You are on page 1of 398

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

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Jon Bauer
Kalb, Dan
12th St. Remainder Parcel
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 1:58:59 PM

Councilmember Kalb,
I am writing to express my concern that Oakland City Council is not doing enough to
represent the city ethically or financially. I will not reiterate the many problems associated
with the 12th St. Remainder Parcel project, some of which I am concerned might lead to
lawsuits against the City for violations of the State's Surplus Land Act; you know the details
of the situation much better than I do.
I am more concerned at this moment about the potential ethics violations of City
Councilmembers accepting campaign contributions from a developer who was negotiating
with the city, and of the Council conducting a closed bid solicitation process in the first
place, and that the City, if it sells the parcel, is not getting nearly the parcel's actual worth.
It seems like Oakland is one of the hottest markets in the United States. There is no reason
that Oakland Council should be worried about scaring away potential developers by trying to
get the best offers available, as seems to be the concern of some of your Council colleagues.
Furthermore, leadership on this issue should not wait for the Councilmember in whose
District the property happens to be in. This is an issue that impacts the entire city, and
leadership should come from wherever it needs to. As a councilmember who has
demonstrated his commitment to both public ethics and fiscal responsibility, I would expect
that leadership from your office.
Thank you for your time and for the good work you do for the City of Oakland.
Jon Bauer

From: Joan Lichterman <joanlichterman@gmail.com>


Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 2:08 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
12th Street Project
Hello Olga,
You may remember me from a conversation at a planning committee meeting 4-6 weeks ago. I went to
City Council last night, where I had planned to speak against the 12th Street project. I'm sure you heard
what happened at the meeting.
I think the process was fatally flawed -- that any selling of city land needs to be done in a completely fair,
above board, transparent manner. Also, I think Oakland needs affordable housing, and that city land
should be used for the benefit of Oakland residents.
I wasn't able to talk to Mr. Kalb last night. I wonder what his position is, and whether he will press for
reconsideration of the luxury condo project. Please advise. Many thanks.
Joan
Joan Lichterman
Member, ULTRA
Urbanists for a Livable
Temescal-Rockridge Area
510Sent by cell phone
Please excuse typos/speakos

file:///Z|/Records%20Requests/9643%20-%2012th%20st%20+%205-8-15/12th%20Street%20Project.txt[6/1/2015 9:57:12 PM]

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Naomi Schiff
Schaaf, Libby; Reid, Larry; McElhaney, Lynette; Kaplan, Rebecca; Guillen, Abel; Kalb, Dan; Campbell
Washington, Annie; Brooks, Desley; Gallo, Noel
Gerard, Jennie; Bolotina, Olga; Casey Farmer; Leon, Ray T.; Jones, Andre; Simons, Adam J.
12th Street Remainder Parcel Proceeds
Monday, May 04, 2015 4:41:19 PM
DD COALITION-12th St Parcel-5-4-2015.pdf

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,


In response to questions from some of you, we are sending you the attached brief
letter concerning the 12th Street remainder parcel.
Thank you!
Naomi Schiff
for the DD Coalition
-------------------------------

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Naomi Schiff
Kalb, Dan
James Vann; William Threlfall
12th Street remainder parcel, Measure DD improvements
Tuesday, April 21, 2015 5:04:12 PM
dd_coalition_CED_ April 14 2015.pdf
ATT4481851.htm

Dear Councilmember Kalb,


A few of us would like an opportunity to meet with you to discuss how to fund the
Measure DD Lake Merritt maintenance. Here's the letter we sent to the CED
Committee for their hearing on the DDA for the parcel at 12th Street. Would you
have some times you could suggest that would be convenient for you?
Thanks so much!
Naomi Schiff
Measure DD Coalition and Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt
------------------------------Naomi Schiff
Seventeenth Street Studios
410 12th Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94607
510-835-1717
www.17th.com
Just a few steps from the 12th StreetBART station

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Scott Vermeire
Kalb, Dan
12th Street Remainder Parcel
Tuesday, April 28, 2015 3:57:23 PM

Dear Councilmember Kalb,

I am writing you as a member of Oakland Heritage Alliance. I urge the


Council to approve the the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the
Council's CED Committee that25% of the12th Street"remainder parcel"
land sale proceeds be devoted to a fund for maintenance of Measure DD
improvements at Lake Merritt.

Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open


space improvements around the city in decades. However, Measure DD's
capital funds cannot be used for maintenance and protection of the lake
improvements. With its greatly increased usage, the park needs more care
and maintenance than the current park staff can provide.

The "remainder parcel" was created by the realignment of roadway


through Measure DD's pedestrian, bicycle, and park visitor enhancements,
now known as Lake Merritt Boulevard. The CED Committee's
recommendation deserves your support.We urge you to include this
recommendation in your action on the remainder parcel.

Thank you!

Sincerely,
Scott Vermeire
Oakland, CA 94609

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Dennis Rothhaar
DL - City Council
12th Street Remainder Parcel
Friday, April 24, 2015 9:40:18 AM

Dear Councilmembers The refashioning of the area where 12th Street runs by the lake is a tremendous
success. The way Oaklanders have embraced it far exceeds my optimistic
expectations. Every time I'm there I see flocks of people having a wonderful time
doing a wide variety of things - walking, skateboarding, bike-riding, picnicing, and
talking to people they've just met. We need to sustain this treasure and make it
even better.
The CED Committee has recommended that 25% f the proceeds from the sale of the
"remainder parcel" created by the realignment of 12th Street be dedicated to
maintenance of the Measure DD improvements to Lake Merritt. Please adopt their
recommendation when you take action on the remainder parcel. This area is a big
part of what's making Oakland better. Don't turn back.
Dennis Rothhaar
Oakland, CA 94607

fILtD

m-nCl OF THE Cil ^ C.IF.S

jw NOV zo PH1= w ^GiFA^/M

REPORT

CITY OF O A K L A N D

TO: HENRY L. GARDNER


INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: Laws for Real Property Acquisition
and Disposition
City Administrator
\Jp^^X<^-^
Approval
^^-"^^
^

F R O M : Rachel Flynn

DATE: October 13, 2014

/iS

Z1 /

COUNCIL DISTRICT:
All Districts
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt:
An Ordinance Updating And Revising The City's Real Property Acquisition And
Disposition Laws, And Codifying Such Laws Into The Oakland Municipal Code,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Real estate staff and the City Attorney's Office have observed that there are numerous standalone ordinances and resolutions that govern the purchase, sale and lease of real property by the
City. These ordinances and resolutions are not always consistent with one another, and
inadequately address real property transactions such as the leasing of property by the City as
tenant, and the granting or acquisition of easement interests. Staff has determined the need to
reconcile the City's real property laws, and merge the stand-alone ordinances and resolutions,
consistent with applicable Charter provisions, into one ordinance that would be codified in the
Oakland Municipal Code. Also, the monetary thresholds for delegating administrative authority
to close transactions are out of date and should be adjusted to reflect current market conditions.

OUTCOME
The recommended Ordinance would merge the stand-alone ordinances and resolutions,
consistent with the applicable Charter provisions, into one ordinance that would be codified in
the Oakland Municipal Code, and would update and revise various rules governing the
acquisition and disposition of real property by the City.

Item:
CED Committee
December 2, 2014

Henry L . Gardner, Interim City Administrator


Subject: Laws for Real Property Acquisition and Disposition
Date: October 13, 2014

Page 2

BACKGROUND/LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The current rules governing the acquisition and disposition of real property by the City are
scattered in a series of about a dozen stand-alone ordinances and resolutions adopted over the
past 40 years. These ordinances and resolutions are not codified in the Municipal Code (with the
exception of the recently-adopted ordinance governing disposition of property for development),
nor are they otherwise easily available to the public. These laws often overlap and set forth rules
that are not always consistent with one another. Additionally, the laws fail to adequately cover
many key areas - for instance, aside from the Charter, there are no rules governing the lease of
property by the City as tenant, nor any rules that govern the grant or acquisition of easement
interests. Monetary thresholds that would authorize staff to close transactions without Council
approval have not been adjusted to reflect current market conditions. The Ordinance
recommended for adoption would organize, reconcile, and update the current myriad of rules
governing the purchase, sale and lease of real property by the City.
The Municipal Code is available on-line and in public libraries, and is indexed and searchable, so
the new laws would be much more available and usable to the general public than the existing
laws. Under the recommended Ordinance, the real property laws of the City would be organized
as three new chapters in the Municipal Code:

Chapter 2.41 would govern the acquisition of real property by the City through negotiated
purchase or eminent domain, and the "lease-in" of real property by the City (i.e., lease
with the City as tenant).

Chapter 2.42 would govern the disposition of City property through sale or "lease-ouf
(i.e., lease with the City as landlord). This chapter would also incorporate several standalone ordinances governing special leasing circumstances ~ parking licenses in the
Central District (adopted in 1999), telecommunications leases and hcenses (adopted in
1996), Head Start leases (adopted in 2002), and City Administration Building leases
(adopted in 1998). This chapter would include the ordinance enacted by Council in 2013
that governs the disposition of City property for development purposes (adopted in the
wake of the demise of the Redevelopment Agency).

Chapter 2.43 would govern the grant of public utility franchises over City public space.
This codifies an uncodified franchise ordinance dating back to 1947. This chapter would
not apply to franchises that are governed by other parts of the Municipal Code or that are
governed by overriding state or federalfranchiselaws.

ANALYSIS
In addition to the codification, the recommended Ordinance would make a number of needed
substantive changes to the current real property laws. The major changes are as follows:
i

Item:

CED Committee
December 2, 2014

Henry L . Gardner, Interim City Administrator


Subject: Laws for Real Property Acquisition and Disposition
Date. October 13,2014 '
"

Page 3

Surplus vs. nonsurplus. This Ordinance merges the rules for the sale of "surplus
property" and "nonsurplus property," now governed by separate ordinances, into one set
of rules. There is no basis for distinguishing between "surplus" and "nonsurplus"
property transactions.

Definitions. This Ordinance adds definitions of basic terms like "real property,"
"acquisition," "lease," "fair market value," etc., not currently defined in any of the
existing laws.

Administrative authority for purchases and lease-ins. Currently, all purchases or leases
by the City over the $5,000 threshold set by the Charter require Council approval by
ordinance. This Ordinance would raise the minimum threshold for City Council approval
of purchases and leases to $100,000. With this change, staff would be authorized to
acquire or lease-in real property if the purchase price or lease payments (over the entire
term of the lease) are $100,000 or less, without Council approval. The $5,000 threshold
dates back to the 1968, when the current version of the Charter was enacted, and should
be increased to reflect current market conditions. The increased threshold is in line with
increases in real property values in the 46 years since the Charter threshold was set. As
evidence of this, the median Cahfomia home price in 1968 was $23,210, while the
median California home price in 2014 is $480,280. Thus, as measured by home prices,
real property values have risen over 20 times since 1968. The proposed $100,000
administrative threshold is also in line with the current administrative threshold for
entering into most services and purchasing contracts, as set forth in the City's purchasing
ordinance.

Waiver of competitive bidding. Currently, the requirement to sell property through a


competitive bidding process may be waived only if Council makes a finding that bidding
is impractical, unavailing or impossible, or that sale without bidding is in the best
interests of the City. This Ordinance would also provide for waiver of competitive
bidding if (1) the property is undeveloped and less than 5,000 square feet, or (2) the
appraised fair market value of the property is $100,000 or less.

