhanced. 10 It
outlines an Affordable Housing Strategy in Section 4.5, citing the following goals:
Encourage between 15 percent to 28 percent of all new housing units in the Planning
Area to be affordable including both units in mixed income developments and units in
100 percent affordable housing developments.
5
Accommodate and promote new rental and for sale housing within the Planning Area for
individuals and families of all sizes and income levels (from affordable to market rate
housing).
Prevent involuntary displacement of residents and strengthen tenant rights.
Maintain, preserve, and improve existing housing and prevent loss of housing that is
affordable to residents (subsidized and unsubsidized), and senior housing.
Promote healthful homes that are environmentally friendly and that incorporate green
building methods.
Encourage the development of family housing (i.e., larger than 2-bedroom units). 11
The LMSAP also cites seven Affordable Housing Goals in the City of Oaklands Housing
Element, as follows:
1. Provide Adequate Sites Suitable for Housing for All Income Groups
2. Promote the Development of Adequate Housing for Low- and Moderate-Income
Households
3. Remove Constraints to the Availability and Affordability of Housing for All Income
Groups
4. Conserve and Improve Older Housing and Neighborhoods
5. Preserve Affordable Rental Housing
6. Promote Equal Housing Opportunity
7. Promote Sustainable Development and Sustainable Communities
This Affordable Housing Strategy is directly informed by community feedback throughout the
development of the LMSAP. In the LMSAP Summary of Community Feedback, published in
April 2011, the words affordable housing, mixed income housing and mixed income
buildings, and family housing and family buildings appear multiple times. The words
affordable housing appear 60 times over 33 pages, and in Table 2-2, a chart that summarizes
land use feedback, the community specifically expressed the desire for affordable housing on the
E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel, marked as Site #44 in the LMSAP.12
The development proposed by UrbanCore builds 0% affordable housing; provides no units larger
than 2-bedroom units; provides housing for only tenants with a $10,000 median monthly income,
or $120,000 median annual income (=332% of the median household income for a family of two
in the plan area); will have the capacity to convert to condominiums after 7 years and evict
existing tenants who choose not to purchase their units; and will over time cause involuntary
displacement and weaken tenants rights by increasing rents in the adjacent area and thus
providing economic incentives for landlords to utilize vacancy decontrol and neglect of property
maintenance to evict tenants and raise rents. The development proposed by UrbanCore does not
meet these Affordable Housing Goals outlined in the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan and the
citys Housing Element.
Moreover, the UrbanCore development does not make any progress towards the required
construction over the next 25 years, as guided by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, of
2,303 low- and moderate-income units (47% of 4,900 units) in the Plan Area. The income limits
defined on page 4-20 of the LMSAP categorize extremely low income to moderate income levels
to be between 30% and 120% of the area median income, or between $26,750 and $107,050
6
annual income. This entire range exists below the affordability threshold required to pay
$3,000/month rent for units in the UrbanCore development. 13
An examination of all affordable housing stock in the Eastlake neighborhood between Lake
Merritt and 14th Ave. demonstrates a striking dearth of affordable housing supply for a
community that is defined as majority low-income and very low-income, according to HUD
standards. In the Eastlake neighborhood, there are 518 affordable housing units for seniors and
only 168 affordable housing units for non-seniors and families. This includes buildings
developed as far back as 1974 up to one that was completed this year, so this housing stock
represents 41 years of construction. Considering these numbers alongside the fact that Oakland
met only 23% of its Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 2007-2014 time periodthis
shows a consistently heavy shortfall in meeting our low income housing need both neighborhoodwide and city-wide. Moving into the future to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for
2015-2023, only 11% of projects planned for construction between fiscal years 2015 and 2030 are
slated to be affordable units, and the total number of these units if completed will meet only 31%
of the Regional Housing Need Allocation for low-income residents city-wide.14
Given these low performance outcomes, the City should seize opportunities to set aside its public
lands, over which it has the broadest influence and control, to fill these housing needs. In its
Affordable Housing implementation strategies and Land Use Policies, the Lake Merritt Station
Area Plan outlines a Developer Incentive program in which developers are offered bonuses such
as increased density or reduced parking in exchange for including affordable housing or other
agreed upon community benefits in their development plans. These policies were ignored when
the City opened an RFP without requiring any affordable housing, and selected a proposed highrise building without again requiring any affordable housing or community benefit in return.
Incidentally, the LMSAP also recommends adopting a city-wide inclusionary zoning policy.
While the 2009 Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. vs. the City of Los Angeles decision is often
cited as overturning inclusionary zoning in Californiathe Palmer decision does not apply to
publicly owned property, nor to projects in which the developer is seeking any kind of
assistance or exemptions from the city, such as zoning modifications or upzonings. Because
UrbanCore is requesting several Conditional Use Permits including height exemption and reduced
parking spacesthe City can apply inclusionary zoning requirements to this development project
on two counts of involving public land and requesting Conditional Use Permits. However, the
City is considering selling the land and granting these Conditional Use Permits without any
requirements for affordable housing in return.15
Thus, due to this proposals non-compliance with the Affordable Housing goals And CommunityBenefits-For-Developer-Incentives policies in the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan and the Housing
Element, as well as the clear demonstration of high need for additional affordable housing supply
in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the current inventory of affordable housing in the
Eastlake neighborhoodthe Planning Commission should not approve the Conditional Use
Permits requested in this proposal without requiring the City to negotiate the inclusion of
affordable housing units.
cafghbd
Our Requests Addressing Concern #3: Public Land Policies

