8 22-0060 Subject: 12th Street Remainder Sixth DDA Amendment
From: Economic And Workforce Development Department
Recommendation: Adopt An Ordinance Authorizing A Sixth Amendment To The Disposition And Development Agreement Between The City Of Oakland And Lakehouse Commons, LLC, And Lakehouse Commons Affordable Housing, LP, To (1) Extend The Outside Date (Retroactively, If Necessary) And Related Performance Deadlines, In Exchange For Monthly Payments Of An Additional Deposit Of $15,000 And An Extension Fee Of $15,000, (2) Require Reappraisal Of The Property And Update Of The Purchase Price, And (3) Adopt California Environmental Quality Act Findings
Please absolutely do not give yet another extension to this going-nowhere development! Five extensions is already too many! Way back when the Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt proposed remaking 12th St., we knew it would create a new housing parcel. Who knew that after 20 years we'd still be looking at a vacant lot? No extension, retroactively or otherwise. Let's put our public land to use now as much-needed extremely affordable housing.
Retroactively approving yet another amendment to the UrbanCore DDA would not only be wrong but would violate the Surplus Land Act. The City is not currently subject to any agreement to dispose of the Remainder parcel and the SLA states that the City MUST give priority to the entity that proposes to provide the greatest number of units affordable to lower-income households. The City has already violated the SLA before in regards to this project. Please vote NO on the DDA extension.
The City Council would abuse discretion, would violate state law and act contrary to the best interests of local residents and stakeholders if it extended the agreement with Urbancore again. In the midst of the worse crisis of economic inequality, displacement, and a skyrocketing population of people who are homeless or houseless (wherein black people are sadly overrepresented), the City should follow the Surplus Lands Act and dedicate this public land parcel to 100% affordable housing.
1. City Council should not authorize 6th, now RETROACTIVE extension, of an expired DDA for a developer that continues to fail to fulfill its legal obligations to the people of Oakland.
2. Instead, the City Council should prioritize public land for public good, and meeting the urgent needs for affordable housing in our city, not the enrichment of luxury real estate developers.
3. City Council should lease, not sell the parcel.
4. The City Council has the opportunity to maximize deeply affordable housing on the E 12th St site. Oakland has seen a surge in building high end properties, while the numbers of people living homeless has grown to never before seen levels. Let’s do something!
5. Stop making back-door deals with luxury developers.
6. Build the Peoples Proposal, designed by the community with SAHA: a beautiful, viable, 100% affordable project with community amenities including spaces for public meetings and gatherings, for incubating local small business, for edible gardens and more…
There has been issues arising about the segration of white and blacks. This needs to be assessed. Also what is the relationship with the City of Alameda and Alameda residents. Sorry but this is Oakland and If the City of Alameda is not going to contribute to the cost and maintenance, it's displaced resident should not have equal access. Oakland unhoused should have priority.
Please absolutely do not give yet another extension to this going-nowhere development! Five extensions is already too many! Way back when the Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt proposed remaking 12th St., we knew it would create a new housing parcel. Who knew that after 20 years we'd still be looking at a vacant lot? No extension, retroactively or otherwise. Let's put our public land to use now as much-needed extremely affordable housing.
Retroactively approving yet another amendment to the UrbanCore DDA would not only be wrong but would violate the Surplus Land Act. The City is not currently subject to any agreement to dispose of the Remainder parcel and the SLA states that the City MUST give priority to the entity that proposes to provide the greatest number of units affordable to lower-income households. The City has already violated the SLA before in regards to this project. Please vote NO on the DDA extension.
The City Council would abuse discretion, would violate state law and act contrary to the best interests of local residents and stakeholders if it extended the agreement with Urbancore again. In the midst of the worse crisis of economic inequality, displacement, and a skyrocketing population of people who are homeless or houseless (wherein black people are sadly overrepresented), the City should follow the Surplus Lands Act and dedicate this public land parcel to 100% affordable housing.
1. City Council should not authorize 6th, now RETROACTIVE extension, of an expired DDA for a developer that continues to fail to fulfill its legal obligations to the people of Oakland.
2. Instead, the City Council should prioritize public land for public good, and meeting the urgent needs for affordable housing in our city, not the enrichment of luxury real estate developers.
3. City Council should lease, not sell the parcel.
4. The City Council has the opportunity to maximize deeply affordable housing on the E 12th St site. Oakland has seen a surge in building high end properties, while the numbers of people living homeless has grown to never before seen levels. Let’s do something!
5. Stop making back-door deals with luxury developers.
6. Build the Peoples Proposal, designed by the community with SAHA: a beautiful, viable, 100% affordable project with community amenities including spaces for public meetings and gatherings, for incubating local small business, for edible gardens and more…
There has been issues arising about the segration of white and blacks. This needs to be assessed. Also what is the relationship with the City of Alameda and Alameda residents. Sorry but this is Oakland and If the City of Alameda is not going to contribute to the cost and maintenance, it's displaced resident should not have equal access. Oakland unhoused should have priority.