Notice of competitive biddiuR. Currently, the competitive bidding process requires


posting of notice through newspaper pubHcation. This Ordinance would allow posting
notice on the City's website as an alternative to newspaper publication.

Administrative authority for sales and lease-outs. Currently, all sales of City property or
leases of City property for terms longer than one year require Council approval by
ordinance. This Ordinance would delegate administrative authority to staff to sell or
lease City property if (1) the sale or lease is required by the state or federal government,
(2) the property is undeveloped and less than 5,000 square feet, (3) for leases of improved
Item:
CED Committee
December 2, 2014

Henry L . Gardner, Interim City Administrator


Subject: Laws for Real Property Acquisition and Disposition
Date- October 13, 2014

Page 4

space, the leasable space is less than 2,000 square feet, (4) for sales, the appraised fair
market value of the property is $100,000 or less, or (5) the property was formerly owned
by the Redevelopment Agency or the Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency, and
staff was previously delegated the authority to sell or lease the property by Council
sitting as the Agency or ORSA board. Under this Ordinance, staff would be authorized
to sell or lease-out (City as landlord) real property in any of the above circumstances
without Council approval.
Competitive bidding of leases. This Ordinance removes the requirement to competitively
bid leases of City space. This is in line with the current practice of negotiating leases on a
case-by-case basis. Notice of potential leasing opportunities would have to be posted on
the City's website, however.
Fair market. Current laws do not clearly require that property be sold or leased by the
City for its fair market value. This Ordinance would require that property be sold for its
appraised fair market value, or leased for its fair market rental value, unless state or
federal laws do not allow for a fair market transaction, or unless Council has made a
finding that the below-market sale or lease is in the best interests of the City (for instance,
the property is being leased for in-kind services or pubhc benefits that justify belowmarket rent).
Zoning review. This Ordinance removes the requirement for Planning Commission
review of zoning before property may be sold. Zoning review should be governed by the
Planning Code, not by the City's real estate laws.
Easements. Current laws do not specifically address the purchase or sale of easement
interests, i.e., the right to use property for a particular use, by the City. This Ordinance
would add provisions governing the grant or acquisition of easement interests by the City.
These provisions generally parallel the provisions for disposing of or acquiring
ownership interests e.g., delegate authority to acquire easements for $100,000 or less,
or grant easements if the easement area is less than 5,000 square feet or has a market
value of $100,000 or less. In addition, the Ordinance delegates to staff the authority to
grant temporary easements of one year or less.
City Administration building leases. This Ordinance expands the delegation of authority
to enter into leases of retail space at the City Administration Building Complex within
specific parameters, to include retail space in City Center Garage West.
Disposition of City property for development purposes. This Ordinance does not modify
any substantive provisions of the recently-adopted ordinance governing disposition for
development purposes, other than adding provisions requiring compliance with recentlyadopted state statutes governing economic development sales.
Item:
CED Committee
December 2, 2014

Henry L . Gardner, Interim City Administrator


Subject: Laws for Real Property Acquisition and Disposition
Date: October 13, 2014

Page 5

COORDINATION
There has been extensive internal and external coordination with the Office of the City Attorney
and the Budget Office, which have reviewed this report and proposed Ordinance.

COST SUMMARY/IMPLICATIONS
This Ordinance would consolidate the previous stand-alone ordinances and resolutions that
govern the City's real property acquisition and disposition practices, and codify such laws into
the Oakland Municipal Code. This Ordinance also increases the administrative thresholds to
close transactions without Coimcil approval to reflect current market conditions. Having a
streamlined Ordinance would help to make business run more efficiently and thus save the City
time and money.

SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES
Economic: A streamlined Ordinance would make transactions more efficient and save City
funds and staff resources.
Environmental: This proposed action does not provide any environmental benefits.
Social Equity: This proposed action does not provide any social equity benefits.

CEOA
This report is not a project under CEQA.

Item:
CED Committee
December 2, 2014

Henry L . Gardner, Interim City Administrator


Subject: Laws for Real Property Acquisition and Disposition
Date. October 13, 2014

Page 6

For questions regarding this report, please contact Patrick Lane, Interim Manager, Project
Implementation at 510-238-7362.
Respectfully submitted.

lachel Flyim, Actmg Director


iconomic and Workforce Development
)epartment

Reviewed by.
Patrick Lane, Interim Manager, Project Implementation
James Golde, Manager, Real Estate Services
Prepared by:
Thang H. Nguyen, Real Estate Agent
Real Estate Services Division

Item:
CED Committee
December 2, 2014

F!l.ED
SFf^iCE OF THf C i l t C i ESi^

Approved astoforhi and legality

City Anorney's Office

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL


ORDINANCE NO.

C.M.S.

AN ORDINANCE UPDATING AND REVISING THE CITY'S R E A L


PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION LAWS, AND
CODIFYING SUCH LAWS INTO THE OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, as a home rule charter city, the City has the right and power to make
and enforce all laws and regulations that are its municipal affairs, including laws related
to the acquisition and disposition of real property by the City; and
WHEREAS, Section 1001 of the Oakland City Charter provides that the City
Council shall have authority to lease or sell real property owned or controlled by the City
in accordance with such uniform procedure as it shall adopt by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, state law authorizes cities to purchase, lease, receive, hold and
enjoy real property and dispose of real property for the common benefit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted various ordinances and resolutions
governing the acquisition and disposition of real property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to update and revise these ordinances and
resolutions as needed, adopt them as uniform rules and procedures, and codify them
into the Oakland Municipal Code to make them accessible to the public; now, therefore,
The Council of the City of Oakland does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Ordinance Nos. 2575 (grant of public utility franchises), 10142
(sale of non-surplus property), 11602 (sale of surplus property), 11603 (rental and lease
of City property), 11722 (rental and lease of City property for in-kind services), 11836
(acquisition of property interests less than $5,000), 11945 (disposition of property for
telecommunications facilities), 12079 (lease of City Administration Building Complex),
12195 (parking licenses), 12456 (Head Start leases), and 13185 (disposition of City
property for developmentyc.M.S., and Resolution No. 61788 C.M.S. (right of way
certifications for federally-funded projects) are hereby repealed and replaced with this
Ordinance and the Oakland Municipal Code provisions adopted under this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. Chapter 2.41 of the Oakland Municipal Code, added by


Ordinance No. 13185 C.M.S., entitled "Disposition of City-owned Property for
Development", is hereby repealed and replaced with the following new Chapter 2.41:
Chapter 2.41
ACQUISITION AND LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY BY CITY
2.41.010

Definitions.

The following words and phrases, wherever used in this chapter, shall be
construed as defined in this section unless othenwise required by the context.
The singular shall be taken to mean the plural and the plural shall mean the
singular when required by the context of this chapter. The following definitions
apply to this chapter:
"Acquisition of real property" or "acquire real property" for purposes of this
chapter and Section 219(6) of the Chiarter means the purchase or other
acquisition by the City from another of a fee simple interest in real property, with
or without consideration, by grant deed, quitclaim, trustee's deed, deed in lieu of
foreclosure, court order, or other transfer; but does not include the acquisition of
a leasehold interest, easement, equitable servitude, right-of-way, option interest,
security interest, or other estate in real property less than a fee simple interest, or
acquisition by civil forfeiture. Notwithstanding the above, the acquisition of a
leasehold interest for a term or lease period exceeding 35 years, including any
extension or renewal periods if the extension or renewal is exercisable at the
unilateral option of the City, shall be treated as acquisition of real property.
"Lease" means the conveyance to the City of a leasehold estate, rental,
license or other exclusive or nonexclusive right under a less than fee simple
estate for the City or its designee to use or occupy real property for a set term,
periodic term such as month-to-month, or at will, with or without the payment of
rent, lease payments, license fees, or other consideration; but does not include
an easement or equitable servitude. A "lease" includes a sublease or an
assignment of a lease to the City.
"Purchase price" means the total consideration given or provided by the
City to the seller or on behalf of the seller in exchange for the purchase or other
acquisition, whether paid in cash, cash equivalent, in-kind consideration,
exchange, credit, or anything else of value to the City.
"Real property" means land, buildings, structures and other fixtures or
immovable property affixed to the land.
2.41.020

Authority for acquiring real property.

The City is authorized to acquire real property by grant, purchase, gift,


devise, contract, or eminent domain. Per Section 219(6) of the Charter, all
-2-

acquisitions of real property by the City must be authorized by an ordinance


enacted by the City Council, except as provided for below.
Notwithstanding the above, the City Administrator is delegated the full and
complete authority to acquire any real property if the purchase price for the real
property does not exceed $100,000. The City Administrator is authorized to
negotiate and execute all documents necessary for the acquisition of such real
property and take other actions necessary to complete such acquisition, provided
that the funds have been appropriated for the acquisition. No further City Council
action is required for such acquisitions.
2.41.030

Title.

Any deed or grant conveying real property to the City must include a
certificate of acceptance signed by the City Administrator or his or her designee
accepting said real property.
Title to any real property acquired by the City shall be held in the name of
"The City of Oakland, a municipal corporation."
2.41.040

Acquisition of real property by eminent domain.

The City has the right and power to acquire real property for a public use
through eminent domain. Acquisition of real property through the City's power of
eminent domain must conform to the provisions of the California Eminent Domain
Law, California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1230.010, et seq., and other
applicable state and federal law provisions. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary in this chapter, acquisition of real property through the use of the City's
power of eminent shall be authorized by Council adoption of a resolution of
necessity pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.210, et
seq., and shall not require an ordinance.
2.41.050

Lease of real property by City.

The City is authohzed to lease real property from another entity. All
leases of real property by the City must be authorized by a resolution enacted by
the City Council, except as provided for below. The City may acquire leasehold
interests through eminent domain.
Notwithstanding the above, the City Administrator is delegated the full and
complete authority to lease any real property if the rent, lease payments, license
fees, or other consideration for the lease does not exceed $100,000 over the
term of the lease, including any extension periods authorized under the lease.
The City Administrator or his or her designee is authorized to negotiate and
execute all documents necessary for the lease of such real property and take
other actions necessary to complete such lease, provided that the funds have
been appropriated for the lease. No further City Council action is required for
such leases.
-3-

2.41.060

Acquisition of easements.

The City is authorized to acquire easements, equitable servitudes, and


right-of-way interests in real property by grant, purchase, gift, devise, contract, or
eminent domain. This shall include the acquisition of negative easements such
as conservation easements. Per Section 219(6) of the Charter, all such
acquisitions must be authorized by an ordinance enacted by the City Council,
except as provided for below.
Notwithstanding the above, the City Administrator is delegated the full and
complete authority to acquire any easements, equitable servitudes, and right-ofway interests in real property if the purchase price for such interest does not
exceed $100,000. The City Administrator or his or her designee is authorized to
negotiate and execute all documents necessary for the acquisition of such
interests and take other actions necessary to complete such acquisition, provided
that the funds have been appropriated for the acquisition. No further City Council
action is required for such acquisitions.
2.41.070

Right of way certifications.

The City Administrator or. his or her designee is hereby authorized to


execute all right of way certifications and similar documents certifying that all
property rights needed for federally-funded projects have been acquired and that
the projects have qualified for the receipt of federal funds.
2.41.080

Gifts of real property.

Any gifts or donations of real property to the City shall be governed by


Section 2.04.160 and any regulations adopted pursuant to said provision by the
City Administrator. For purposes of applying the limit on delegated authority to
accept gifts as set forth in said provision, the fair market value (as defined in
Section 2.42.010) of the real property being donated shall be considered.
2.41.090

Implementation.