Failure To Comply With Laws Governing The Use And Transaction Of Public Land
Including California Government Code Section 54222, The Surplus Lands Act; Housing
Element Policy Action 2.7.3, Sale of City-Owned Property for Housing; and City
Resolution #85324, Establishing A General Policy To Lease, Rather Than Sell, City
Property
6) Require that the City immediately identify and implement a course of action to
redress its direct violation of California Government Code Section 54222, The
Surplus Lands Act and the Citys Housing Element Policy Action 2.7.3, Sale of
City-Owned Property for Housingwhich state that [i]n disposing of City-owned
surplus properties, the City will give first consideration to affordable housing
developers and the development of the land to provide affordable housing, and that
RFPs must be posted on the Citys website and distributed directly to developers. 16
7) Recommend to the City Council and Planning department that they re-open a
public Request For Proposals (RFP) process for the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel that
is open to all developers, including non-profit housing developers, requires the
inclusion of affordable housing units, and prioritizes proposals with the most units
affordable to low- and moderate-income households.
8) Require Planning staff to submit their explanation for exemption of the E. 12th St.
Remainder Parcel from the policy set forth in Resolution #85324, Establishing a
General Policy to Lease, Rather Than Sell, City Property, for review by the
Planning Commission, the City Attorney, and the new series of community meetings.
This exemption must be reviewed and approved by designated parties before any
development proposal can be approved.
9) Recommend to the City Council to reconsider the lease instead of sale of the E. 12th
St. Remainder Parcel, and to require the completion of comparative revenue
projections from the lease vs. sale of the parcel over 5-10 years.
While the previous discussion concerned the failure of the City to exercise its full legal authority
over the public domain to gain affordable housing requirements for the benefit of its residents,
this section examines existing City and State laws that the City has directly violated
regarding the sale or lease of City-owned surplus land. California Government Code
Section 54222, the Surplus Lands Act, requires [a]ny local agency disposing of surplus land
[to] send, prior to disposing of that property[a] written offer to sell or lease for the purpose of
developing low- and moderate-income housing to any public entity or housing sponsors. Any
sale or lease offer made must be given priority to the development of the land for affordable
housing. The City of Oaklands Housing Element Policy Action 2.7.3, Sale of City-Owned
Property for Housing, dictates that the City must:
Solicit Requests for Proposals (RFPs) from interested developers to construct housing on City-owned sites.
RFPs will be posted on the Citys website and distributed directly to developers, including nonprofit
8
housing providers. In disposing of City-owned surplus properties, the City will give first consideration to
affordable housing developers per the California Surplus Lands Act, Government Code 54220 et seq.
The City violated both of these codes by failing to require affordable housing in any of the
documents and verbal negotiations surrounding the issuance of the RFP for the E. 12th St.
Remainder Parcel, the selection of a proposal that contained no affordable housing, and the
negotiations before during and after the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement period, which made no
mention of any requirement for affordable housing. Moreover, the RFP for the E. 12th St.
Remainder Parcel was not posted publicly on the Citys websiteas have been the proposals for
the Kaiser Convention Center and 1911 Telegraph Ave., but was sent to only three developers
who had previously expressed interest to the City in this parcelUrbanCore, Wood Partners, and
the owner of 1200 Lakeshore. In contrast, invitations to apply for the RFPs for the Kaiser
Convention Center and 1911 Telegraph were each sent out to hundreds of developers, according
to Planning staff, and pre-submittal meeting were held in which 98 participants signed in for the
Kaiser Convention Center meeting, and 43 signed in for the 1911 Telegraph meeting. Word has
also reached EUJ members that there were affordable housing developers who approached City
staff to express interest in submitting development proposals for the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel,
and were discouraged from responding. We request that Planning staff reveal a complete
history of all parties who have expressed interest in submitting development proposals for
the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel, when they approached the city, and a summary of these
dialogues and interactions between the city and prospective developers.
These clear violations of City and State law must be examined, and swift and decisive action
taken to redress these mistakes. Thus, we request that the Planning Commission require the
Planning department and City Council to identify such legal course of action to address
these violations, and re-open the RFP process publicly and competitively, include an
affordable housing requirement, and prioritize the selection of a proposal containing the
most high-quality affordable housing unitsper the dictates of California Government
Code Section 54222 and the Citys Housing Element Policy Action 2.7.3. 17
cafghbd
In December 2014, Oakland City Council passed Resolution #85324, Establishing a General
Policy to Lease, Rather Than Sell, City Property. This resolution confirms the Citys decision
to retain ownership of our public lands as valuable assets for the benefit of Oakland residents.
Planning staff have explained to EUJ members that they will be submitting an explanation
of why the E.12th St. Remainder Parcel is exempt from this city policy. This explanation for
exemption must be examined closely for its prudence in caring for the well-being of
neighborhood residents, as well as the sustainability of the citys strategies for long-term financial
health. Selling public land on prime lakefront property forgoes a significant ongoing revenue
stream that the city could collect from this parcel in perpetuityand thus the sale of the 12th St.
Remainder Parcel represents the disposal of a valuable means of maintaining a healthy city
budget into the future. Thus we ask that upon examining this explanation for exemption rom
Resolution #85324, that the City also complete comparative revenue projections for long-term
leasing vs. selling of this parcel and reconsider leasing instead of selling this land.
cafghbd
9
Our Requests Addressing Concern #4: Adequate and Transparent Public Processes for
Selection, Review and Community Feedback
Insufficient RFP, ENA, Design Review, and Community Engagement Processes
10) Require the full review of the development proposal by the Planning
Commissions Design Review Committee, in order to allow thorough review and
discussion of design impacts from this 24-story high-rise development, including the
Traffic Demand Management (TDM) plan.
11) Re-open a new community engagement process that will be committed to
engaging a broad representation of the Eastlake community between Lake Merritt
and 14th Ave., conducting outreach through multiple institutional and communitybased venues, providing translation of written materials and verbal communications in
community meetings, and effectively synthesizing and responding to the breadth of
concerns gathered from this process.
An explanation of the private, selective RFP process has been provided above, and a means for
redress requested.
Another point of redress is the cancellation of review of this proposal by the Design Review
Committeewhich is no small matter considering the scale and impact of this development. An
explanation has not been provided by City staff for the reason for skipping the Design Review
Committee, and this exemption in the process prevents full evaluation of such broad design
considerations as the Traffic Demand Management (TDM) plan. For a project this size, the
TDM plan should be reviewed before the proposal is approved, and before construction
takes place, as recommendations from the review of the TDM for a project this size may
require significant alteration of the building design or terms of contract with the City.
Lastly, community engagement process for this proposed development did not give residents
authentic opportunities to influence the development according to their identification of
community needs and impact. While UrbanCore submitted a package18 that shows
documentation of outreach done for this project, a closer examination of this package and of
correspondence with Planning staff reveal the following:
There were only TWO community meetings in which residents from the neighborhoods
surrounding the development site were invitedon October 28, 2013, and on January 27,
2015. UrbanCore made a brief presentation to members of the Measure DD coalition on
November 18, 2013 and March 16, 2015. Any other documented meetings referenced in
UrbanCores outreach package were reportbacks of Measure DD coalition members
concerning the E. 12th St. Development, or private meetings with individuals from CALM
or other affiliated groups of Measure DD Coalition. Measure DD is a policy body
appointed by the city to oversee the use of Measure DD funds, and does not represent a
broad cross-section of residents in the Eastlake neighborhood surrounding the
development site, but primarily represents city-wide open space activists.
10
Notice was only sent by email for the first meeting. Notice was sent by email and by
mailed notices for the second meeting, which were sent to a 300-500 foot radius
surrounding the development site, and only to building owners, with no obligation of the
owners to distribute copies of the notice to tenants. Tenants of 1200 Lakeshore, which is
within the 300-foot radius of the development site, did not receive notices because the
owner refused to use their mail list to share information.
No copies of these notices are included in the outreach package, and community members
at both meetings did not see any translated materials or translation services.
There is no sign in sheet from the October 2013 meeting and no record of meeting
minutes, comments made by participants, or responses by UrbanCore to their comments
during or after both meetings.
The email listserves used for outreachLake Merritt Station Area Plan (heavily
Chinatown area focused), Schilling Garden Project, District 2 email list (most widely
represented by District 2 residents above the 580 freeway), and District 3 email list (not
near the development site) did not necessarily target those residents living closest to the
development site and most directly impacted by it, and were not a reliable sole source of
outreach.
This graphic below demonstrates the limited scope of a 500-foot radius.
Community members who attended the January 27, 2015 meeting reported confusion
about what they were able to give feedback on that would actually influence the
development in any way, as the developer presented the project as finalized and
essentially a done deal.
Letters between the Measure DD Coalition and the City revealed that many requests for
various community benefits such as affordable housing, a set percentage of Oakland-based
employment for the construction and ongoing operation of the site, community meeting
space, art gallery for local artists, and contribution to a non-fungible fund for maintenance
of Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt Parkwere all denied.
Two email letters from Karen Kunze of the 1200 Lakeshore tenants association to the
City on March 29, 2015 and March 21, 2015 reveal that 1200 lakeshore residents have
requested a meeting with the developer and received no response, and also have not
received any notices from the City regarding the Planning Commission hearing, which are
required by City law.19
11
Thus, the two community meetings and various correspondences between UrbanCore, the
Measure DD coalition, and City staff did not represent a full and authentic community
engagement process, such as would be warranted for the approval of any large-scale disposition
and use of public land.
cafghbd
In Conclusion,
the proposed development has failed to meet many of the policy objectives and criteria
established in numerous sections of City and State planning documents and law. The
proposed development clearly fails to meet:
The Criteria for Approval of Conditional Use Permits in the City of Oakland Planning
Code Section 17.134.050
The Citys Standard Conditions of Approval (SCA) for new developments, section SCA
TRA-1: Parking and Transportation Demand Management
The Affordable Housing Goals And Community-Benefits-For-Developer-Incentives
Policies Set Forth In The Lake Merritt Station Area Plan
The Affordable Housing Goals, Policies and Action Steps of the Housing Element of
the Citys General Plan
California Government Code Section 54222, The Surplus Lands Act
The City of Oakland Housing Element, Policy Action 2.7.3, Sale of City-Owned
Property for Housing
City Resolution #85324, Establishing A General Policy To Lease, Rather Than Sell,
City Property
Sufficiently Inclusive and Transparent RFP, ENA, Design Review, and Community
Engagement Processes
Given the issues outlined in this letter, we urgently request that you do NOT approve the
conditional use permits and variances requested by UrbanCore for height extension to
275 feet, reduced parking spaces, reduction of storefront depth, separation between the
grade and ground floor living space, and any other approval requests in their submitted
proposal.
We look forward to further discussing with you these concerns. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions or comments, which may be emailed to christine.apocc@gmail.com and copied to
eastlakeunited@gmail.com.
Thank you for your committed service to the residents of
Oakland, and your stewardship of the public good through
our local City government.
Respectfully submitted by your constituents,
The 130+ members of Eastlake United for Justice, and our 1,340
and growing petition signers
12
Endnotes:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
City of Oakland, Lake Merritt Station Area Plan, December 2014, p. 4-16;
City of Oakland, Housing Element 2015-2023, pp. 119, 166
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2015/02/oakland-rents-home-pricesincrease-trulia.html, http://www.trulia.com/trends/2015/02/trulia-price-rent-monitor-jan-2015/
City of Oakland Planning Commission website
Tabibnia, Sam, Fehr and Peers Memo, pp. 7-9, in Planning Commission staff packet for March 18,
2015
Ibid.
Kunze, Karen, letter to Neil Gray, March 21, 2015.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/26656; http://www.city-data.com/top2/h211.html;
http://sf.curbed.com/tags/rental-rates
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-tenants-say-bully-landlords-taking-5835867.php;
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/how-east-bay-tenants-getdisplaced/Content?oid=4216802;
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/03/17/oakland-residents-say-landlords-playing-dirtywith-110-rent-increase/;
http://48hills.org/2014/09/29/investigation-new-condos-arent-owned-san-franciscoresidents/#permanently-moved;
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/nyregion/stream-of-foreign-wealth-flows-to-time-warnercondos.html?_r=0
City of Oakland, Lake Merritt Station Area Plan, December 2014, p.10-29
City of Oakland, Lake Merritt Station Area Plan, December 2014, p. 4-22
City of Oakland, Lake Merritt Station Area Plan, Summary of Community Feedback, April 2011,
pp. 18 (Figure 2-9), 24, 28-31
City of Oakland, Lake Merritt Station Area Plan, December 2014, p. 4-20
See Attachment 3: Affordable Rental Housing Stock in the Eastlake Neighborhood of Oakland;
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/dowd008180.pdf;
http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/history.asp;
City of Oakland, Housing Element 2015-2023, pp. 2-3;
City of Oakland, Lake Merritt Station Area Plan, December 2014, p. 4-20;
City of Oakland, Five-Year Financial Forecast, 2015-2020, pp. 68-71
City of Oakland, Lake Merritt Station Area Plan, December 2014, pp. 4-23, 4-33-4-34;
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4e1107e1-1f17-409b-b12b-1298a8e28b15;
www.nonprofithousing.org/wp-content/uploads/CRA-Journal-Article-on-Palmer-February2010.pdf;
www.nhc.org/media/files/InclusionaryReport201302.pdf
City of Oakland, Housing Element, Policy Action 2.7.3, Sale of City-Owned Land for Housing, p.
306
http://law.onecle.com/california/government/54222.html,
http://law.onecle.com/california/health/50074.html,
City of Oakland, Housing Element, Policy Action 2.7.3, Sale of City-Owned Land for Housing, p.
306
City of Oakland, Request for Proposals, 12th St. Remainder Parcel, December 20, 2012
Li, Hui-Chang, Staff Report: ENA with UrbanCore-Integral for 12th St. Remainder Parcel, May,
30, 2013
UrbanCore, E. 12th St. and 2nd Ave. Community Outreach Package, March 4, 2015
Kunze, Karen, letters to Neil Gray, March 21, 2015 and March 29, 2015
13
ATTACHMENT #1:
PLN14266 Lake Merritt Blvd, 12th Street, 2nd Avenue,Lake Merritt Channel
City Owned Parcel
4 messages
Karen Kunze <kunzerow@gmail.com>
Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 7:33 PM
To: pattillo@pgadesign.com, jmoore.ocpc@gmail.com, jahazielbonillaoaklandpc@gmail.com,
Michael@mbcarch.com, jmyres.oakplanningcommission@gmail.com, nagrajplanning@gmail.com,
EW.Oakland@gmail.com
Cc: "Merkamp, Robert" <RMerkamp@oaklandnet.com>, "Gray, Neil D." <Ngray@oaklandnet.com>, "Li, Hui
Chang" <HLi@oaklandnet.com>
I am writing to ask that the above development project be stopped. Here are my concerns.
1. Three developers were given an opportunity to bid on the RFP for the proposed development of this lot. No
one has been able to explain how these three developers were qualified and why they were the only three to be
given an opportunity. One of the three (who did not respond) are the owners of 1200 Lakeshore Blvd. There
have been multiple attempts behind the scenes for the owners of 1200 Lakeshore to get special privileges to
convert the building to condominium. Was including them in the special group of three who received the RFP
another opportunity? The process seems to be driven by the Citys need for money and definitely not the best
environmental design and construction needs of the community. This is an abuse of the state laws granting
cities the privilege of landuse planning and zone. The RFP was issued before the Lake Merritt Station Area
Plan was even approved. This process has been flawed from the beginning.
2. Staff is categorizing this 24 story, 400,000 sq. ft. building with inadequate parking as an infill project that
is exempt from CEQA. There is nothing in this proposal to justify granting an exception to the height and
parking requirements. Where in the City of Oakland do you have 293 residential units sitting on one acre of
land with inadequate parking? That alone is reason enough to reconsider the staff recommendation you
approve this project.
3. Staff has not required the developer to submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan as part of
the project, despite our request to see this information. Withholding this type of information and/or delaying it
until after project approval goes against the intent of the CEQA legislation.
4. No one has been able to demonstrate that adequate soils studies have been done to support the size and scale
of the project. The report prepared by LSA Associates assessing the environmental impacts acknowledges the
general area is very risky because of soil conditions and seismic issues. They state there have been no soils
problems on nearby lots to justify ordering a soils report at this point. You merely have to look at the
construction problems and developer bankruptcies associated with the unanticipated problem of
underestimating where bedrock was for the pile driving portion of the construction. 1200 Lakeshore is less
than 500 feet from the proposed site. This alone needs to be fully understood prior to granting an exemption to
the CEQA standards.
5. The residents of 1200 Lakeshore have not received individual notice of this project simply because they are
renters. Staff acknowledges that if 1200 Lakeshore was condominium, notices would have been provided. The
owners of the building have refused to use their email list to share information with the residents about the
project.
14
6. The first planning commission meeting on this project was cancelled at the last minute due to the lack of a
quorum. Three planning commissioners have a conflict and cannot vote on the project. The rescheduled
meeting has been set to be the last item on the April 1st planning commission meeting, a meeting that was
already described by staff as a very full agenda. The proposed time as last on the agenda was for the
convenience of the three planning commissioners who have to recuse themselves; not the public who have
serious concerns.
7. We have asked the developer to have a meeting with residents (and neighbors) of 1200 Lakeshore at the
Methodist Church adjacent to our building to more fully air concerns and get a better understanding of the
project. The developers have chosen not to respond to this request.
8. Residents of 1200 Lakeshore have already petitioned the City about our parking problems and requested a
neighborhood parking plan? What is happening with that request? Additionally what is being done to mitigate
for parking problems in the area that will be significantly impacted by the size of this proposed
development? The nearly 300 units will have guests where will they park?
9. Sadly, the only logical reason the City is moving this project through with such haste, is for the $4 million it
anticipates receiving for the price of this city owned parcel. It even appears that the height and parking
exceptions being granted are all tied to the City's budget problems. This is a terrible precedent and needs to be
stopped now.
Thank you
Karen Kunze
1200 Lakeshore Ave #10E
510-271-8355

From: Karen Kunze <kunzerow@gmail.com>
Date: March 21, 2015 at 3:46:26 PM PDT
To: Ngray@oaklandnet.com
Subject: PLN 14-266 Lake Merritt Blvd and 12th Street Development
As a 10 year resident of the Lake Merritt neighborhood, I was extremely disappointed to show up at the March 18th
planning commission meeting and discover that the above item had been "pulled" from the agenda due to lack of a
planning quorum.
My understanding is that the item will now be heard late at night on April 1st after a fairly full planning commission
agenda to accommodate the three planning commissioners who have to recuse themselves on this item.
Please reconsider the time of the evening that this matter is held. You are asking the public to come late at night over
a very controversial project that appears to be on a fast-track; despite serious public concerns.
15
As a resident of 1200 Lakeshore Avenue, we have asked the developer to have a meeting at the Methodist Church
adjacent to our building so that residents can become more informed about the project. The developers have
declined to respond.
I have a number of questions that I would like to get information on. Specifically:
1. Why were there only two developers considered for the right to develop this city parcel?
2. Why has this significant project by-passed design review prior to going to the planning commission?
3. The Lake Merritt Station EIR was not a project level EIR. We were clearly told additional studies would be done
at the project level. Nowhere in the package can I find out what the current level of service is on any adjacent streets.
Can you provide that information?
4. There is nothing in the developer's application that convinces me you have done adequate soils studies. 1200
Lakeshore is an example of project that apparently had a disastrous track record because of inadequate engineering
and soils studies in the beginning. How can we the public be assured this will not be repeated with this project?
5. Residents of 1200 Lakeshore have already petitioned the City about our parking problems and requested a
neighborhood parking plan? What is happening with that request? Additionally what is being done to mitigate for
parking problems in the area that will be significantly impacted by the size of this proposed development?
6. There is less than one parking space per unit and very little parking in the area. Will you request the developer
provide their Transportation Demand Plan (TDM), so that the public can feel comfortable that parking, traffic will be
adequately mitigated prior to the approval of the project?
7. The residents of 1200 Lakeshore have not been individually noticed about the March 18th hearing. The vast
majority of the residents were unaware of the March 18th meeting. Will you please individually notice all the
residents in the building? The management of the building prohibits residents from circulating flyers to the residents.
In addition, the management has refused to tell tenants about the Jan 20th community meeting and the March 18th
meeting. I have personally asked them to let all the tenants know about the next meeting, with no guarantee that will
occur.
Please include me in any updates as to meetings and hearings about this project.
Thank you very much.
Karen Kunze
1200 Lakeshore Ave Apt 10E
16
ATTACHMENT #2A:
41
Shopping & Dining: 1
42
Housing: 1
Low-rise: 1
Office: 2
Mid-rise: 1
Low-rise: 1
Housing: 1
Mid-rise: 1
Office: 2
High-rise: 1
Mid-rise: 1
Parks & Public Spaces:

2
Food related light industrial and

manufacturing, e.g. Numi, wine
Ballpark
Restaurants and green space
Tech companies
Factories, warehouse, industrial
for Chinatown
Disagree light industrial for good
jobs versus desirable housing on
water
Hotel; student housing
43
Affordable housing
High-rise: 1
Low-rise: 2
44
High-rise: 1
Mid-rise: 1
Low-rise: 1
45
Food
Entertainment &
Attractions: 1
High-rise: 1
Mid-rise: 1
Low-rise: 3
46
High-rise: 1
Mid-rise: 1
Low-rise: 2
47
Community Facility: 1
Affordable housing
Cultural center
Parking
Affordable housing
High-rise: 1
Shopping & Dining: 2 Entertainment &

Attractions: 1
food
High-rise: 1
Mid-rise: 1
Low-rise: 1
17
ATTACHMENT #2B:
FIGURE 2-9
AV
ST Museum of
California
3RD
AVE
AVE
L BL
VD
AVE
Shopping/Dining
Office Mixed Use
4TH
2TH
Housing Mixed Use
NA
ST
Community Facilities
Park/Public Spaces
Entertainment/Attractions
Oakland Unified
School District
Downtown
Campus
E. 1
BART Parking
Madison Sq. Park
ATIO
Kaiser
Auditorium
OAK
10TH ST
0TH
E. 1
1TH
Parking
ST
Three or more groups

in agreement*
ST
Diverse or No
Recommendations*
Laney College
ALICE
9TH ST
E. 1
Oakland
Unified
School
District
ST
11 T
ERN
2ND
ST
MADISON
ST
JACKSON
EL
NN
TU Oakland
Lake Merritt Station Area

Summary of Community
Feedback: Land Use
Lake Merritt BART
Existing Community Resources

to Preserve/Enhance
5TH
8TH ST
AVE
Pacific
Renaissance
Plaza
Lincoln
Elementary
ST
BROADWAY
11TH ST
Lincoln
Sq.Park
LAKESH
ORE
ST
HARRISON
ST
12TH ST
County
Court
INT
Post
Office
WEBSTER
ST
13TH
ID
ST
Public
Library
ES
AK
12th St
BART
FRANKLIN
14TH ST
Laney
Parking
PL
6TH ST
5TH ST
ST
ST
FALLON
ST
3RD ST
OAK
4TH ST
4TH ST
MADISON
ST
JACKSON
ST
ALICE
HARRISON ST
ST
WEBSTER
E. 7TH ST
Peralta Community
College District
Administration
WEBSTER
ST
FRANKLIN
BROADWAY
BART Station Entrance
MTC/ABAG
7TH ST
Chinese
Garden
Park
*These sites correspond to those listed

in Table 2-2. For most sites, a wide
variety of uses were suggested.
However, sites where three or more
groups at the community workshops
recommended the same types of land
use are graphically depicted with a black,
bold outline. On those sites, icons
representing the land use types that
were most frequently suggested are
also illustrated. For sites where there
was either no feedback or no one land
use was suggested by three or more
groups, they are graphically depicted
with a thin, red line outline.
VICTORY CT
EMBARCADERO
This feedback has not yet been reviewed

for its economic or technical feasibility.
2ND ST
0 100
500
FEET
Lake Merritt Station Area Plan

Summary of Community Feedback
18
1000
ATTACHMENT #2C:
Activate Streets
Shopping Suggestions
o
o
o
o
Dining Suggestions
19
o
o
o
o
20
o
o
o
o
o
21
Market
22
ATTACHMENT #3:
Affordable Rental Housing Stock in the Eastlake Neighborhood of Oakland
Name
Address
# of
Population units
1218 2nd Avenue

250 E. 12th
4135 Park Blvd.
136 E. 12th Street
1417 1st Avenue
2220 10th Avenue
1600 Lakeshore
1485 E. 22nd
720 E. 11th
1503 2nd Avenue
275 E. 12th Steet
829 E. 19th Street
Seniors
Seniors
Seniors
Seniors
Seniors
families
Seniors
families
Families
seniors
families
families
40
80
42
66
55
30
143
23
54
92
40
21
Seniors =
Families =
518
168
Year
Developed Developer
EASTLAKE NEIGHBORHOOD
Irene Cooper Terrace
J.L. Richards Terrace
Park Boulevard Manor
Lakemont Apartments
Lake Merritt Apartments
Santana Apartments
Rose of Sharon
Hillside Terrace
Clinton Commons
Lakeside Senior Housing
Eldridge Gonaway Commons
Effie's House
2000
1988
1976
1974
1976
1992
1977
1990
2012
2015
1984
1999
Sources:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/dowd008180.pdf
http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/history.asp
Compiled by Monica Garcia, garciamonica@yahoo.com

Eastlake United for Justice
23
Christian Church Homes

Christian Church Homes
preserved in 2003
Mercy
Best Bay
RCD
SAHA
EBALDC (11 studios + 9 1-bedroom units)
ATTACHMENT #4:
Article 8. Surplus Land - California

Government Code Section 54222
Legal Research Home > California Laws > Government Code > Article 8. Surplus Land - California Government
Code Section 54222
http://law.onecle.com/california/government/54222.html
54222. Any local agency disposing of surplus land shall send, prior to
disposing of that property, a written offer to sell or lease the property as
follows:
(a) A written offer to sell or lease for the purpose of developing low- and
moderate-income housing shall be sent to any local public entity, as
defined in Section 50079 of the Health and Safety Code, within whose
jurisdiction the surplus land is located. Housing sponsors, as defined by
Section 50074 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be sent, upon written
request, a written offer to sell or lease surplus land for the purpose of
developing low- and moderate-income housing. All notices shall be sent by
first-class mail and shall include the location and a description of the
property. With respect to any offer to purchase or lease pursuant to this
subdivision, priority shall be given to development of the land to provide
affordable housing for lower income elderly or disabled persons or
households, and other lower income households.
(b) A written offer to sell or lease for park and recreational purposes or
open-space purposes shall be sent:
(1) To any park or recreation department of any city within which the land
may be situated.
(2) To any park or recreation department of the county within which the
land is situated.
(3) To any regional park authority having jurisdiction within the area in
which the land is situated.
(4) To the State Resources Agency or any agency that may succeed to its
powers.
(c) A written offer to sell or lease land suitable for school facilities
construction or use by a school district for open-space purposes shall be
sent to any school district in whose jurisdiction the land is located.
(d) A written offer to sell or lease for enterprise zone purposes any surplus
property in an area designated as an enterprise zone pursuant to Section
7073 shall be sent to the nonprofit neighborhood enterprise association
corporation in that zone.
(e) A written offer to sell or lease for the purpose of developing property
located within an infill opportunity zone designated pursuant to Section
65088.4 or within an area covered by a transit village plan adopted
pursuant to the Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994 (Article
8.5 (commencing with Section 65460) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7)
24
shall be sent to any county, city, city and county, community

redevelopment agency, public transportation agency, or housing authority
within whose jurisdiction the surplus land is located.
(f) The entity or association desiring
for any of the purposes authorized
the disposing agency of its intent
days after receipt of the agency's
land.
to purchase or lease the surplus land

by this section shall notify in writing
to purchase or lease the land within 60
notification of intent to sell the
Chapter 2. Definitions - California Health and