The City Administrator is authorized to implement this chapter and may


promulgate appropriate rules, regulations or guidelines for such purposes.

SECTION 3. Chapter 2.42 is hereby added to the Oakland Municipal Code to


read as follows:

-4-

Chapter 2.42

DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY BY CITY


Article 1
General provisions
2.42.010

Definitions.

The following words and phrases, wherever used in this chapter, shall be
construed as defined in this section unless otherwise required by the context.
The singular shall be taken to mean the plural and the plural shall mean the
singular when required by the context of this chapter. The following definitions
apply to this chapter:
"City Administration Building Complex" means, collectively, the Lionel J .
Wilson Building (150 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza), the Dalziel Building (250 Frank H.
Ogawa Plaza), the Plaza Building (200 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza), City Hall (One
Frank H. Ogawa Plaza), Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, and City Center West Garage
(1250 Martin Luther King, Jr., Way).
"Development" means the new construction of buildings or other facilities,
or the substantial rehabilitation of existing buildings or other facilities.
"Disposition" means the sale, lease or any other form of property
disposition.
"Fair market value" means the amount that a willing buyer would pay a
willing seller for the real property, neither being under any compulsion to buy or
sell and both having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts, in an open and
competitive market under all conditions requisite to the sale, and considering the
property's highest and most profitable use.
"Fair market rental value" means the rental income that a real property
would most likely command on the open market. Said rent shall be supported by
a review of current rents paid, and asked, for comparable property and/or space.
"Fair reuse value" means the amount that a willing buyer would pay a
willing seller for the real property, neither being under any compulsion to buy or
sell and both having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts, considering the
proposed use of the property and the sale or rental value of the property with the
conditions, covenants, restrictions, and development costs associated with the
negotiated disposition and development.
"Lease" for purposes of this chapter and Section 219(6) of the Charter
means the grant by the City of a leasehold estate, rental, license, or other
exclusive or nonexclusive right under a less than fee simple estate to use or

occupy real property owned by the City for a set term, periodic term such as
month-to-month, or at will, with or without the payment of rent, lease payments,
license fees, or other consideration; but does not include an easement, equitable
servitude, or franchise. A "lease" includes a sublease or an assignment of a
lease by the City.
"NODO" means a Notice of Development Opportunity. For purposes of
this chapter, a "NODO" also includes a Request for Proposals (RFP), Request for
Qualifications (RFQ), or any other public solicitation of proposals, bids, offers, or
statements of interest for acquiring and developing real property.
"Sale", "sell", "conveyance" or "convey" for purposes of this chapter and
Section 219(6) of the Charter means the sale, grant, contribution or other
voluntary disposition by the City to another of a fee simple interest in real
property, with or without consideration, by grant deed, quitclaim, deed in lieu of
foreclosure, or other transfer; but does not include a lease, license, or grant of a
leasehold interest, easement, equitable servitude, option interest, security
interest, or other estate in real property less than a fee simple interest.
Notwithstanding the above, the conveyance of a leasehold interest for a term or
lease period exceeding 35 years, including any extension or renewal periods if
the extension or renewal is exercisable at the unilateral option of the lessee, shall
be treated as the sale of real property for purposes of this chapter.
"Substantial rehabilitation" means rehabilitation, the value of which is 25%
or more of the after-rehabilitation value of the building or facility inclusive of land
value.
"Real property" means land, buildings, structures and other fixtures or
immovable property affixed to the land.
)

"Telecommunications facility" means an installation of equipment for the


transmitting and receiving of radio frequencies, including the attachment of
antennas to buildings and other structures, and the construction of ancillary
support structures for such equipment. The term "telecommunications facility"
shall include any "micro facility," "mini facility," "macro facility," "monopole," or
"tower," as these terms are defined in Section 2700, et seq., of the Oakland
Planning Code.
"Undeveloped" means real property that is unimproved land, a surface
parking lot, or othen/vise not improved with permanent buildings or structures.
2.42.020

Implementation.

The City Administrator is authorized to implement this chapter and may


promulgate appropriate rules, regulations or guidelines for such purposes.

-6-

Article II
Sale of City-Owned Real Property, Generally
2.42.030

Applicability.

This Article shall apply to all sales of real property by the City, except for
the sale of real property for development. The sale of real property for
development shall be governed solely by Article IV below.
2.42.040

Compliance with state laws.

The City shall comply with all state laws, to the extent applicable,
governing the sale of real property, including the Surplus Lands Act (California
Government Code Sections 54220, et seq.).
2.42.050

Process for selling City real property.

A.
Competitive process. No real property shall be sold by the City
except after calling for oral or written competitive bids or offers, unless the
competitive process has been waived as provided for below. Each solicitation for
written competitive bids or offers shall contain the following:
1.

The time and place bids or offers are to be received.

2.

The minimum acceptable bid or offers on each parcel.

3.

A description of each parcel.

4.

The amount and type of deposit required of the successful


bidder or offeror. Said deposit shall be retained by the City if
the successful bidder or offeror fails or refuses to complete
the transaction.

5.

When the balance of the bid or offer price must be paid.

Oral competitive bids or offers may be received through a public auction


process or other competitive process.
Notice of the proposed sale and competitive process shall be published in
the official newspaper of the City or posted on the City's website. Bids or offers
shall be received in public at the time and place specified in the notice calling for
bids or offers. The sale, if accepted by the City Council, shall be awarded to the
highest bidder or offeror meeting the conditions specified in the notice calling for
the sale of the property. The City Council shall have the right to accept or reject
any and all bids or offers. If the highest bidder or offeror fails or refuses to
complete the transaction, the property may subsequently be sold through

negotiation to the next highest bidder or offeror willing to meet the same
minimum advertised terms and conditions.
If no bids or offers are received after advertising the property as required
by this chapter, the real property may subsequently be sold through negotiation,
subject to the approval of the City Council if required.
B.
Waiver of competitive process. Notwithstanding the above, the
requirement to undertake a competitive process and to post notice of the
proposed sale shall not apply to any of the following circumstances:
1.

The real property is to be sold to another public agency or


entity which has the power of eminent domain;

2.

The real property is undeveloped and less than 5,000 square


feet in land area;

3.

The real property has a fair market value of $100,000 or


less;

4.

The City Council has made a finding and determination that


calling for bids or offers on a competitive basis is impractical,
unavailing or impossible; or

5.

The City Council has made a finding and determination that


it is in the best interests of the City to sell the real property
by negotiated sale.

C.
Approval by ordinance. Per Section 219(6) of the Charter, all sales
of real property by the City must be authorized by an ordinance enacted by the
City Council, except as provided below.
D.
Administrative authoritv. Notwithstanding the above, the City
Administrator or his or her designee is delegated the full and complete authority
to sell City real property in any of the following circumstances:
1.

The sale is required by an agency of the state or federal


government;

2.

The real property is undeveloped and less than 5,000 square


feet in land area;

3.

The real property has a fair market value of $100,000 or


less; or

4.

The real property was formerly owned by the


Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland (the
"Redevelopment Agency") or the Oakland Redevelopment

Successor Agency ("ORSA"), and the Redevelopment


Agency or ORSA governing body delegated the authority to
sell the real property to the administrative staff of the
respective agency by resolution.
The City Administrator or his or her designee is authorized to negotiate
and execute all documents necessary for the sale of such real property and take
other actions necessary to complete such sale. No further City Council action is
required for such sales.
2.42.060

Sale price.

Real property must be sold for a price, payable in cash or other


consideration, equal to or exceeding the property's fair market value as
determined by an appraisal, unless either (1) the City Council has made a finding
and determination that the sale of the property for less than fair market value is in
the best interests of the City, or (2) a state or federal government agency
requires the sale of the property for less than fair market value.
2.42.070

Restrictions on sales to City officials.

The following enumerated officers and employees of the City may not as
principal, agent, attorney or otherwise, be directly or indirectly interested in the
sale of any City-owned real property. Mayor, members of the City Council,
members of the City Planning Commission, City Auditor, City Attorney, City
Administrator, City Clerk, Director of Finance, Director of City Planning, Director
of Planning and Building, Director of Public Works, Real Estate Services
Manager, employees of the Real Estate Division, and any other City employee
who, because of his or her position with the City, has a potential conflict of
interest or a potential advantage over other potential purchasers.
2.42.080

Grant of easements.

The City is authorized to grant temporary and permanent easements,


including equitable servitudes and right-of-way interests, for access to or use of
City real property. This shall include the grant of negative easements such as
conservation easements. Per Section 219(6) of the Charter, all such grants must
be authorized by an ordinance enacted by the City Council, except as provided
for below.
Notwithstanding the above, the City Administrator is delegated the full and
complete authority to grant any temporary or permanent easements for access to
or use of City real property without Council authorization in any of the following
circumstances:
1. The grant of easement is required by an agency of the state or federal
government;

-9-

2. The easement area is less than 5,000 square feet;


3. The easement has a fair market value of $100,000 or less; or
4. The easement period is for one year or less.
The City Administrator or his or her designee is authorized to negotiate
and execute all documents necessary for the grant of such easements and take
other actions necessary to complete such grant. No further City Council action is
required for the grant of such easements.
Any grant of easement must be in exchange for a price, payable in cash or
other consideration, equal to or exceeding the fair market value of the easement
conveyed as determined by an appraisal, unless (1) the City Council has made a
finding and determination that the grant of easement for less than fair market
value is in the best interests of the City, or (2) a state or federal government
agency requires the grant of easement for less than fair market value.
Article III
Lease of City-Owned Real Property, Generally
2.42.090

Applicability.

This Article shall apply to all leases of City-owned real property by the
City, except for the lease (including ground lease) of real property for
development, or the special leases or licenses set forth in Article V below. The
lease of real property for development shall be governed solely by Article IV
below. Special leases or licenses shall be governed by the applicable specific
provisions set forth in Article V below.
2.42.100

Process for leasing City real property.

A.
Notice. Notice of the proposed lease of City real property shall be
published in the official newspaper of the City, or posted on the City's website,
unless the City Administrator or designee elects to list the property with a broker
or listing service.
B.
Approval by ordinance. Per Section 219(6) of the Charter, all
leases of City-owned real property by the City must be authorized by an
ordinance enacted by the City Council, except as provided below. An ordinance
may authorize a specific lease of a specific City property, or may authorize
general leasing of City property by the City Administrator under parameters
provided for in the ordinance.
C.
Administrative authoritv. Notwithstanding the above, the City
Administrator or his or her designee is delegated the full and complete authority
to lease City real property in any of the following circumstances:

10-

1.

The lease is required by an agency of the state or federal


government;

2.

The lease is for real property that is undeveloped and less


than 5,000 square feet in land area;

3.

The lease is for less than 2,000 square feet of leasable


space;

4.

The r:eal property was formerly owned by the


Redevelopment Agency or ORSA, and the Redevelopment
Agency or ORSA governing body delegated the authority to
lease the real property to the administrative staff of the
respective agency by resolution; or

5.

The lease is for a term of one year or less. For purposes of


this subsection, the term shall be calculated based ori the
maximum lease term the lessee may claim under the terms
of the lease without City approval, including unilateral
options on the part of the lessee to extend or renew the
term. The execution of a month-to-month lease, a lease with
a lease term of one year or less that includes an option on
the part of the City to extend the lease term past one year, or
an agreement or exercise of option to extend a lease term
past one year shall not require Council approval, if, after the
first year of the lease term, the lease permits the City to
terminate the lease unilaterally for any reason upon notice of
30 days or less.