Safety Code Section 50074
Legal Research Home > California Laws > Health and Safety Code > Chapter 2. Definitions - California Health and
Safety Code Section 50074
50074. "Housing sponsor", for the purpose of housing assisted by the
department, means any individual, joint venture, partnership, limited
partnership, trust, corporation, limited equity housing cooperative,
cooperative, local public entity, duly constituted governing body of an Indian
reservation or rancheria, or other legal entity, or any combination thereof,
certified by the agency pursuant to rules and regulations of the agency as
qualified to either own, construct, acquire or rehabilitate a housing
development, whether for profit, nonprofit, or organized for limited profit,
and subject to the regulatory powers of the agency pursuant to rules and
regulations of the agency and other terms and conditions set forth in this
division. "Housing sponsor" includes persons and families of low or moderate
income who are approved by the agency as eligible to own and occupy a housing
development and individuals and legal entities receiving property improvement
loans through the agency.
25
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Parlette, Nancy
DL - OPD Executive Notifications
FW: Protest - BFO1
Monday, April 20, 2015 8:20:56 AM
Sorry.I meant..1200 block of Lakeshore.
From: Parlette, Nancy

Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 8:14 AM
To: DL - OPD Executive Notifications
Subject: Protest - BFO1
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
nparlette@oaklandnet.com
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Larry Fishman
Kalb, Dan
Halt the proposed project on E 12th!
Dear Mr. Kalb,

As a resident of Oakland, I am outraged that our City Council is
planning to sell public lands to a private developer to build a 24 story
luxury apartment building in the midst of a housing affordability
crisis! This development threatens to accelerate the displacement of
working families in the neighborhood. It violates the City's own goals
for expanding affordable housing and is an irresponsible use of prime
public land. I want the proposed project on E 12th to be halted
immediately and want to see affordable housing built on our public lands
instead. If we don't build affordable housing on our public lands, where
will it be built? Please stand for affordable housing today and halt the
contract immediately! Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Larry Fishman
Oakland, CA 94609
510-
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Kathleen Tandy
Office of the Mayor; At Large; Guillen, Abel; Kalb, Dan
luxury apartment tower proposed for E 12th

public lands to a private developer to build a 24 story luxury apartment building in
the displacement of working families in the neighborhood. It violates the City's own
goals for expanding affordable housing and is an irresponsible use of prime public
land. We want the proposed project on E 12th to be halted immediately and want to
see affordable housing built on our public lands instead. If we don't build affordable
housing on our public lands, where will it be built? Please stand for affordable
housing today and halt the contract immediately!
BTW, I work in downtown Berkeley and see at least 2 luxury apartment/condo
projects going up there too. Where are the low-level and mid-level dwellings? I am
fortunate to live in Oakland in an affordable apartment. But what if my landlord
decides to sell the building (as he has threatened in the past)? The going rates in
my neighborhood are twice what I pay now. I am 65 and still working but what
happens when I retire? I don't want to live in a low-income, high-crime
neighborhood. Or move to the suburbs where there is no public transportation. I
love Oakland and want to stay here.
From:
To:
Date:
Larry Fishman
Kalb, Dan
Dear Mr. Kalb,

As a resident of Oakland, I am outraged that our City Council is
planning to sell public lands to a private developer to build a 24 story
luxury apartment building in the midst of a housing affordability
crisis! This development threatens to accelerate the displacement of
working families in the neighborhood. It violates the City's own goals
for expanding affordable housing and is an irresponsible use of prime
public land. I want the proposed project on E 12th to be halted
immediately and want to see affordable housing built on our public lands
instead. If we don't build affordable housing on our public lands, where
will it be built? Please stand for affordable housing today and halt the
contract immediately! Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Larry Fishman
Oakland, CA 94609
510-
OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT

NEEDS VS. PRODUCTION
Income Level
Very Low (up to 50% AMI)
Low (51-80% AMI)
Moderate (81-120% AMI)
Above Moderate (> 120% AMI)
Total
Income Level
Very Low (up to 50% AMI)
Low (51-80% AMI)
Moderate (81-120% AMI)
Above Moderate (> 120% AMI)
Total
1999-2006 Period *
RHNA
Bldg Permits
2,238
547
969
626
1,959
155
2,567
5,689
7,733
7,017
RHNA
4,138
3,067
5,101
10,056
22,362
% of RHNA
24%
65%
8%
222%
91%
2007-14 Period **
RHNA
Bldg Permits
1,900
1,282
2,098
385
3,142
22
7,489
2,341
14,629
4,030
% of RHNA
67%
18%
1%
31%
28%
Cumulative, 1999-2014
Bldg Permits
% of RHNA Share of Total
1,829
44%
17%
1,011
33%
9%
177
3%
2%
8,030
80%
73%
11,047
49%
100%
Notes: Very Low, Low and Moderate Income counts only include units that have restricted rents or sales prices.
Some unrestricted units listed as "Above Moderate" may have been sold/rented at prices affordable to Moderate Income
Sources: * Oakland Housing Element for 2007-14

** Oakland Housing Element Annual Progress Report, 2014
EBHO, April 2015
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Michael-David Sasson
Office of the Mayor; At Large; Kalb, Dan
Opposed to luxury apartment tower proposed for E 12th
Dear Mayor Schaaf, Councilmembers Kaplan and Kalb,

As a resident of Oakland, I am outraged that our City Council is planning to sell public lands
to a private developer to build a 24 story luxury apartment building in the midst of a
housing affordability crisis! This development threatens to accelerate the displacement of
working families in the neighborhood. It violates the City's own goals for expanding
affordable housing and is an irresponsible use of prime public land. We want the proposed
project on E 12th to be halted immediately and want to see affordable housing built on our
public lands instead. If we don't build affordable housing on our public lands, where will it be
built? Please stand for affordable housing today and halt the contract immediately!
I used to live at E 18th and 2nd Ave so I'm familiar with the neighborhood and hope that
more can be done that actually benefits the neighborhood and the existing neighbors.
Sincerely,
Michael-David Sasson
94608
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Darline Mix
Gray, Neil D.; DL - City Council; Office of the Mayor; City Administrator"s Office
Proposed Lake Merritt Development, Case File PLN 14 - 266
Mr. Gray:
As you are aware, at the April 1, 2015 planning commission meeting the above referenced developmentwas
approved by the commission. The Development (a 24 story, 298 unit apartment tower) on a public parcel at the
South West corner of Lake Merritt at 12 Street and 2nd Ave on what is now being termed as a "Remainder Parcel"
as the result of the 12th Street roadway re-configuration under the DD Lake Merritt improvement Measure.
My inquiry is this: Is not the City prohibited from selling this parcel for private development as it was originally
purchased, developed and maintained for open space park land and by state statue must remain as such, short of
an approval by a majority of the qualified City electorate
Your report incorrectly indicates, as does the City Council ENA with Urban Core (July 2, 2013) that the parcel in
question was created by the recent realignment of the DD 12th Street project. In fact, the parcel was acquired by
the City of Oakland in 1906 under the then, Mayor Mott, by a condemnation proceeding as part of a larger (million
dollar bond measure) park acquisition and park improvement project.
The parcels purchased by the bond measure along with those acquired through condemnation were subsequently
developed, improved, and dedicated asopen space park land and as the greater effort to acquire a "green" swath of
recreation area around 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 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 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 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) 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

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
kiernan
Kalb, Dan
Bolotina, Olga
Re: Eastlake United for Justice: E 12th St. Development follow up
EUJ Letter to Planning Commissioners FINAL 04.01.15.pdf
Apologies, the following item was left off the previous email:
5. EUJ's letter to the Planning Commission outlining some of the failures of the
proposed development to meet City code and planning documents
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:41 AM, kiernan <kiernan.rok@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Councilmember Kalb,
thank you for taking the time to meet with representatives of Eastlake United for
Justice on March 20 to discuss our concerns regarding the proposed development
for the 12th St. remainder parcel.We remain committed to our position that this
development is a bad deal for Oakland that will negatively impact Eastlake
neighborhood residents, and believe pausing to find some solutions is entirely
possible at this point.
Per our conversation on March 20, we are forwarding the following documents that
you requested:
1. RFP that city sent to 3 developers in December 2012, due Feb 2013
2. EBHO letter 03.17.15 to Planning Commission
3. EBHO letter 10.10.14 to City Administrator
4. Staff report provided to CED committee on June 25, 2013, provides a little more
background on project
5. EUJ's letter to the Planning Commission outlining some of the failures of the
proposed development to meet City code and planning documents
Additionally, the documents listed below may be useful and can be accessed via
this link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5phn4gqdi2nre6e/AABIgsBxZqGZL0pxDUAgxY_a?dl=0
a. RFP proposal from Urban Core
b. RFP proposal from Wood Partners, the developer that was not selected
c. ENA
d. CEQA analysis
e. Packet of outreach documents compiled by UrbanCore
f. Attachments to a letter to Measure DD Coalition from City 11/17/14
g. An incomplete list in progress of all RFP's the city issued and to whom between
2011-2014. (One of the planners is still working on compiling this list and later will
send the complete list, in addition to the actual RFP's that the city issued for each
one.)
Per your suggestion, we are working closely with EBHO and other affordable
housing partners, and are in on-going conversation with Councilmember Guillen.
Please let us know if you have any additional questions. Thank you again for your
time and consideration!
Sincerely,
Kiernan, on behalf of Eastlake United for Justice
-"I cannot conceive of a life of more joy than fighting for freedom." - Cornel West
-"I cannot conceive of a life of more joy than fighting for freedom." - Cornel West
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Daphne Muse
DL - City Council
Remainder Parcel at Lake Merritt
Wednesday, April 01, 2015 12:29:51 PM
I am writing to support the proposition that50% of the sale proceedsfrom the Remainder
Parcel at Lake Merritt be dedicated to maintenance of Lake Merritt as existing
maintenance budgets have proved inadequate. To protect our public investment of more
than $100 million from the bond and nearly $40 million from matching grants we must
have dedicated funds for maintenance, as Bond monies cannot be used for maintenance.
With the huge Bond expenditures and with increased usage of park areas, the City must
safeguard the investment with upkeep. We urge that the 50% of the sale proceedsbe
deposited with Public Works as a Lake Merritt Improvements Maintenance Fund.
Go well,
Daphne Muse
Writer, Social Commentator & Poet
www.daphnemuse.blogspot.com
510 967-9463
Request for Proposals

12th Street Remainder Parcel
December 20, 2012
Request for Proposals

12 Street Remainder Parcel
th
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 2
NOTICE, SELECTION PROCESS & SCHEDULE --------------------------------------- page 2
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS --------------------------------------------------------------- page 3
EVALUATION CRITERIA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- page 5
CITY OF OAKLAND REQUIREMENTS ----------------------------------------------------- page 6
ATTACHMENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 7

1.
2.
Parcel Map: 12th Street Remainder Parcel----------------------------------------- page 8

Proposed Project Submittal Summary Form--------------------------------------- page 9
-1-
A.
INTRODUCTION
The City is seeking a qualified and interested developer to purchase and develop the "12th Street
Remainder Parcel. After a review of Letters of Interests for the 12th Street Remainder Parcel at the
Closed Session meeting of the City Council on December 4th 2012, the City Council thought a couple
proposals showed merit and should be looked at in more detail. In order to be fair, the Council directed
staff issue a mini Request for Proposals (RFP) to all parties that have shown interest in the site.
B.
NOTICE, SELECTION PROCESS & SCHEDULE
The process begins with the issuance of this mini RFP to those parties who have shown interest in
development of the 12th Street Remainder Parcel. This solicitation has a fixed submission date, after
which all proposals are evaluated and ranked. Staff will return to Closed Session to get City Council
direction before selection of a developer to move through the exclusive negotiating process. It is
estimated that May 2013 would be the earliest that an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) could be
approved.
Respondents to this solicitation should submit a specific purchase offer. The City does not intend to provide
monetary assistance. However, there may be public participation through land write-downs, demolition of
existing structures, and/or assistance with potential environmental remediation of the site. If the City
discounts the land price (i.e. sells the property for less than its Fair Market Value based on a MAI
appraisal), or provides any other direct or indirect subsidy, the project will be subject to the following City
of Oakland employment and contracting programs:
20% Local and Small Local For Profit and Not For Profit Business Enterprise Program
50% Local Employment Program
15% Oakland Apprenticeship Program
Payment of Prevailing Wages
City of Oakland Living Wage Ordinance
City of Oakland Equal Benefits Ordinance
Electronic Certified Payroll Submittals
The City is seeking to identify the most qualified developer with the capacity to plan, finance and
implement the project. Respondents to this RFP are asked to submit a detailed development proposal for
the selected property in keeping with the goals and design criteria described in this solicitation. From the
proposals submitted, the City will be interested in: the development teams previous development
experience; financial capacity to fund the project; general development approach; and design concept.
Respondents to this solicitation must be able to demonstrate the following minimum qualifications:
Knowledge and qualified experience in economic and market analysis, real estate development
for commercial and/or residential projects, community planning, urban design, and
environmental review;
A proven track record;
Evidence of un-leveraged resources to acquire either one or more parcels in one acquisition
takedown;
Experience in working with public agencies to obtain necessary entitlements; current capacity
and financial resources to construct the proposed development(s) within a reasonable timeframe
without City assistance;
Experience in operation and management of commercial development projects similar to the
one(s) proposed in response to this solicitation; and
Disclosure of applicants intent to hold or resale property once the project has been completed.
-2-
C.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Responses to this RFP are due by 3:00 p.m. on Friday, February 15, 2013. All packages should
contain a transmittal letter and five (5) copies of the complete response. Packages should be directed to
the following address only:
City of Oakland
Office of Neighborhood Investment
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 5313
Oakland, CA. 94612
Attention: Patrick Lane
During the evaluation period, City staff may request written clarifications of proposals and may, at their sole
discretion, hold discussions with all or any of the development teams under serious consideration.
The submission requirements are indicated below. Provide five (5) copies of the proposal . In order to
facilitate review by the City staff, please submit materials under clearly labeled tabs for each section and
subsection.
1. Introduction
a) A cover letter, executed by an authorized signatory of your firm or the individual developer
submitting the proposal.
b) Summary Form (See Attachment 2), identifying the development team members, including
all known joint venture or limited partners, architects, engineers, financial institutions and
contractors. The form should include the contact name, company, address, telephone
number, fax number, and e-mail address of a representative authorized to act on behalf of
the development entity. The form should also include the purchase offer, a brief description
of the project (number of units, square feet of commercial or other space, parking spaces,
total square feet of project, building height, construction type, etc.) and a checklist of
attachments.
2. Qualifications and Experience of Development Team
a) A brief description of each team members recent development experience. This
experience should include at least three (3) developments similar to the project proposed in
response to this RFP in which the developer took the lead. Be specific and indicate a
reference for each team member.
b) Previous relevant project experience for each participating team member. Identify projects
built or renovated for developer investment, for a fee, or under some other structure.
Specifically describe project experience that involved partnerships, joint ventures or
working structures with public agencies or government entities. Include photographs and
project profile (date, location, concept, land uses, size, construction cost, reference
contacts, etc.) For those where public assistance was required, please specify the amount
initially planned and requested and any subsequent requests detailing out the nature of any
subsequent requests and over-runs.
c) A list of judgments, past and present, and pending litigation regarding development projects
that any development team members are involved, and any other litigation with the
likelihood of a material adverse impact on developer's financial condition and ability to
complete the project.
-3-
3. Project Financial Resources

a) Developer shall provide a signed letter on Company letterhead indicating that the
development team has the capacity and sufficient financial resources to undertake,
complete, operate and manage the proposed development. As a note: Developer
selected to move forward through the exclusive negotiation process will be asked to
provide Company financials which will be reviewed and evaluated by a third party
consultant to the Agency. The consultants findings of reasonableness will
become subject to public information.
b) Developer shall disclose information related to work with any other city or redevelopment
agency in California. If so, developer shall provide specific letters of reference from the city
or agency related to developers participation and performance.
c) Developer shall provide conceptual project pro forma for pre-development, construction
and operations.
i. Provide detailed construction and design cost estimates and detailed revenue
projections, and the basis for your market projections; e.g. market study, analysis of
comparables, etc.
ii. Provide ten-year sources and uses cash flow projection.
iii. If the project is to be phased, provide phased sources and uses of funds statements.
iv. Sources of funding statement should discuss the proposed amount of equity funding,
the amount of debt funding required, and source of debt service for any debt funding.
v. Funding gaps should be clearly identified (if any).
d) A development schedule, indicating time frame the development will be completed.
e) A property management plan or sales plan. Developers proposing workforce, market rate
or senior housing components should also include a tenant services plan.
4. Project Design
a) A project description and conceptual architectural plan, including floor plan and
elevations. Indicate the number of housing units and the location and layout of any
ground floor retail or other non-residential use, as well as parking.
-4-
D.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The nature of the proposed project and the proposed land purchase price will both be major selection
criteria; however, the selection process will also weigh additional City objectives such as how well the
project serves the public interest. The City will use the following criteria in assessing developer proposals.
1. Experience of Developer Team and Key Individuals
a)
b)
c)
d)
Success in projects of similar type, with particular emphasis on urban areas.

Record of completing a minimum of three (3) developments on budget and on schedule.
Project experience with local governments and other public agencies.
Demonstrated success in maintaining high quality, efficiently operated projects.
3. Financial Capacity
a) Evidence of development team capacity to either have or ability to raise sufficient
equity/debt capital to carry the project to completion.
b) Financial strength of developer(s) and other team members. Please be specific and
include financing references where appropriate.
c) Commitment and ability to fund pre-development activities.
4. Project Design
a) Project description and conceptual architectural plans, floor plan and elevations.
b) For commercial development programs: gross building square feet; number of stories
and the number of on-site parking (below, above or at grade).
c) For residential development programs: for workforce housing, market rate housing or
senior housing, please provide total building square feet, number of bedrooms,
bathrooms, common areas as well as the number of on-site parking (below, above or at
grade).
5. Project Financial Feasibility
a) Proposed purchase price.
b) Financial feasibility of proposed project, given development costs, financing structure,
pro-forma rents or sales prices, and market analysis.
c) Development schedule: Time frame the development will be completed.
d) Property management plan or sales plan as appropriate.
6. Community and Public Objectives
a) Demonstrated ability to work with the community to develop designs that are sensitive to
the architectural environment.
b) Developers are encouraged to incorporate green building and energy efficient
components in the design of their projects.
If a subsidy or land write-down is requested, the following criteria also apply:
c) Demonstrated success in complying with Local and Small Business participation
requirements. These programs are available from the Contract Compliance Office of the
City Administrators Office.
d) Evidence of initiative and creativity to cooperate with the City to achieve community
investment, to support Hire Oakland goals, and other public policy goals, as applicable by
law.
7. Other Factors as Appropriate (Other relevant considerations developer would like the City to
know)
-5-
E.
CITY OF OAKLAND REQUIREMENTS
The following City requirements are APPLICABLE TO ALL PROPOSALS:

1. Environmental
Prior to execution of a DDA, projects must be assessed in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2. Nondiscrimination
All recipients of this RFP must agree not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, ancestry,
national origin, religion, sex, sexual preference, age, marital status, family status, source of
income, physical or mental disability, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or
AIDS-related conditions (ARC), or any other arbitrary basis.
3. Conflict of Interest
No public official of the City who participates in the decision-making process concerning a
project may have or receive a direct or indirect economic interest in the developer or the
project.
RFP recipients are responsible for ensuring that such conflicts of interest do not occur.
4. Public Records
Applicants should understand that under the California Public Records Act and the Citys
Sunshine Ordinance, all documents that are submitted in response to this RFP including
financial information, are considered public records and will be made available to the public
upon request.
The following City Requirements are APPLICABLE IF ANY PUBLIC SUBSIDY IS PROVIDED,
including a land write-down:
1. Prevailing Wage
Projects will be subject to the Citys prevailing wage policy, which requires all workers
performing construction work on a project be paid prevailing wages as determined under the
California Labor Code and implementing regulations.
2. Contracting and Employment Requirements
All respondents to this RFP are required to comply with the City of Oaklands Local/Small
Local Business Enterprise Professional Services Program, Local/Small Local Business
Enterprise Construction Program, and Local Employment Program, including requiring that
contractors and subcontractors comply with these requirements.
3. Living Wage Ordinance
The Citys Living Wage Policy requires that, unless specific exemptions apply, all recipients of
$100,000 or more in any twelve-month period from the City (including recipients of land write
downs), shall pay employees a minimum of $10.83 per hour. That rate applies if health
benefits of at least $1.62 per hour are offered. If no health benefits are offered, a pay rate of
$12.45 per hour is required. Such rates shall be adjusted annually pursuant the terms of the
Citys Living Wage Ordinance. These requirements will also apply to service contractors
who receive service contracts of $25,000 or more.
-6-
Under the provisions of this Policy, the City shall have the authority, under appropriate
circumstances, to terminate and seek remedies as set forth therein for violations of the
Policy.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact the Contract Compliance and
Employment Services Division at (510) 238-3970 for specific requirements of the Citys
contracting and employment programs.
F.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Parcel Map
2. Proposed Project Submittal Summary Form
-7-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Parcel Map
-8-
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Proposed Project Submittal Summary Form
-9-
PROPOSED PROJECT SUBMITTAL SUMMARY FORM