The City Administrator or his or her designee is authorized to negotiate


and execute all documents necessary for the lease of such real property and
take other actions necessary to complete such lease. No further City Council
action is required for such leases.
2.42.110

Rent.

Real property must be leased for a rent or fee, payable in cash or other
consideration, equal to or exceeding the property's fair market rental value,
unless the City Council has made a finding and determination that the lease of
the property for less than its fair market rental value is in the best interests of the
City. In the" case of lessees who provide in-kind services in lieu of cash rent, the
value of such in-kind services to the City or the community at large may be
considered in making the required Council finding and determination. For
purposes of this chapter, in-kind services include benefits or values the provider
renders to the City or the community at large as a result of the tenancy in lieu of
payment of cash. This may include, but not be limited to, property security and

-11-

maintenance, social and cultural benefits to the community, or other appropriate


services.
2.42.120

Restrictions on leases to City officials.

The following enumerated officers and employees of the City may not as
principal, agent, attorney or otherwise, be directly or indirectly interested in the
lease of any City-owned real property: Mayor, members of the City Council,
members of the City Planning Commission, City Auditor, City Attorney, City
Administrator, City Clerk, Director of Finance, Director of City Planning, Director
of Planning and Building, Director of Public Works, Real Estate Services
Manager, employees of the Real Estate Division, and any other City employee
who, because of his or her position with the City, has a potential conflict of
interest or a potential advantage over other potential lessees.
2.42.130

Limitations on lease term.

Per Section 1001 of the Charter, no lease of City real property may be for
a term greater than 66 years.
Article IV
Sale or Lease of City-Owned Real Property for Development
2.42.140

Intent and application.

This article is intended to facilitate the City's sale, lease, or disposition of


real property for development to promote the economic development, housing,
environmental, and community development goals of the City under the
procedures set forth in this article. Any sale, lease, oriother disposition of Cityowned real property that conditions the transaction on the development of the
property by the purchaser or tenant shall be governed by this article.
2.42.150

Authority.

The City Administrator shall have the authority to make the initial
determination whether a property should be conveyed for development under this
article, or under other disposition provisions in this chapter.
2.42.160

Compliance with State laws, if applicable.

The City shall comply with the Surplus Lands Act (California Government
Code Sections 54220, et seq.) if and to the extent applicable to the disposition of
the property. Should the property be intended for development as affordable
housing, the City shall also comply with California Government Code Sections
37362, et seq., if and to the extent applicable.

-12-

2.42.170

Process for disposition of property for development.

A.
The City Administrator shall market the real property by issuing a
public and competitive NODO to potential developers and other interested
^
parties. The NODO shall request potential developers and other interested
parties to submit written purchase or leasing and development proposals for the
property.
B.
Notwithstanding the above, the City Administrator may elect to
waive the competitive NODO process and negotiate a disposition transaction
with a selected developer, if the City Administrator determines that (1) disposition
through a competitive NODO process is impractical, or (2) disposition through a
process other than a competitive NODO process is othenwise in the best
interests of the City. The City Administrator must explain the basis for any such
waiver when he or she presents the proposed disposition to the City Council, and
the City Council shall make findings in support of any waiver of the NODO
process as a condition to approving any transaction.
C.
In evaluating development proposals for real property under this
article, the City Administrator may consider, without limitation, in addition to price,
any of the following factors:
1. '

The value of the proposed use of the real property to the


community and the City as a whole.

2.

The compatibility of the proposed development and use with


current zoning and community plans applicable to the real
property.

3.

The compatibility of the proposed development and use with


the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

4.

The experience, capacity and financial resources of the


proposed developer

5.

The quality of project design.

6.

The environmental sustainability of the proposed


development.

7.

Community and public objectives achieved by the proposed


development, such as creating jobs, expanding the tax base,
providing other fiscal benefits, providing needed commercial
or social services, providing or improving needed
infrastructure, increasing, improving or preserving the stock
of housing affordable to low and moderate income
households, eliminating physical or economic blight, and
contributing to the economic vitality of the neighborhood.

-13-

8.

Other factors, as the City Administrator may deem


applicable.

D.
Following his or her evaluation of development proposals, the City
Administrator shall make his or her recommendations as to the proposed
development and the terms and conditions of the proposed development to the
City Council. The City Council may evaluate the City Administrator's
recommended development proposal and any other proposals based on the
considerations set forth above.
E.
Per the City Charter, any such approval of a lease (longer than one
year) or a sale of the property requires a Council ordinance.
2.42.180

Disposition price.

A.
The real property may be disposed of either at its fair market value,
fair rental value, or at its fair reuse value, based on the City's assessment of the
proposed development and use, prevailing market conditions and development
climate at the time of disposition, and other economic and noneconomic factors.,
The City Administrator shall complete an analysis of the property's fair market
value, fair rental value, or fair reuse value, as applicable, in determining an
appropriate disposition price.
B.
The ordinance authorizing the disposition of the real property shall
include either a finding that the property is being conveyed at its fair market value
or fair rental value; or, if the property is being conveyed for less than fair market
value or fair rental value, a finding that the property is being conveyed at its fair
reuse value with the reasons for the below-market conveyance.
C.
The City shall comply with the procedures set forth in California
Government Code Sections 52201, et seq., and California Government Code
Sections 53083, et seq., to the extent applicable to the disposition of the real
property for development.
D.
If the property is being conveyed at less than fair market value or
fair rental value, all City employment and contracting programs pertaining to
subsidized projects shall apply.
2.42.190

Agreements to Effectuate Intent of Negotiated Development.

A.
Any disposition of real property pursuant to this article shall be
conditioned on the development and use of the property as negotiated. The City
and the purchaser shall enter into a disposition and development agreement,
lease disposition or development agreement, or similar agreement governing the
transaction. Such agreement shall set forth the terms and conditions of the
disposition of the property, the obligations of the purchaser to develop the
agreed-upon project, and any long-term restrictions on the use of the property.

-14-

The agreement may contain covenants or conditions running with the land, and
may include rights of reverter, repurchase rights, termination rights, or other
provisions securing the satisfactory performance of development covenants and
other purchaser obligations.
B.
The City Administrator is authorized to negotiate and execute
agreements and to take whatever other action is necessary with respect to the
approved development. The City Attorney shall review and approve all
documents and agreements related to the transaction as to form and legality, and
a copy Shalt be placed on file with the City Clerk.
Article V
Special Licenses and Leases
2.42.200

Parking licenses in the Central District.

A.
Pursuant to Section 219(6) of the City Charter, the City
Administrator or his or her designee is authorized, in his or her discretion, to
grant licenses for parking facilities owned by the City in the Central District .
Redevelopment Project Area, subject to the limitations set forth below. The City
Administrator or his or her designee is delegated the full and complete authority
to enter into agreements, without further specific City Council action, as needed
to grant such licenses, and to conduct related activities consistent with the
purposes of this section.
B.
The above delegation of authority is subject to the following
parameters:
1.

The authority to grant licenses under this section is restricted


to a cumulative maximum of 200 spaces per licensee;

2.

Licenses must be at the prevailing market rate, as


determined by the City Administrator or his or her designee;

3.

Licenses may not be assignable by the licensee;

4.

The City may retain the option to change the assigned


parking facility;

5.

The maximum term of any license agreement may not


exceed ten years with two five-year extensions at licensee's
option; and

6.

The license must be revocable by the City for just cause.

Any City license agreements exceeding one year that do not conform to
these parameters must be approved by the City Council. In addition, parking

-15-

licenses granted pursuant to disposition and development agreements shall


continue to be subject to Council approval.
C.
The Council finds and determines that, because of the unique
nature of the parking licenses and the need to expedite the process for approving
the use of City real property in order to serve the City's business retention and
attraction goals and to maximized revenue, it is in the best interests of the City
not to require competitive bidding for the use of City property for parking licenses.
Therefore, the provisions of this chapter related to competitive process for
leasing or licensing real property shall not be applicable to the licensing of City
parking spaces under this section. All procedural requirements in other sections
of the chapter are hereby superseded in favor of the requirements of this section
with respect to the licensing of City parking spaces under this section.
D.
All licenses and other agreements entered into pursuant to this
section shall be reviewed and approved by the Office of the City Attorney prior to
City execution.
2.42.210

Telecommunications leases and licenses.

A.
Pursuant to Section 219(6) of the City Charter, the City
Administrator or his or her designee is authorized, in his or her discretion, to
grant licenses, enter into leases, or convey easements with respect to any real
property owned by the City, or any real property in which the City holds a
property interest, for use as a telecommunications facility. Said use must be
consistent with the standards and requirements set forth in Ordinance No. 11904
C.M.S. and the Oakland Planning Code with respect to telecommunications
facilities, as well as state and federal law governing these uses. The City
Administrator or his or her designee is granted the full and complete authority to
enter into agreements, without further specific City Council action, as needed to
lease, convey easements, or grant licenses with respect to City property for use
as telecommunications facilities consistent with this section, and to conduct
related activities consistent with the purposes of this section. Any lease, license
or grant of easement of City property for a telecommunications facility must be
for an amount at least equal to the market value of the interest conveyed, as
determined by the City Administrator or his or her designee.
B.
The City Administrator or his or her designee shall submit annual
reports to the City Council on City real property that has been leased, licensed,
or conveyed for telecommunications facilities pursuant to this section.
C.
The Council finds and determines that, because of the unique
nature of the siting of telecommunications facilities and the need to expedite the
process for approving the use of City real property in order to encourage the
growth of the telecommunications industry in Oakland, and because the Oakland
Planning Code includes detailed standards regulating this use to protect public
health, safety, and welfare, it is in the best interests of the City not to require
competitive bidding for the use of City property for telecommunications facilities.
-16-

Therefore, the provisions of this chapter related to competitive process for


leasing or licensing real property shall not be applicable to the lease, license or
conveyance of easements with respect to City real property (whether surplus or
non-surplus) for telecommunications facilities. All procedural requirements in
other sections of the chapter are hereby superseded in favor of the requirements
of this section with respect to the lease, license or conveyance of easements for
telecommunications facilities.
D.
All leases, licenses, deeds, and other agreements entered into
pursuant to this section shall be reviewed and approved by the Office of the City
Attorney prior to City execution.
E.
The scope of this section shall be limited solely to the use of City
property for the siting of telecommunications equipment, and shall not govern the
use of City property for office or other uses, even if those uses may be
associated with telecommunications activities.
2.42.220

Headstart leases.

A.
The City Administrator or his or her designee is authorized to
negotiate and execute all documents required to enter into lease agreements for
the Head Start and Even Start programs, including without limitation leases for
terms greater than one year, provided that the necessary federal funds have
been awarded and appropriated and are available to cover lease expenses and
other related costs.
B.
The City Administrator or his or her designee, for unforeseen
contingencies, is authorized to modify, make changes to, or amend said leases,
provide that any additional cost thereof is covered by appropriated funds.
2.42.230

City Administration Building Complex leases.

'

A.
The City Administrator or his or her designee is authorized to
negotiate and execute tenant leases for space in the City Administration Building
Complex. The City Administrator or his or her designee is granted the full and
complete authority to enter into agreements, without further specific City Council
action, as needed to lease said space and to conduct related activities consistent
with the purposes of this section.
B.
The City Administrator may only execute leases under this section
that fall within the following parameters:
1.

Applicable leases for the Dalziel Building and the Plaza


Building shall be in compliance with the Wetmore/Pardee
Relocation Agreement dated April 20, 1995.

2.

Minimum monthly triple net rent for non-Wetmore/Pardee


Relocation Agreement retail tenants in the Dalziel Building
-17-

shall be not less than $1.25 per square foot, excluding any
rent credits for tenant improvements.
3.

Minimum monthly triple net rent for retail tenants in the


Lionel J. Wilson Building, City Center West Garage, or Frank
H. Ogawa Plaza shall be not less than $1.25 per square foot,
excluding any rent credits for tenant improvements.

4.

Minimum monthly gross rent for office tenants in the Dalziel


Building shall be not less than $1.50 per square foot,
excluding any rent credits for tenant improvements and a
credit for possessory interest.

5.

Maximum tenant allowances for the Lionel J. Wilson


Building, City Center West Garage, or Frank H. Ogawa
Plaza retail spaces and Dalziel Building retail and office
spaces shall be $25.00 per square foot.

6.

Minimum lease term shall be three years for retail and office
spaces, unless the City Administrator determines that it
would be in the best interests of the City to enter into monthto-month leases for certain spaces.

SECTION 4. Chapter 2.43 is hereby added to the Oakland Municipal Code to


read as follows:
Chapter 2.43
GRANT OF PUBLIC UTILITY FRANCHISES
2.43.010

Public utility franchises.

No person, firm or corporation shall exercise any franchise permit or


privilege mentioned in this chapter, except insofar as he or it may be entitled to
do so by direct authority of the Constitution of the State of California or the
Constitution or laws of the United States, in, upon, over, under or along any
public place in the City of Oakland, unless he, she or it shall have obtained a
grant therefor in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and of the
applicable provisions of the Charter. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to
invalidate any lawful franchise heretofore granted, nor to necessitate the
obtaining of a new franchise for a use for which a franchise holder shall have a
valid unexpired franchise.
2.43.020

Scope of chapter.

Except insofar as he, she or it may be entitled to do so by direct authority


of the Constitution of California, or of the Constitution or laws of the United

-18-

States, no person, firm or corporation shall exercise any privilege enumerated in


this section unless he, she, or it shall have been granted an appropriate franchise
therefor by the City of Oakland, namely:
(1)

Construct, maintain or operate a street, interurban, underground, or


elevated steam or commercial railroad, or other system for
/^transporting or conveying passengers or freight (including any
appurtenances which are a part of the system) over a fixed route,
along, upon, over, in, under or across any public place in the City of
Oakland.

(2)

Construct, maintain or operate pipes, tubes or conduits along,


upon, over, in, under or across any public place in the City of
Oakland for the purpose of transmitting or distributing water, gas,
steam, oil, air or other substance or utility.

(3)

Erect, construct, lay, maintain or operate poles, pipes, conduits,


wires, cables, or appurtenances, upon, over, under, in, across or
along any public place in the City of Oakland for the purpose of
transmitting or distributing, power, heat, electricity or electric
energy, or for communication by telephone, telegraph, or other
system.

(4)

Construct, maintain or operate any other plants or systems


necessary or convenient for furnishing the City and its inhabitants
with transportation, communication, water, light, power or other
public utility service, upon, over, in, across, or along any public
place in the City of Oakland.

The term "public place" as used in this chapter shall be deemed to include
any street, lane, alley, court or other public place in the City.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require motor, contract or
other carriers of freight or passengers not operating over a fixed route to obtain
franchises for use of any public place of the City.
Nor shall anything in this chapter be construed to invalidate any lawful
franchise heretofore granted, nor necessitate the obtaining of a new franchise for
a use for which a franchise holder shall have a valid unexpired franchise.
Notwithstanding the above, this chapter shall not apply to (1) leases or
licenses of City public space, including without limitation telecommunications
leases and licenses (said leases and licenses are governed by Chapter 2.42), (2)
state video service franchises (said franchises are governed by Chapter 5.17), or
(3) any franchise in which the City's authority to grant or regulate the franchise is,
preempted by state or federal law.

-19-

2.43.030

Grant of franchises.

Pursuant to its constitutional, charter and statutory authority, the Council


of the City of Oakland may grant franchises and privileges for all of the purposes
enumerated in Sections 2.43.010 and 2.43.020 of this chapter to persons, firms,
and corporations, whether operating under any existing franchise or not, upon
such terms and conditions as are in the applicable provisions of the Charter, of
this chapter and of any supplementary ordinances provided, and may in such
franchises impose such other and additional terms and conditions not in conflict
with said Charter or ordinances, whether governmental or contractual in
character, as in the judgment of said Council are in the public interest.
2.43.040

Consideration.

No franchise shall be granted without reserving to the City adequate


consideration for the privilege conferred.
No franchise shall be deemed to grant the right to install public utility
facilities in any public park or playground unless the franchise ordinance
expressly so provides.
2.43.050

Application.

An applicant for any franchise above mentioned shall file with the Council
a verified application which shall state: (a) the name of the applicant, (b) the
purpose and term, whether definite or indeterminate, for which the franchise shall
be desired, (c) the amounts and/or percentages, if any, applicant, if granted the
franchise, will pay to the City during the life of such franchise, (d) any limitations
as to time, place or type of services proposed by applicant, and (e) any other
terms or conditions that applicant may desire, including surrender of existing
franchises, or parts, thereof, or claims to such franchises, or proposals to settle
any litigation or controversies between applicant and the City.
Franchise applications shall set forth such other information as the Council
may require.
2.43.060

Fee.

Every application for a franchise, permit or privilege shall be accompanied


by a cash deposit or not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500), or by a certified
check for said amount, payable to the City Treasurer and certified by some
responsible bank in the City of Oakland as a fund out of which to pay all
expenses connected with such application. The deposit of the applicant shall be
retained until the acceptance of the franchise and the filling of any bond or other
security required or until the Council determines not to grant the franchise,
whereupon the remainder, if any, of the $500 after the payment therefrom of all
expensed incurred by the City in connection with the advertising, engineering.

-20-

clerical work and awarding of such franchise privilege or permit, shall be


returned.
2.43.070

Bidding.

The City Council may grant a franchise by ordinance without taking bids or
may, in its discretion, advertise for bids for the sale of a franchise after notice ,
inviting bids therefore upon a basis, not in conflict with the provisions of the
Charter, to be set out in advertisements for bids and notice of sale, provided that
no bidding shall be had or required upon any renewal of a franchise, surrender of
existing franchise or parts thereof, or in settlement of litigation between the
grantee and the City.
2.43.080

Transportation franchises.

Every franchise granted a transportation company shall specify the area in


which the grantee shall operate, the public places or routes to be followed by the
tracks or vehicles of the grantee-which area, public places and routes shall be
subject to the lawful orders of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of ^
California.
The franchise may also provide for the changing of such routes or for
alternate routes, provided such change or alternate routes shall be subject to the
lawful orders of said Public Utilities Commission.
2.43.090

Bonds.

The Council may require the grantee of any franchise to provide such
bond or other security as it deems the public interest requires.
2.43.100

City Administrator recommendations.

Every application made to the Council for a franchise, privilege or permit


mentioned in this chapter shall before any action is taken thereon, be referred by
the Council to the City Administrator and the City Attorney for their respective
recommendations.
Before making his or her recommendation to the Council, the City
Administrator shall obtain the recommendations of the Superintendent of Streets,
the Planning Engineer and the Traffic Engineer.
If, in the judgment of the City Administrator, the franchise permit or
privilege applied for should not be advertised for sale or granted, he or she shall
so report stating the reasons therefor; and if, in his or her judgment, such
franchise, permit or privilege should be granted, he or she shall recommend the
terms and conditions upon which the same should be granted.

-21-

2.43.110

Resolution and notice.

Upon receipt of the City Administrator's recommendation, the Council may


pass a resolution declaring its intention to grant the franchise, stating the
character of the same setting forth a notice of the day, hour and place when and
where any and all persons having any objection to the granting thereof may
appear before the Council and be heard thereon, and directing the City Clerk to
publish said notice in the official newspaper at least once within fifteen (15) days
after the passage of said resolution. The time fixed for such hearing shall be not
less than twenty (20) nor more than sixty (60) days after the date of the passage
of said resolution.
Such notices shall state the name of the applicant, the character of the
franchise, its term, whether definite or indeterminate, the amounts and or
percentages, if any, grantee shall pay to the City during the life of such franchise,
any limitations as to time, place or type of service proposed, the amount and
character of any bond or other security required, together with an outline of the
other major provisions of the proposed franchise.
2.43.120

Hearing.

At any time not later than the hour set for the hearing of objections, any
person interested may make written protest stating objections against the
granting of such franchise.. Such protest must be signed by the protestant and
be delivered to the City Clerk. At the time set for the hearing objections the
Council shall proceed to hear and pass upon all protest so made and its decision
shall be final and conclusive. The Council may adjourn said hearing from time to
time.
If no protest in writing shall have been delivered to the Clerk up to the hour
set for hearing, or such protests as shall have been filed shall have been heard
and determined by the legislative body to be insufficient or shall have been
overruled or denied, the Council may grant such franchise. Such franchise shall
be granted by ordinance adopted in the manner prescribed by the Charter for the
enactment of franchise ordinances.
2.43.130

Transfer.

No franchise, permit or privilege granted by the City shall be, in whole or in


part, leased, assigned or othenwise disposed of, or transferred without the
express consent of the City given by ordinance, and no deadlines with any one
on the part of the City to require the performance of any act or payment or any
compensation of any one shall be deemed to operate as such consent; provided
that nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the grantee from the City of
such franchise, permit or privilege from including it in a mortgage or trust deed
without such express consent.

-22-

The grantee of any franchise granted pursuant hereto shall (a) construct,
install and maintain all tracks, pipes, tubes, conduits, poles, wires,
instrumentalities and appurtenances in accordance and in conformity with all of
the lawful ordinances, rules and regulations theretofore or thereafter adopted by
said Council in the exercise of its police powers and as to State Highways
subject to the provisions of general laws relating to the location and maintenance
of such facilities therein, (b) pay to the City on demand the, cost of all repairs to
public property made necessary by any operations of the grantee under such
franchise, (c) indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers and
employees from any and all liability for damages proximately resulting from any
operations under such franchise, and (d) make such reports and permit such
examination of its records as the franchise may require.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting the Council from
including in any ordinance granting any franchise, permit, or privilege such other
conditions or requirements not inconsistent with the provisions of the Charter as
the Council may desire to have so inserted.
2.43.140

Acceptance.

The grantee of any franchise granted under this chapter shall within ten
(10) days after the franchise is granted, file with the City Clerk a written ,
acceptance of the terms and conditions thereof and any bond or other security
required by the Council.
2.43.150

Emergency franchises.

^ When the Council shall find that an emergency exists and that public
convenience and necessity require it, a special permit may be granted to an
applicant for a franchise under this chapter to permit such applicant to proceed
with the relocation, extension, alteration or other change in existing facilities,
except repairs or maintenance changes, which relocation, extension, alteration or
other change in existing facilities by reason of such emergency should be made
before the securing of a franchise under this chapter is possible.
Such special permits shall only be granted to an applicant for a franchise
under this chapter, and after the filing of the application for a franchise as in this
chapter provided.
An application for a special permit shall be filed in writing with the Council
setting forth such information as will permit action thereon. Reference in said
application may be made to the application for a franchise for a description of the
proposed extension, alteration or other change in existing facilities.
All such special permits shall be granted under the express condition that
if a franchise under this chapter is not granted and accepted, all work done under
such special permit shall be removed immediately at applicant's expense and the
streets or alleys or other public places affected by such work shall be placed in
-23-

as good condition as before such work was done, all to the satisfaction of the
Superintendent of Streets.
The Council may require, as a condition to the granting of such special
permits, that a bond of a kind and in an amount determined by it shall be
furnished by applicant conditioned upon the faithful performance of the terms and
conditions of the permit and further conditioned that applicant shall prosecute
diligently to completion all work thereunder including removal work as
hereinbefore provided.
Applications for permits under this section shall be referred to the City
Attorney and the City Administrator in the manner provided in Section 2.43.100
hereof.