Instructions: In order to facilitate review, please fill out this first page to be used as a cover sheet. Additional materials
requested on Page 2 should be organized in keeping with the format outlined below: i.e. identifying each item by
number and letter. Tabs for each section and subsection are required, e.g. II, III, IV, V.A., VI.C.1., etc..
I.
PROJECT SITE: 12th Street Remainder Parcel, Oakland, CA
II.
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Include number of units, parking spaces, total square feet of
project, square feet of commercial or other space, building height, construction type, etc.. Please use
additional sheets if necessary:
III.
PURCHASE OFFER:
IV.
DEVELOPMENT TEAM Identify the development team members, including all known joint venture or limited
partners, architects, engineers, financial institutions and contractors:
Developer
Architect
Contact Name:
Contact Name:
Company:
Company:
Address:
Address:
Telephone:
Telephone:
Fax:
Fax:
E-mail:
E-mail:
Website:
Website:
Contractor
Other
Contact Name:
Contact Name:
Company:
Company:
Address:
Address:
Telephone:
Telephone:
Fax:
Fax:
E-mail:
E-mail:
Website:
Website:
Proposed Project Submittal Summary Form: 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Page 1 of 2
V.
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF DEVELOPMENT TEAM
TAB
NUMBER
A. Development Experience. A brief description of each team members recent

development experience. This experience should include at least three (3) developments
similar to the project proposed in which the developer took the lead. Be specific and
indicate a reference for each team member.
B. Previous Projects. Previous relevant project experience for each participating team
member. Identify projects built or renovated for developer investment, for a fee, or under
some other structure. Specifically describe project experience that involved partnerships,
joint ventures or working structures with public agencies or government entities. Include
photographs and project profile (date, location, concept, land uses, size, construction cost,
reference contacts, etc.) For those where public assistance was required, please specify
the amount initially planned and requested and any subsequent requests detailing out the
nature of any subsequent requests and over-runs.
C. List of Judgments/Litigation. A list of judgments, past and present, and pending
litigation regarding development projects that any development team members are
involved, and any other litigation with the likelihood of a material adverse impact on
developer's financial condition and ability to complete the project.
VI.
PROJECT FINANCIAL RESOURCES

A. Evidence of Financial Resources. Developer shall provide a signed letter on Company
letterhead indicating that the development team has the capacity and sufficient financial
resources to undertake, complete, operate and manage the proposed development. As a
note: Developers selected to move forward through the exclusive negotiation process will
be asked to provide Company financials which will be reviewed and evaluated by a third
party consultant to the Agency. The consultants findings of reasonableness will become
subject to public information.
B. City Participation. Developer shall disclose information related to work with any other
city or redevelopment agency in California. If so, developer shall provide specific letters
of reference from the city or agency related to developers participation and performance.
C. Conceptual Pro Forma. Developer shall provide conceptual project pro forma for predevelopment, construction and operations.
(1) Provide detailed construction and design cost estimates and detailed
revenue projections, and the basis for your market projections; e.g. market
study, analysis of comparables, etc.
(2) Provide ten-year sources and uses cash flow projection.
(3) If the project is to be phased, provide phased sources and uses of funds
statements.
(4) Sources of funding statement should discuss the proposed amount of equity
funding, the amount of debt funding required, and source of debt service for
any debt funding.
(5) Funding gaps should be clearly identified (if any).
D. Development Schedule. A development schedule, indicating time frame the
development will be completed.
E. Property Management/Sales Plan. A property management plan or sales plan.
Developers proposing workforce, market rate or senior housing components should also
include a tenant services plan.
VII.
PROJECT DESIGN
A. Description of Project.
B. Conceptual Architectural Plan. Include floor plan and elevations. Indicate the number
of housing units and the location and layout of any ground floor retail or other nonresidential use, as well as parking.
Proposed Project Submittal Summary Form: 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Page 2 of 2
End of RFP
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
-10-
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Karen Hester
Gallo, Noel; Kalb, Dan; Brooks, Desley; At Large; Schaaf, Libby; Campbell Washington, Annie; Reid, Larry;
Guillen, Abel; McElhaney, Lynette
Naomi Schiff; Rick Rickard; Sandra Threlfall; Levin, Brooke A.; Tora Rocha; Wald, Zachary; Gerard, Jennie;
Farmer, Casey; Dave Campbell
sale of 12th St parcel should go to Lake Merritt Park maintenance fund please
Wednesday, January 28, 2015 5:54:44 PM
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 20story residential development) to a maintenance fund augmenting the overwhelmed and oftencut 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
karen@hesternet.net
510-654-6346
www.hesternet.net
AGENDA
clTYoFmKL^^4il3JUNI2 PH 3^ lU
TO: DEANNA J. SANTANA

CITY ADMINISTRATOR
REPORT
F R O M : Fred Blackwell
SUBJECT: ENA with UrbanCore-integral

for 12"' St Remainder Parcel
DATE: May 30, 2013
City Administrator
Approval
Date
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve:
A Resolution Authorizing an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with UrbanCore-Integral,
LLC for Development ofthe 12"' Street Remainder Parcel located at 12*^ Street and 2"*'
Avenue.
OUTCOME
This authorization will allow the City Administrator to negotiate and enter into a one-year
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA") with UrbanCore-Integral, LLC ("UCI"). During the
ENA period, UCI will refine a project proposal to be vetted in community design meetings and
for City review and permitting approvals, and complete CEQA review: The schedule of ENA
activities will be coordinated with the adoption of the Lake Merritt Station Area Specific Plan
and its associated EIR, especially the environmental review tasks for the Project. The City will
appraise the Property and negotiate with UCI the terms and conditions of a Disposition and
Development Agreement ("DDA").
Entering into this ENA does not constitute a binding commitment on the part of the City to any
project or developer for the 12^"" Street Remainder Parcel.
BACKGROUND/LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
CN
The 12th Street Remainder Parcel ("Property") was previously publicright-of-wayfor that
portion of E. 12th Street situated between 1st and 2nd Avenue. The Property was created as a
Item:
CED Committee
June 25, 2013
Deanna J. Santana, Citj' Administrator

Subject: ENA with UCI for 12* St Remainder
Date: May 30, 2013
Page 2
result of the reconfiguration of 12th Street between Oak Street and 2nd Avenue into what is now
known as Lake Merritt Blvd. The reconfiguration was part of the City of Oakland's Lake Merritt
Park Improvement / 12th Street Reconstruction Project which was funded by Measure DD.
The size of the Remainder Parcel is approximately 0.925 acres or 40,300 square feet and is
bounded by E. 12th Street on the east, by 2nd Avenue and property owned by the Oakland
Unified School District on the south, by newly created open space to the west with frontage
along the Estuary Channel which serves as the inlet and outlet to Lake Merritt, and by Lake
Merritt Blvd to the north (see map included as Attachment A). The Property is also located
approximately eight blocks from the Lake Merritt BART Station, within a quarter mile from
Laney College, a quarter mile to the Oakland Museum, just over a half of a mile to local
convenience shopping, and a mile from Oakland's Downtown City Center.
On June 16, 2011, the Redevelopment Agency acquired the Property from the City for
$2,500,000 plus $5,958 in closing costs for the purpose of controlling development of the site.
The Agency intended to sell the Property with a development agreement. In February of 2012,
with the dissolution of Redevelopment, the Property was transferred to the Oakland
Redevelopment Successor Agency by operation of law.
In December 2012, staff issued a Request for Proposals to those developers who had shown
interest in the Property. Staff received two proposals and established a selection committee to
review the proposals and interview the two respondents to the RFP. Staff recommends entering
into a 12-month ENA with UCI based on the development team's collective experience and their
proposal to purchase the Property and develop a residential mixed-use project.
As of May 2013, the State Controller's Office has preliminarily determined the Property is a part
of the Redevelopment claw back order which means this property transaction must be reversed
and the Property is to be returned to the City. Under the City's control, the Property is no longer
a part of the Successor Agency's Long Range Property Management Plan and so staff no longer
needs to wait for approval of that Plan (by the Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency
Board, Oakland Oversight Board, and State Department of Finance) before seeking Council
authorization for an ENA with UCI for the development of the 12th Street Remainder Parcel.
UCI is a strategic partnership between Urban Core Development, a Bay Area-based real estate
developer and Integral Development, an Atlanta-based developer who is the equity partner. The
development team also includes Oakland-based architect Pyatok Architects, San Diego-based
architect AVRP studios, and contractors Suffolk and Davis Reed JV. In response to the City's
RFP, UCI proposed to purchase the Property for $4,569,500 and develop an iconic 24-story
high-rise (240 feet) tower with approximately 247 residential units, 201 parking spaces and
5,000+ square feet of ground floor retail and/or community space.
Item:
CED Committee
June 25-2013
Deanna J . Santana, City Administrator

Subject: ENA with UCI for 12'^ St Remainder
Date: May 30, 2013
Page 3
ANALYSIS
UCI's proposed project is consistent with the Administrative Draft Lake Merritt Station Area
Specific Plan, issued in July 2012 ("Specific Plan"). The Property is considered an ideal
development site for high density housing over ground floor retail and has been identified as a
Primary Gateway Opportunity Site in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan will provide design
guidelines and inform updates to both the General Plan and Zoning. The proposed rezoning will
accommodate higher densities and transit oriented development.
The Redevelopment Agency's acquisition price was based on a Fair Market Value Appraisal
considering the highest and best use of the property based on the existing zoning and estimated
parcel size. The value will likely change pending completion of the final Parcel Map and the
proposed zoning recommended pursuant to the Specific Plan and changing market conditions.
The completion of the Parcel Map and the Specific Plan are in process during the proposed 1 year ENA period and once the Parcel Map is completed and the Specific Plan adopted, the City
will commission a new MAI Fair Market Value appraisal. UCI's proposal offered as much as
$4,569,500 for land purchase pending appraisal, completion of the approved entitlements and
close of the financing.
The Schedule of Performance expected of UCI during the ENA period is shown in Attachment
B. In short, during the ENA period, UCI will:
Complete a market feasibility study and marketing strategy