SECTION 5. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable, and if any clause,
sentence, paragraph, provision, or part of this Ordinance, or the application of this
Ordinance to any person, is held to be invalid, such holding shall not impair or
invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance. It is hereby declared to be the legislative
intent that this Ordinance would have been adopted had such provisions not been
included.
SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon
its passage as provided by Section 216 of the City Charter if adopted by at least six
members of the City Council, or upon the seventh day after final adoption if adopted by
fewer votes.
IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,

, 2014

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:


AYES - BROOKS, GALLO, GIBSON MCELHANEY, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, SCHAAF, AND
PRESIDENT KERNIGHAN
NOESABSENTABSTENTION ATTEST:

-24-

'
LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of
the City of Oakland, California

AN ORDINANCE UPDATING AND REVISING THE CITY'S REAL


PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND
DISPOSITION LAWS,
AND
CODIFYING SUCH LAWS INTO THE OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE

NOTICE

AND

DIGEST

This Ordinance adds Chapter 2.41 to the Oakland


Municipal Code updating, revising, and codifying existing
City ordinances governing the acquisition of real property
by the City by purchase or lease, Chapter 2.42 updating,
revising, and codifying existing City ordinances governing
the disposition of real property by the City by sale or
lease, and Chapter 2.43, updating, revising and codifying
the City's ordinance governing the grant of public utility
franchises^y the City.

^ X ^
iO

o
CM
CD

-25-

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Levitt, Zoe, Public Health, OOD


McElhaney, Lynette; Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid,
Larry; Kaplan, Rebecca
Davis M.D., Muntu, Public Health, OOD; City Clerk; Watkins-Tartt, Kimi, Public Health, OOD
Alameda County Public Health Dept Comments on East 12th St Remainder Parcel (Item #13)
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 5:09:02 PM
ACPHD Comments on E 12th Lake Merritt Blvd Apartments_Letter for 4 5 City Council mtgV2 (2).pdf

Dear Councilmembers,

Please accept the attached comments on behalf of Dr. Muntu Davis, Health Officer and Director for
the Alameda County Public Health Department, regarding the Development and Disposition
Agreement for the East 12 th Street Remainder Parcel (Item #13 on tonights City Council meeting
agenda).

Thank you for your consideration.

Zo Levitt
Local Policy Associate | Place Matters
Health Equity Policy and Planning | Office of the Director (OOD)
Alameda County Public Health Department
P: 510-268-4290 | F: 510-268-7012
1000 Broadway, 5th Floor | Oakland, CA 94607
zoe.levitt@acgov.org | www.acphd.org | www.facebook.com/PlaceMattersAC

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Oakland Heritage Alliance


Kalb, Dan
Budget News Update for Lake Merritt, Letters of Support for Maintenance Fund for Lake Merritt Improvements
needed!
Thursday, April 30, 2015 2:22:35 PM

Oakland Heritage Alliance


Table of Contents
Sample Letter to Oakland City Council - Support of Land Sales Proceeds - Devoted to Lake Merritt
Maintenance Fund

LOVE
OAKLAND
HISTORY?
WANT TO
SUPPORT
OHA'S PUBLIC
EDUCATION
MISSION?
PURCHASE
A COPY OF
OAKLAND,
THE STORY
OF A CITY
TODAY!

Please
Send your letter or email
by the end of this week Friday, May 1, 2015
Oakland City Council
Hearing is on May 5th!
Thank you!

Dear Lake Merritt Supporters,


Thank you for your advocacy with the City Council
and the Mayor! We are beginning to have some
impact!

Here's the latest:


We have just heard that the Mayor plans to
propose to the Council that $400,000 per year be
allocated for each of the next two budget years,
for maintenance of the Measure DD Lake Merritt
improvements. While a positive step that we
appreciate, it is not the $1.3 million (25% of parcel
sale proceeds) that the Community & Economic
Development Committee voted for, nor the 50% we
asked for.
And, we can't be sure that any amount will stay in
the Mayor's budget unless it has councilmember
support. A "budget proposal" cannot take the place
of the 25% allocation. Our motto should be "25%, or
both!"
Please help us keep up the push for the full 25% of
the sales proceeds. Urge the councilmembers to set
aside assured, designated funds to supplement
existing maintenance funds for our much admired
DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
If you haven't sent a letter or an email,
now's the time to do it!
Please Urge City Councilmembers and Mayor Schaaf
to set aside funds for maintenance!
The Community and Development Committee of the City Council
recommended that 25% of the proceeds from selling the
"remainder parcel" on 12th Street be devoted to maintenance of

the Measure DD improvements. OHA was a key participant in


bringing about the transformation of the Lake and its park. Now
we must urge the full city council to set aside funds for
maintenance, which is not covered by the bond measure. Here's
a sample letter:

SAMPLE LETTER:
Dear Councilmember,
I am writing you as a member of Oakland Heritage Alliance. I urge the
Council to approve the the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's
CED Committee that 25% of the 12th Street "remainder parcel" land sale
proceeds be devoted to a fund for maintenance of Measure DD
improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open
space improvements around the city in decades. However, Measure DD's
capital funds cannot be used for maintenance and protection of the lake
improvements. With its greatly increased usage, the park needs more care
and maintenance than the current park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the realignment of roadway through
Measure DD's pedestrian, bicycle, and park visitor enhancements, now known
as Lake Merritt Boulevard. The CED Committee's recommendation deserves
your support. We urge you to include this recommendation in your action on
the remainder parcel.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
_________

Email Addresses for City Council:


Mayor Libby Schaaf
officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com
(510) 238-3141
District 1, Dan Kalb
(510) 238-7001
dkalb@oaklandnet.com
District 2, Councilmember Abel Guillen
(510)238-7002
aguillen@oaklandnet.com
District 3, City Council President Lynette McElhaney
(510) 238-7032
lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com
District 4, Ann Campbell-Washington
acampbell-washington@Oaklandnet.com
(510) 238-7042
District 5, Noel Gallo
ngallo@oaklandnet.com
510-238-7005
District 6, Desley Brooks

(510) 238-7006
dbrooks@oaklandnet.com
District 7, Larry Reid
(510) 238-7007
lreid@oaklandnet.com
Councilmember at-Large & Vice Mayor, Rebecca Kaplan
(510) 238-7008
atlarge@oaklandnet.com

Contact OHA
For information about Oakland Heritage Alliance events, please call the OHA office at 763-9218,
email info@oaklandheritage.org, or visit www.oaklandheritage.org
Sincerely,

Oakland Heritage Alliance


446 17th Street, Suite 301, Oakland, CA 94612

Forward email

This email was sent to dkalb@oaklandnet.com by info@oaklandheritage.org |


Update Profile/Email Address | Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe | Privacy Policy.

Oakland Heritage Alliance | 446 17th Street, Suite 301 | Oakland | CA | 94612

"''I'\
FILFD

....

. Tl~E c:l 1 Cl ~ "~


r L /':.:;,l=>

AGENDA REPORT

CJTYOF OAKlAND

TO:.

JOHN A. FLORES
INTERlM CITY ADMINISTRATOR

SUBJECT: DDA for 12th St Remainder Parcel


City Administrator
Approval

FROM: Mark Sawicki

DATE: February 27, 2015


Date

COUNCIL DISTRICT: # 2
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following legislation:
\

An Ordinance Authorizing: (1) The City Administrator, Without Returning To The City
Council, To Negotiate And Execute A Disposition And Development Agreement and
Related Documents Between The City of Oakland, And ':A Development Entity Comprised
OfUrbanCore Development, LLC and UDR, Inc., (Or Its Related Entities Or Affiliates)
For Sale Of The 12th Street Remainder Parcel Located At E12th Street And 2nd Avenue
For No Less Than $5.1 Million And Development As A Residential Mixed-Use Project, All
Of The Foregoing Documents To Be In A Form And Content Substantially In
Conformance With The Term Sheet Attached As Exhibit A; (2) Set-Aside Of No More
Than $500,000 From Land Sales Proceeds For Remediation of Property, And (3)
Appropriation of $200,000 From Land Sales Proceeds To Fund An Asset Portfolio
Management Plan
OUTCOME
The City Administrator is authorized, without returning to the City Council, to negotiate and
execute a Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA) that will allow: (a) the City to sell the
12th Street Remainder Parcel ("Property" or "Remainder Parcel") to an entity comprised of
tJrbanCore Development, LLC and UDR, Inc. (or its related entities or affiliates) (such entity
referred to collectively herein as "Developer" or "UrbanCore") for $5.1 million; (b) the
Developer to build a mixed-use residential high-rise tower on the Property as well as to provide
the landscaping and ongoing maintenance of the 0.91 acre City-owned open space/water
treatment basin adjacent to the Property; and, (c) a set aside ofup to $500,000 from the land sale
proceeds from this transaction be placed iii an escrow account to cover the possibility of
qualified environmental remediation work.

Item: - - - CED Committee


April14, 2015

John A. Flores, Interim City Administrator


Subject: DDA for 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Date: February 27, 2015

Page2

In addition, the City Administrator will be authorized to appropriate $200,000 from the land sale
proceeds of this transaction to fund the development of an Asset Portfolio Management Plan for
all City-owned real estate.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
UrbanCore's 18-month Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA), with the City expired on
January 2, 2015 and Project Implementation staff have substantially completed negotiations with
UrbanCore on the terms for a DDA.
Developer satisfied the requirements of the ENA, including working with staff to refine the
project proposal in response to community input and new zoning regulations that were adopted
as part of the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan; completing California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) review; completing market studies and determining project's financial feasibility; and,
identifying a capital partner and a guarantor entity that would execute a Completion Guaranty.
As of the writing of this report, Planning staff is working to schedule UrbanCore's project for
Planning Commission approval for entitlements & CEQA review on April1, 2015.
Pending Planning Commission's approval ofUrbanCore's proposed project, staff is seeking City
Council approval to execute a DDA with UrbanCore which includes: 1) the sale of the Cityowned 1ih Street Remainder Parcel at the appraised Fair Market Value of$5.1 million; and 2)
starting construction (within six months of receiving building permits) of a 24-story residential
apartment tower with a three-level podium base, including 298 residential units, approximately
2,000 square feet of ground level commercial space, 209 parking spaces and associated amenities
and improvements.
BACKGROUND/LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The 12th Street Remainder Parcel is owned by the City of Oakland. This 0.925 acre of land was
previously public right-of-way and was created jn 2011 as a result of the reconfiguration of 12th
Street that was a part of the City of Oakland's Lake Merritt Park Improvement/12th Street
Reconstruction Project which was funded by Measure DD.
The Remainder Parcel is bounded by E. 12th Street on the east, by 2nd Avenue & Oakland
Unified School District (OUSD) property on the south, by the newly created open space to the
west and by Lake Merritt Blvd to the north. The site is located within the Central District
Redevelopment Project Area and is immediately adjacent to the Central City East
Redevelopment Project Area. (See Attachment A: Parcel & Aerial Map)
The Redevelopment Agency acquired the Remainder Parcel from the City on June 16, 2011 for
$2.5 million for the purpose of controlling development of this key site through a DDA. The
price was based on a Fair Market Value Appraisal considering the highest and best use of the
Property based on the zoning and estimated parcel size existing at the time. In February of2012,
Item: - - - - CED Committee
April14, 2015

John A. Flores, Interim City Administrator


Subject: DDA for li" Street Remainder Parcel
Date: February 27, 2015

Page 3

with the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency, the Property was transferred to the Oakland
Redevelopment Successor Agency by operation of law.
In December 2012, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to those developers who had
shown interest in the Property. Staff received two proposals and established a selection
committee to evaluate the proposals and interview the two respondents to the RFP.
Then in July 2013, the City Council (Reso No. 84492 C.M.S.) authorized the City Administrator
to enter into an ENA with the selected respondent, UrbanCore-Integral Development, LLC for
the development of a high-rise residential tower on the Remainder Parcel. .
In August 2013 the Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency and the City received a City of
Oakland Redevelopment Agency Asset Transfer Review from the California State Controller,
commonly referred to as the "Clawback Report". This report, among other things, disallowed
the 2011 acquisition of the Property by the Agency and required the City to transfer the sales
proceeds for the Remainder Parcel back to the Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency.
Therefore, on April 7, 2014 the Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency transferred
ownership of the 1ih Street Remainder Parcel back to the City.
During the 18-month ENA period, UrbanCore worked diligently with staff to satisfy the
requirements of the ENA, including refining the project proposal in response to community
input, Planning staff input, new zoning regulations that were under development as part of the
Lake Merritt Station Area Plan (and later adopted by City Council in December 2014), changing
market conditions andJwhat is needed to make the project financially feasible. Community
stakeholders, includingmembers of the Measure DD Coalition, Coalition of Advocates for Lake
Merritt (CALM) and surrounding neighbors such as residents of 1200 Lakeshore (a residential
high-rise located across the street from the Remainder Parcel), participated in public meetings to
give input on the Developer's proposed development, including feedback on design and
increasing its compatibility with the existing neighborhood.
Also, UrbanCore successfully identified UDR, Inc. as their equity partner and the guarantor
entity who will execute a Completion Guaranty for the project. As of the writing pfthis report,
Plarniing staff is scheduling this project for the Planning Commission meeting on ~prill, 2015,
to seek planning entitlements, including the project's CEQA approval.

Item: - - - - CED Committee


April14, 2015

John A. Flores, Interim City Administrator


Subject: DDA for 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Date: February 27, 2015

Page4

Development Team
UrbanCore, who has been the lead developer to date 1, proposes to form a new Limited Liability
Company in a partnership with UDR, Inc. to acquire and develop the Property. UDR or an
affiliate intends to provide 97.5 percent of the equity needed during predevelopment and 100
percent of the equity to construct the project.
UDR, Inc. (NYSE:UDR), an S&P 400 Company, is a leading multifamily real estate investment
trust with a demonstrated performance history of delivering superior and dependable returns by
successfully managing, buying, selling, developing and redeveloping attractive real estate
properties in targeted U.S. markets. As of December 31, 2014, UDR owned or had an ownership
positon in 51,293apartment homes including 1,387homes tinder development.
The persons authorized to bind the new entity will include Mr. Donald D. MacKenzie from UDR
and Mr. Michael E. Johnson from UrbanCore. These two persons will be assisted by Ms. Kirsty
Greer from UDR.
The proposed ownership of the project will include a 97.5 percent interest forUDR and a 2.5
percent interest for UrbanCore. UDR will serve as the Managing Member of the LLC and
provide the required guarantees necessary to secure the project capital as needed. Both
companies will work together jointly throughout the predevelopment and construction phases,
and UDR will manage the marketing, leasing and property management of the Property.
The design team is a joint venture of AVRP Studios and Oakland-based Pyatok Architects. The
joint venture development team has not made a final selection of a General Contractor, but has
been working with three different contractors who have provided construction cost estimates,
and will continue to do so during pre-construction. Once the development team makes a final
selection of the General Contractor, they will advise the City and submit their experience and
financial information for City review.

The City's ENA was with UrbanCore-lntegral, LLC which was a partnership between UrbanCore
Development, LLC and The Integral Group, LLC. During the course of the ENA period, Integral dropped
out of the project while UrbanCore continued to satisfy the ENA's schedule of performance.

Item: - - - - CED Committee


April14, 2015

John A. Flores, Interim City Administrator


Subject: DDA for 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Date: February 27, 2015

The Project

Page 5

UrbanCore's proposed development project, also known as "LakeHoU:se Residences", is a 24story residential apartment tower with a 3-level podium base (one level below grade, two above
grade) with 209 parking stalls, 298 residential units, approximately 2,000 square feet of ground
level commercial space for a cafe with a terrace, and associated amenities and improvements:

A lobby and lounge area, on ground level (3,000 sf);

A recreation room and exercise room, on 3rd floor (approx. 2,000 sf);

A garden and plaza, on the 3rd floor (approx. 15,400 sf, above the garage);

A green roof, on the 6th floor (approx. 3,400 sf); .

A roofterrace, on the 8th floor (approx. 3,500 sf); and,

Off-site improvements involving enhancement of the adjacent City-owned open


space/water treatment basin (0.91 acres) with natural landscaping and providing ongoing
maintenance.

The 298 units will consist of a mix of unit types, including seven lofts, eight penthouse units, 113
studios, 110 one-bedroom units, and 60 two-bedroom units, which would range in size from
approximately 550 to 1,595 square feet.

(See Attachment B: Development Plans for UrbanCore's "LakeHouse Residences'J


ANALYSIS
DDATerms

,.
The general terms of a DDA for the Property have been substantially negotiated and key terms
include:
1. Appraised fair market price -An appraisal conducted by Yovino &Young determined the
as'"is Fair Market Value tobe $5.1 million and the highest and best use ofthe site to be a
multi-unit residential project that conforms to the new zoning regulations under the Lake
Merritt Station Area Plan. Developer will pay $5.1 million.
2. Easements on adjacent open space for construction and no-build to allow openings on
property line; maintenance of open space by Developer.
3. Environmental Remediation- City staff intends to sell Property in as-is condition and
does not believe, based on environmental assessment studies that have been conducted to

Item: - - - - CED Committee


April14, 2015

John A. Flores, Interim City Administrator


Subject: DDA for 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Date: February 27, 2015

Page 6

date 2, that the Property contains hazardous materials. However, a Phase I report
indicated some possible shallow soil contamination from automobile exhaust and a
gasoline service station that occupied a portion of the site that may have affected soil or
groundwater in such a way as to provide a concern for vapor intrusion into the new
development. So further study will be conducted by Developer.
Should a pending Phase II report discover a need for environmental remediation, staff has
proposed that an amount not to exceed $500,000 from the land sale proceeds be set-aside
in an escrow account for the project and released as the remediation work is completed.
4. Development schedule- Although a maximum of 48 months is allowed, including
purchasing the site and starting construction within 18 months of DDA execution (but no
later than six months of receiving building permits), construction is expected to begin as
early as Spring 2016.
5. Other typical DDA terms such as, completion guaranty, $50,000 good faith deposit,
repurchase option, etc ..
~ee Attachment

C: DDA Term Sheet for UrbanCore's "LakeHouse Residences'~

Closing Date and Completion Gauranty

Throughout the nearly 2 year negotiation period with UrbanCore, staff had consistently
requested UrbanCore commit to closing the transaction and purchasing the Property by June 30th
2015 because the revenues from this land sales transaction were already included in the City's
Fiscal Year 2013-15 Budget. UrbanCore agreed early on to meet this deadline, submitted audited
financial statements ofUDR to show availability of capital, and had been preparing to purchase
land by June 30th, 2015 once a DDA was executed.
However, because the City delayed the adoption of the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan and Final
EIR, the Developer's project schedule (CEQA review in particular) was impacted, and it became
more unlikely that UrbanCore could obtain building permits or enter into a construction contract
by June 30th, even though they expect to receive planning entitlements and had identified the
capital source to purchase the land by June 30th, 2015.
Additionally, the City Attorney's office advised that both the (former) Redevelopment Agency
and the City historically require a developer to have received its City approvals (e.g., Cityapproved evidence of financing, construction drawings, building permits, execution of a
2

Environmental studies inClude: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), by Adanta, dated 9/1/14
and several soils & geotechnical reports and an ESA developed for the E12th Street Reconstruction
Project, dating from 2006 to 2009

Item: - - - - CED Committee


April14, 2015

John A. Flores, Interim City Administrator


Subject: DDA for 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Date: February 27, 2015

Page 7

completion guaranty by a financially strong entity, etc.) before the City turns over its property to
a developer. Otherwise, the City would be transferring valuable public property to a private party
developer (which in all likelihood is a "shell" entity with little or no assets created solely to
execute the DDA) with no financial assurances that the project the City envisions will be built.
Therefore, because the Developer would not be able to execute a completion guaranty at close of
escrow ifthat occurred on or before Jup.e 30, 2015, staff negotiated a revision to the DDA's
schedule of performance so _that the close of escrow occurred after issuance of building permits,
which is the Developer's condition for agreeing to execute a completion guarantee. The closing
is now expected to happen as early as Spring 2016 or as late as Fall2016.
Payment and Performance Bond Requirement
UrbanCore has made a strong request to staff to waive a typical DDA requirement related to
payment and performance bonds, which states: "Developer to provide payment and performance
bonds in an amount not less than 100% of the project construction costs, pursuant to the
Developer-executed construction contract." After consulting with the City Attorney's office,
staff does not recommend this waiver.
Analysis o[Project Feasibility
Staffs analysis of Developer's proforma indicates that the project is feasible assuming a sale of
the property and rents increasing. This is consistent with recent studies commissioned by the
City that shQw high-rise developments are marginally feasible. The November 25, 2013
Downtown Oakland Development Feasibility Study prepared for the Planning & Building
Department by AECOM and the March 12,2014 update showed that high-rise housing was
feasible in the Uptown Area, but not in the Lake Merritt Area, although it was becoming more
feasible with increasing rents.
According to the Developer's latest proforma, the project has a 5.77 percent rate of return on cost
(ROC). According to Developer and appraiser, a ROC of 5.86 percent to 6.0 percent for the
Oakland market is what's needed for institutional investment funding for a project of this type
and size. Because ofUDR's REIT structure, UrbanCore and UDR negotiated a slightly lower'
acceptable ROC to move this transaction forward.
Therefore, reducing rents on the project will render the project infeasible. This means that the
City cannot attract affordable housing in high-rise developments without providing significant
public subsidies, which the City does not have, especially with1the dissolution of
Redevelopment. Even if the City did have public subsidies to offer, such as in the form of a land
write-down, a developer is likely to not prefer that option. This is because certain City
contracting and employment requirements, such as prevailing wage and living wage, would be
triggered and add to developer's costs.

Item:- - - - CED Committee


April14, 2015

John A. Flores, Interim City Administrator


Subject: DDA for 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Date: February 27, 2015

Page 8

In the case of the Remainder Parcel, Developer is not receiving any public subsidy and will be
paying the City the appraised Fair Market Value for the land.