Hold at least three community design meetings to discuss the potential development plans
for the Project
Complete design plans, including plan for public art and open space
Complete Project environmental review process pursuant to the Califomia Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA")
Prepare the EIR (or other CEQA document as appropriate) for the Project,fromissuing
the Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and finally certifying the CEQA document
Obtain all necessary planning approvals. The approval process will include public
hearings with the Planning Commission, Design Review Committee, and the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Committee
Obtain financingfromlenders and equity partners
Negotiate the terms and conditions of a DDA with the City, based on City's appraisal of
Property
Once UCI completes ENA activities and assuming parties can agree on terms of a DDA, staff
will then retum to the City Council with a recommendation to execute a DDA between the City
and UCI.
Item:
CED Committee
June 25,2013
Deanna J. Santana, Cit\' Administrator

Subject: ENA with UCI for 12"' St Remainder
Date: May 30, 2013
Page 4
PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST
UCI will coordinate its public outreach with the outreach efforts of the Specific Plan that will be
simultaneously underway. Also, UCI will work through citizen-led groups such as Coalition of
Advocates for Lake Merritt (CALM) to host at least three community design meetings during the
ENA period. UCI will provide the workshops with 3-D modeling kits, along with a model of the
site and its surroundings, and facilitate discussion of the options in order to move toward
consensus solution that achieves broad public appeal.
Staff received public comments to the Draft EIR for the Emerald Views project (a 42-story, 370
unit residential high-rise) proposed on the privately-owned Schilling Gardens site located next to
Snow Park. Some comments expressed the desire for the EIR to study as an altemative a land
swap with the 12th Street Remainder Parcel, so that the historic garden site could be retained. At
the time of the Draft EIR, such a land swap was deemed as not a feasible altemative to be
analyzed because the parcel did not yet exist and the Measure DD constmction was not
scheduled to be completed for several years. Even as the Measure DD improvements continued
toward completion, the developer of Emerald Views has not expressed interest in the Remainder
site. Further, the idea of preserving the Schillings Gardens site through City acquisition - either
through a land swap or some other means - still presents the challenge to the City to identify the
funds required for necessary on-site improvements and maintenance. Staff estimates the costs of
the land swap to be at least $750,000 for on-site capital improvements, $100,000 a year for
maintenance, and the loss of about S4.5 million that could be gained from the sale of the 12'^
Street Remainder Parcel.
COORDINATION
The Office of Neighborhood Investment coordinated this report with the City Attomey's Office,
the Budget Office, the Department of Planning & Building, and UCI. Also, Measure DD project
staff who are working on the landscaping plans for the newly created open space adjacent to the
Property are aware of UCI's development proposal.
During the ENA period, it is vital that the environmental review tasks for the Property be well
coordinated with the City's preparation of the EIR for the Lake Merritt Station Area Specific
Plan. Planning staff have been assigned to this Project to ensure this coordination. Further, UCI
will also need to coordinate its project proposal with the development plans of neighbors of the
Property to the south (Oakland Unified School District) and to the west (City's new open space
created by Measure DD improvements).
Item:
CED Committee
June 25,2013
Deanna J. Santana, Cit\' Administrator

Subject: ENA with UCI for 12^*" St Remainder
Date: May 30, 2013
Page 5
COST SUMMARY/IMPLICATIONS
The proposed legislation does not commit the City to expenditure of any funds. UCI will bear
sole responsibility for all costs associated with developing the project for approval, including
consultant fees (e.g. for market study and designs and CEQA consultant), permitting fees, legal
fees, financing expenses, etc.. The ENA shall require payment of a $25,000 Project Expense
Payment by UCI for purposes of reimbursing City for its staff costs and third party expenses
such as appraisal costs.
The sale of the Property under an eventual DDA could generate as much as $4.5 million for the
General Fund.
POLICY ALIGNMENT
The Administrative Draft of the Lake Merritt Station Area Specific Plan has identified the
Property as a development opportunity site and proposes rezoning the site for high density
residential. UCI's proposed use of the property is consistent with the intent of the General Plan,
Redevelopment Plan and Specific Plan, all of which have included extensive community
engagement processes.
SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES
Economic: The sale to UCI would generate land sale proceeds of up to $4.5 million and facilitate
development of housing and a modest amount of neighborhood-serving retail. The development
would put vacant underutilized land into productive use. The construction of the project could
provide significant employment at the site. Staff assessment of project employment benefits
includes approximately 252 constmction jobs, five FTE retail/commercial jobs and nine FTE
permanent jobs in the residential portion. The Project is anticipated to generate significant tax
benefits to the City, including $899,286 in annual property taxes, $135,000 in annual sales tax,
and $83,712 in annual business license tax.
Environmental. The Project proposes to incorporate green building and energy efficient
components both during constmction and occupancy, such as a vegetative roof, a solar thermal
system and a waste management system to facilitate recycling. As an infill project that develops
in already built-up areas, this Project reduces the pressure to constmct on agricultural and other
undeveloped land, and thereby contributes to the prevention of urban sprawl. The location ofthe
Project in proximity to major public transportation nodes will likely encourage project residents
and retail customers to use BART and AC Transit.
Item:
CED Committee
June 25.2013
Deanna J. Santana, City Administrator

Subject: ENA with UCI for 12* St Remainder
Date: May 30, 2013
Page 6
Social Equity: Developer proposes a community participation process that engages a variety of
stakeholders so that the Project can be informed by a wide-range of voices. During the proposed
E N A period, UCI will host at least three community design meetings to discuss the potential
development plans so that the best design possible can be created for the location. Elements of
the development proposal - such as possible improvements & maintenance of adjacent park
space and an art gallery in lobby- would benefit the community at large and not solely project
residents. Also, the residents brought in by a high density project will contribute to Oakland's
diversity and the demand that is needed to support the growing economy.
For quesfions regarding this report, please contact Hui-Chang L i , Urban Economic Analyst II, at
510-238-6239.
Respectfully submitted.
Fred Blackwell, Assistant City Administrator
Reviewed by:
Gregory Hunter
Office of Neighborhood Investment
Patrick Lane, Redevelopment Manager
Prepared by:
Hui-Chang Li, Urban Economic Analyst II
Item:
CED Committee
June 25.2013
Attachment A: 12th Street Remainder Parcel Map, before Measure DD improvements
Attachment A: 12th Street Remainder Parcel,

& Other Opportunity Sites of Lake Merritt Station Area Plan
*
A
p
I
f Remainder
Remal
Parcel
I Opportunity Siites
I with Communi
Agreement o r
Vacant Sites
Approved
' Development
(not yet under
construction)
BAPCT Station
Entrance
RanningArea
(of Lake Merritt
Station Area Plan)
ATTACHMENT B: EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT - SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE

Property: 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Develaper: UrbanCore-integral (UCI)
Approximate CED approval:
Approximate City Council Approval:
Negotiation Period:
Approximate Execution of ENA:
Project Expense Payment:
June 25, 2013

July 2, 2013
12 months w 180 day extension option
July 2, 2013
$25,000
Within Number
of C a l e n d a r d a y s
of t h e
Commencement
ENA SCHEDULE OF P E R F O R M A N C E
C E Q A & -';"
Citv p r o v i d e s all eKisting e n v i r o m e n t a l , g e o l o g i c a l , e n g i n e e r i n g and o t h e r reports a b o u t
PERMITS
Property's c o n d i t i o n
DESIGN
D e v e l o p e r retains design t e a m to p r e p a r e c o n c e p t plans
MARKET/
C o m p l e t e m a r k e t feasibility study
STUDY
DESIGN
First public meetrng on p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t plan
PROJECT
D e s c r i p t i o n of financia l and legal structure of the D e v e l o p m e n t T e a m , including partnership
T E A M . - .
a g r e e m e n t s , joint v e n t u r e a g r e e m e n t s , etc.
PROJECT
Balance s h e e t s and i n c o m e / l o s s s t a t e m e n t s for last 2 v e a r s ( 2 0 1 1 , 2012) for D e v e l o p m e n t T e a m ;
TEAM
. - including Developer's expanded team
PROJECT
* D e v e l o p e r ' s LLC status
TEAMV,,, '.
PROJECT '
D e v e l o p m e n t t e a m ' s e x p e r i e n c e i n c l u d i n g : architect, structural e n g i n e e r s, general contractors,
TEAM
m a r k e t i n g S real estate f i r m
-. D e v e l o p m e n t t e a m ' s litigation status
PROJECT,
TEAM"= ' '..

CEQA'a
of t h e
Approx due date
Negotiation
a s s u m i n g July 2
Period
execution
30
o:-Aug-13
30
Ol-Aug-13
60
31-Aug-13
60
31-Aug-13
90
30-Sep-13
90
30-Sep-13
90
30-Sep-13
90
30-Sep-13
90
30-Sep-13
90
30-ep-13
120
30-OC1-13
D e v e l o p e r retains e n v i r o m e n t a l consultants to p r e p a r e d o c u m e n t s for CEQA review of Project.
D e v e l o p e r ' s C E Q A consultant shall c o m p a r e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t project w i t h t h e
PERMITS
d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m a s s u m e d for the Lake M e r r i t Station A r e a Plan.
DESIGN'
. . S e c o n d public m e e t i n g on p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t plan
; S u b m i t Project D e s c r i p t i o n for e n v i r o n m e n t a l review p u r p o s e s t o City
CEQA&
PERMITS
120
30-Oct-13
FINANCING
P r o f o r m a s : budget, s o u r c e s & uses of f u n d s , 1 0 - y r c a s h f l o w , o p e r a t i n g budget
150
29-NOV-13
FINANCING
Project d e v e l o p m e n t schedule
ISO
29-NOV-13
150
29-NOV-13
150
Z9-NOV-13
ISO
29-NOV-13
150
29-NOV-13
180
29-Dec-13
240
27-Feb-14
240
27-Feb-14
240
27-Feb-14
FINANCING - Ust of lenders a n d investors a p p r o a c h e d

S u b m i t a p p l i c a b l e z o n i n g a n d land use p e r m i t p r e - a p p l i c a t i o ns and a schedule of a p p r o v a l s .
CEQA'&'; V
PERMITS'
D e v e l o p e r ' s CEQA consultant shall review t h e Lake M e r r i t t Station A r e a Plan E n v i r o n m e n t a l

Impact Report (DEIR) t o d e t e r m i n e if it is a d e q u a t e for C E Q A clearance o f t h e p r o p o s e d
CEQA S " '

PERMITS
d e v e l o p m e n t project, any a d d i t i o n al w o r k that may be r e q u i r e d , a n d if t h e r e is a n y t h i n g u n i q u e

a b o u t t h e project a n d / o r its l o c a t i o n . D e v e l o p e r shall m e e t w i t h t h e City to discuss the p r o p o s e d
CEQA a p p r o a c h .
Third public m e e t i n g o n p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t plan
DESIGN :
B a s e d o n the specific CEQA a p p r o a ch for the project. D e v e l o p e r ' s CEQA c o n s u l t a n t shall prepare
a d r a f t s c o p e of w o r k , base d u p o n the City's " G u i d e l i n e s for E n v i r o n m e n t a l Consultan t Contracts
C o n c e r n i n g Private D e v e l o p m e n t Projects" (dated 1 / 5 / 1 2 ) , for City review and a p p r o v a l , t h a t
CEQAS'^
~; a n a l y i e s t h e specific e n v i r o n m e n t a l t o p i c s a n d t y pe of CEQA d o c u m e n t t h a t Is r e q u i r e d t o
PERMITS
c o m p l e t e C E Q A clearance - Initial Study, A d d e n d u m a n d / o r S u p p l e m e n t a l EIR.

S c h e m a t i c Design Plans, plan for public art, and list of public i m p r o v e m e n t s , including adjacent
DESIGN \
park
CEQAS
S u b m i t a p p l i c a b l e z o n i n g and land use p e r m i t a p p l i c a t i o ns and a s c h e d u l e of approvals .
PERMrrs'
If s u p p l e m e n t a l / s u b s e q u e n t EIR is r e q u i r e d . D e v e l o p e r ' s C E Q A consultant shall cause the
CEQA&
PERMITS .
' issuance of a N O P subject t o City review a n d a p p r o v a l
FINANCING
U P D A T E D & REFINED: Project d e v e l o p m e n t s c h e d u l e
CEQA&
^ ... If A d d e n d u m a n d / o r other non-EIR CEQA d o c u m e n t is r e q u i r e d , s u b m i t an adminstrativ e draft of
PERMITS .
t h e CEDA d o c u m e n t
MARKET
C o m p l e t e m a r k e t i n g strategy
STUDY
U P D A T E D & REFINED: P r o f o r m a s : budget, s o u r c e s & uses of f u n d s , 1 0 - y r c a s h f l o w , operatin g
240
27-Feb-14
270
29-Mar-14
270
29-Mar-14
270
29-Mar-14
FINANQNG
LOI f r o m l e n d e rs and equity partners t o f i n a n c e project
300
2S-Apr-14
DDA
City s u b m i t s final appraisal report
300
28-Apr-14
DDA
C o m p l e t e DDA N e g o t i a t i o ns
330
28-May-14
CEQA&
C o m p l e t e C E Q A review. D e v e l o p e r : C o m p l e t e e n v i r o m e n t a l a s s e s s m e n t , ID site mitigations. City:
PERMITS
c o m p l e t e e n v i r o r e v i e w , file Notice of D e t e r m i n a t i o n ,
330
2S-May-14
360
27-Jun-14
FINANCING-:
O b t a i n all necessary p l a n n i n g a p p r o v a l s . T he a p p r o v a l process will i n c l u d e public hearings w i t h
CEQAS
PERMITS
budget
t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n , Design Review C o m m i t t e e , a n d the Parks and Recreation A d v i s o r y

C o m m i t t e e (PRAC).
n i l O* I U
Apprbveci asJlo FormAnd Legality;
Dteputy City Attorney
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO.
C.M.S.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT

WITH URBANCORE-INTEGRAL, LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE 12TH
STREET REMAINDER PARCEL LOCATED AT 12TH STREET AND 2ND
AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City owns or will own approximately 0.925 acres of property bounded by East
12'^ Street on the east. Second Avenue and property owned by the Oakland Unified School District on
the south, newly created open space to the west, and Lake Merritt Boulevard to the north (the
"Property"), commonly known as the 12th Street Remainder Parcel; and
WHEREAS, the Property was previously public right-of-way for that portion of E. 12th Street
situated between 1st and 2nd Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on December.21, 2012, the City issued a Request for Proposals to develop the
Property; and
WHEREAS, UrbanCore-integral, LLC ("UCI") submitted a proposal to purchase the Property
and develop a 24- story high-rise with approximately 247 residential units, approximately 5,000 square
feet of ground floor retail and/or community space, and approximately 201 parking spaces (the
"Project") on the site; and
WHEREAS, the City and UCI wish to enter into a period of preliminary study and exclusive
negotiations over the proposed Project, understanding that this does not constitute a binding
commitment on the part of the City to any project or developer for the Property; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the City hereby authorizes the City Administrator to negotiate and enter into
an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA") with UCI for the purposes of developing a project
proposal for City review and approval, conducting California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
review and approval, and negotiating the terms and conditions of a Disposition and Development
Agreement ("DDA"); and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the initial exclusive negotiating period will be for 12 months
from the date of this Resolution, with the option by the City to extend said period by an additional 180
days with the approval of the City Administrator in her sole discretion; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City shall require payment of a $25,000 Project Expense
Payment by UCI for purposes of reimbursing City for its staff costs and third party expenses; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the ENA shall be reviewed and approved as to form and legality
by the City Attomey's Office prior to execution; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City finds and determines, after independent review and
consideration, that this action complies with CEQA because it is exempt from CEQA pursuant to
Section 15262 (feasibility and planning studies). Section 15306 (information collection) and Section
15061(b)(3) (general rule) ofthe CEQA Guidelines; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator or her designee shall cause to be filed
with the County of Alameda a Notice of Exemption for this action; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator isfiirtherauthorized to negotiate and
enter into agreements and take whatever action is necessary with respect to the ENA and the Project,
consistent with this Resolution and its basic purposes.
IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA,

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES - BROOKS, GALLO, GIBSON McELHANEY, KALB, KAPLAN, REID. SCHAAF. and
PRESIDENT KERNIGHAN
NOESABSENTABSTENTION -
ATTEST:
LaTonda Simmons
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council
of the City of Oakland, California
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Parlette, Nancy
DL - OPD Executive Notifications
Update - Protest BFO1
Monday, April 20, 2015 10:13:54 AM
Good Morning,
At 0803 hrs the Oakland Police Department Communications Section was advised of a peaceful
protest in the 1200 block of Lakeshore. The subject of the protest was a condominium project at
the corner of 1 st Av and E 12th St. The protestors used an amplified bullhorn and blocked traffic
intermittently. The protest concluded at approximately 0915 hrs. There were no arrests made or
citations issued.
Thank you,
Nancy S. Parlette
Police Communications Supervisor
Oakland Police Department
Communications Section
(510) 777-8801
nparlette@oaklandnet.com
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Pat Kernighan
DL - City Council
Why I support the DDA for the 12th Street Remainder Parcel. - CED Committee Item 3.
Sunday, April 12, 2015 9:06:59 PM
Greetings Councilmembers and former colleagues,

This is Pat Kernighan, and I'd like to weigh in on the District 2 development issue
coming to CED Committee this Tuesday. I strongly support the staff
recommendation to enter into a DDA with Urban Core to build a 24 story market
rate residential building on the Twelfth Street Remainder Parcel near the Lake. Here
is why:
-- Urban Core complied with all of the City's requirements in the ENA. It is only fair
that the City should stick to the deal it entered into.
-- Oakland needs more market rate housing as well as more affordable housing.
In Oakland, only 153 market rate housing units received building permits in 2014.
During the five previous years, 2009-2013, only 197 multi-family market rate units
were built. This is a far cry from meeting the housing demand due to the thousands
of young adults who have been moving to Oakland in the past two years. With so
little new housing coming online, these newcomers end up competing with our
longtime residents for the existing apartments, thus driving rents up alarmingly, as
has been the case for the past two years. Building more market rate housing will
ease, not exacerbate, the upward pressure on rents.
Council District 2 was blessed with the completion of several new Affordable Housing
projects near the Twelfth Street Remainder Parcel in the past four years, and one
more is on the way.
One of the few silver linings of the recession was that affordable housing developers
were able to get good deals on land and were able to build many new affordable
homes in the past four years. Though the need for affordable housing will always be
more than what can feasibly be produced, the good news is that the Lake area
surrounding the site in question had a substantial amount of new affordable housing
built in the past four years. These are the affordable projects:
-Two blocks north of the Remainder Parcel on Second Avenue, a new 92 unit
building of affordable housing was completed last month.
-Five blocks east of the Remainder Parcel, at 7th Ave and E. 11th, Clinton
Commons, an affordable building of 55 units was completed in 2012.
-Just west of the Lake, 70 affordable units at 6th and Oak built in 2012, and a
building for seniors at 10th and Oak in 2010.
-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

Kalb 8949 Responsive Records PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kalb 8949 Responsive Records PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

East Bay Housing Organizations

October 10, 2014

Dear Mr. Gardner:

and urges the City to

ensure that these policy issues are addressed in the DDA:

to include affordable units when City-owned land is used for new

Mr. Henry L Gardner

2. At a minimum, the DDA should make clear that the development

requisite nexus study that is currently underway.

Pursuant to Oakland's Condominium

to .an owner of an existing rental

This would remove rental units from the City's housing

loophole in the City's Condominium Conversion Ordinance, which we hope

will be addressed soon by revisions to the ordinance.

that is placed on developers of affordable housing that is assisted by the

Rachel Flynn, Director of Planning & Building

538 Ninth Street,

As a resident of Oakland, I am outraged that our City Council is planning to sell

January 27, 2015

Naomi Schiff, on behalf of the Oakland Measure DD Community Coalition

Oakland Measure DD Community Coalition: www.waterfrontaction.org/dd

Dear Oakland Councilmembers and Mayor Schaaf,

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,

Council Member Kalb,

Visit us at www.EBHO.org and follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

April 14, 2015

Community and Economic Development Committee

Community and Economic Development Committee

Community and Economic Development Committee

possibility of adoption of an affordable housing impact fee, pending completion of

March 17, 2015

Oakland Planning Commission

Oakland Planning Commission

3) Public Land Policies: Failure To Comply With California Government Code

Our Requests Addressing Concern #3: Public Land Policies

Shopping & Dining: 1

Parks & Public Spaces:

Food related light industrial and

Shopping & Dining: 2 Entertainment &

Housing Mixed Use

Madison Sq. Park

Three or more groups

Lake Merritt Station Area

Lake Merritt BART

Existing Community Resources

BART Station Entrance

*These sites correspond to those listed

This feedback has not yet been reviewed

Lake Merritt Station Area Plan

Affordable Rental Housing Stock in the Eastlake Neighborhood of Oakland

1218 2nd Avenue

Compiled by Monica Garcia, garciamonica@yahoo.com

Christian Church Homes

Article 8. Surplus Land - California

shall be sent to any county, city, city and county, community

to purchase or lease the surplus land

Chapter 2. Definitions - California Health and

Sorry.I meant..1200 block of Lakeshore.

From: Parlette, Nancy

Officers are enroute to monitor the group.

Dear Mr. Kalb,

As a resident of Oakland, I am outraged that our City Council is planning to sell

Dear Mr. Kalb,