(See Attachment E: Major Housing Projects in Oakland with Affordable Housing Since 2012)
Anticipated Economic Benefits to City

In addition to the initial $5.1 million revenue from the sale of the land and permit fees associated
with the development ofthis $137 million project, staffs assessment ofthe project's
employment and ongoing tax benefits to the City is as follows:

Jobs- 252 construction jobs; 14 full time employee (FTE) jobs post construction
Annual Property Tax- $650,000
Annual Sales Tax- $6,000
Annual Business License Tax- $165,000

POLICY ALTERNATIVES
Lease vs. Sale

The City Council adopted a resolution in December 2014 to establish a general policy to lease
rather than sell City property (Reso No. 85324 C.M.S.). Staffisrecommending a sale of the
Property as necessary to promote the City's economic development and housing goals. Attached
to this report is a chart setting forth the pros and cons of making an exception to the Council's
policy of preferring ground leases when disposing of City property.
Staff recommends an exception to the general policy be made for this Property based on the
following:

1. Staff and Developer reliance on prior council direction


The City issued an RFP in 2012 which ~xplicitly offered the Property for sale. Staff and
UrbanCore conducted good faith negotiations for over 18 months assuming a land sale
transaction based on the Property's highest and best use. The FY 2013-15 Budget,
approved by the City Council in June 2013, included $4 million in revenue from land
sales proceeds of the Property.

2. Potential inability to finance development


Developer is not prepared to ground lease the Property from the City. The capital
investor, UDR, that UrbanCore attracted to be its joint partner to finan,ce and develop the
project, operates under a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) ownership structure.
UDR's underwriting and joint venture development agreement with UrbanCore is based
Item: - - - - CED Committee
April14, 2015

John A. Flores, Interim City Administrator


Subject: DDA for 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Date: February 27, 2015 '

Page 9

on the land value assumption provided in the City's December 2014 appraisal. A change
in the project's financial model to accomm~date an on-going ground lease payment could
reduce the available cash flow return on equity. Even with reduced up front cost of no fee
for the land, the cash flow may be insufficient to provide the required return on
investment. Also as a long term institutional investor, UDR prefers to avoid the risk of
someday losing control of the building if it is unable to extend its ground lease.
Therefore, a change to a ground lease would require UDR to re-evaluate this investment
opportunity and could cause the project to be infeasible.
3. City investment in. a ground lease would be at the cost of City's immediate financial
needs

Table 1 below shows that the project after 66 years is worth $482.3 million, which irt
terms ofNet Present Value (NPV) is equivalent to $10.3 million today. Therefore, in the
structuring of any ground lease deal, the City would need to be prepared to make up this
$10.3 million loss to the Developer. For example, on a ground lease deal that terminates
in year 66, the City would need to give the land away for free and pay the Developer at
least $5.2 million in order for it to be worth it to the Developer to develop the project. But
under a land sale deal, the Developer would be willing to pay the City the appraised FMV
of $5.1 million to develop the project.
Table 1: Analysis ofNPV of Project on Leased Land vs Owned Land

difference in value for sale of property versus lease of property is calculated as the discounted value of the property at the

~-~- Y.'! -~ r Ie ~-~- e : )~ _e ..~..i-~-~g. ~.~--~.~~ t_e_ .~--~-~ -~---~-~ _s -~-~-~ ..~.~--~-~--- ~-~- .~.h"~ ~-~ P... ~-~-~-~ ..:.. ~~.:......:

For additional staff analysis on the pros and cons of lease vs. sale, see "Attachment D: Analysis
of Ground Lease Vs. Sale of the 12th Street RemainderParcel"
Asset Portfolio Management Plan
Real Estate Services Division, under the direction of the City Administrator, and in coordination
with the Finance Department and the Public Works Department, has investigated and determined
the need for an Asset Portfolio Management Plan for all City-owned real estate. In October
2014, City Council authorized $200,000 from the sale of3455 and 3461 Champion Street be
allocated to fund the Asset Portfolio Management Plan (Ordinance No. 13264 C.M.S.).
However, in the event the Champion Street transaction does not close, staff is now requesting
Item: - - - - CED Committee
April14, 2015

John A. Flores, Interim City Administrator


Subject: DDA for 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Date: February 27, 2015

Page 10

$200,000 of the sales proceeds of this transaction be used instead. The appropriation would fund
the development of this Plan, which involves hiring a 3rd party portfolio management firm to
assist in the drafting and impiementing of an asset portfolio management plan for City-owned
real estate.
'

PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST
UrbanCore hosted a public meeting on October 28, 2013 to present their initial proposed .
development and seek input. The Developer incorporated the feedback they received from that
meeting and followed up with a presentation at the November 18, 2013 meeting of the Measure
DD Coalition, a regular and broadly publicized meeting that is open to the public. Most recently,
Developer hosted a meeting on January 20, 2015 to present the latest version of their project's
description and design.
JAt each of the three public meetings, there were about 30 to 50 participants; about two weeks
prior to each meeting, announcement notices went out both by mail and by e-mail to key
community stakeholders, including the City's Lake Merritt Station Area Plan contacts list, and
both City Council District 2 and City Council District 3 contacts list. In addition, Developer
made themselves available to meet with various interested community stakeholders, when
requested. For example; a subcommittee ofthe Measure DD Coalition interested in the
development of the Remainder Parcel was formed to follow the project closely and provide
guidance and input on various topics including the project's design, community benefits and
environmental impacts,.especially wind and shadow. In fact, between September 2013 and
March 2014, the Remainder Parcel was a topic of discussion at the Measure DD Coalition
meetings for eight of those ten meetings.

Community Bene {its


1. Developer to enhance and maintain City-owned open space adjacent to Property
Early on and throughout this public engagement process, community members have
asked the Developer to be responsible for the landscaping and ongoing maintenance of
the newly created City-owned open space adjacent to the Remainder Parcel. The
Developer has been positively responsive to this request. The park design the Developer
presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee on February 11, 2015 was
infomied largely by a subcommittee of the Measure DD Coalition, who wished to
maintain Measure DD's intent for this park as passive open space~
In negotiating the DDA, Developer has agreed to: 1) design the adjacent open
space/water basin treatment center; 2) pay for enhancements to this open space; and, 3)
pay for ongoing maintenance of this open space in perpetuity. In exchange, the City
would convey an easement to this City open space as part of the sale of Remainder
Parcel. The open space's maintenance standards would be captured in the easement itself
as well as the DDA and related documents.

Item: _ _ _ __
CED Committee
April14, 2015

John A. Flores, Interim City Administrator


Subject: DDA for 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Date: February 27, 2015

Page 11

2. Preservation of existing rental stock


In response to concerns of affordable housing and tenants' rights interests represented by
community groups such as the Oakland Tenants Union, Developer agreed to restrict the
project from generating the 298 condo conversion credits that the project would normally
be entitled to under the current Condo Conversion Ordinance, in the event that Developer
chooses to condo-map the project and restrict the project's 298 units for rental use for a
minimum of seven years. In other words, if Developer had not agreed to this restriction
in the DDA, Developer could become owner of 298 "condo conversion credits" that then
could be sold on the open market to property owners/developers who need these credits
to convert existing rental stock, including rent-controlled rental stock, into condos.

COORDINATION
Staff from the Project Implementation Division and the Bureau of Planning have worked closely
witl'! UrbanCore to develop the proposed project to be consistent with the vision ofthe Lake
Merritt Station Area Plan and new zoning. The City's Measure DD staff has also been involved
and acted as a liaison to the Measure DD Coalition, a community group that helped to inform the
proposed landscaping of the City-owned open space adjacent to the Property, amongst other
things. Planning staff prepared the report to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee on
this proposed landscaping. Real Estate staff commissioned and reviewed the appraisal report.
Project Implementation Division staff coordinated this report with the Budget Office, the City
Attorney's Office and the Controller's Bureau.
OUSD owns a three acre development site adjacent to the Property, to the south. Project
Implementation staff followed OUSD's 2014 Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process for
development ofthat site; UrbanCore was one of four respondents to the OUSD RFQ. Even
though the School Board decided to put the RFQ process on hold and not move forward on
selecting a developer until OUSD staff conducted more community engagement on the site's
development potential, both UrbanCore and Project Implementation staff continue to monitor
this neighboring development site.

COST SUMMARY/IMPLICATIONS
The land sale proceeds totaling up to $5.1 million will be deposited in the General Purpose Fund
(1 01 0), Real Estate Services Organization (85231 ), Sale of Land (48111 ), Non-Project
(0000000), Real Estate Program(PS32).
An Environmental Remediation Allowance not to exceed $500,000 of the land sale proceeds will
be set aside in escrow. The exact amount will be negotiated based on findings of a Phase II
report and released directly to Developer as the remediation work is completed. Any Allowance
amount remaining after remediation work is complete will be deposited into the above named
account.

Item: - - - - CED Committee


April14, 2015

John A. Flores, Interim City Administrator


Subject: DDA for 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Date: February 27, 2015

Page 12

$200,000 ofthe land sale proceeds from this transaction will be appropriated to fund the
development of an Asset Portfolio Management Plan for all City-owned real estate, to be
managed by the Real Estate Services Division. The funds will be appropriated in the General
Purpose Fund (1010), Real Estate Division (85231), Contract Contingency (54011), and Real
Estate (PS32). The exact project number is to-be-established.
Developer has agreed to pay for all escrow fees and closing costs, including, without limitation,
City and county transfer taxes.
Pursuant to the ENA, UrbanCore has been solely responsible for all costs associated with
developing the project to date, including paying for market studies, architectural designs, legal
counsel, CEQA consultant study, the environmental Phase I and Phase II reports, etc .. Also, the
City used UrbanCore's Project Expense Payment for the ENA to pay for the City's third party
expenses related to the project including appraisal report, economic consultant services, and
creation of final parcel map.
FISCAL/POLICY ALIGNMENT
UrbanCore's proposed project is consistent with the zoning and vision of the Lake Merritt
Station Area Plan adopted by City Council in December 2014. The Property is considered an
ideal development site for an iconic, high density residential high rise with ground floor retail
and has been identified as a Primary Gateway Opportunity Site in the Specific Plan.
Sale of the Remainder Parcel at FMV would be consistent with the FY 2013-15 Budget,
approved by the City Council in June 2013, which included $4 million in revenue from land
sales proceeds.
SUSTAINABLE. OPPORTUNITIES

Economic: The sale to UrbanCore would generate land sale proceeds of $5.1 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 construction 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 $650,000 in annual property taxes, $6,000 in annual sales tax
and $165,000 in annual business license tax. Commencement of a new high rise construction in
Oakland is likely to precipitate further developer interest and investment.
Environmental: As an infill project that develops in an already built-up area, this project reduces
the pressure to construct on agricultural and other undeveloped land, and thereby contributes to
the prevention of urban sprawl. The location of the project in proximity to major public
transportation nodes will likely encourage project residents and retail customers to use BART
Item: - - - - CED Committee
April14, 2015

John A. Flores, Interim City Administrator


Subject: DDA for 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Date: February 27, 2015

Page 13

and AC Transit. The project proposes to incorporate green building and energy efficient
components both during construction and occupancy, such as a green roof, a solar thermal
system and a waste management system to facilitate recycling. The Bureau of Planning's
Conditions of Approval for this project include requirements for pro-environmental plans be
incorporated prior to issuance of a building permit, such as a Parking and Transportation
Demand Management Plan, a Bird Collision Reduction Plan, and a Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Plan.

Social Equity: During the 18-month ENA period, UrbanCore engaged in an active community
participation process that involved a variety of stakeholders so that the project could be informed
by a wide-range of voices. Specific community benefits from this project include the Developer
agreeing to landscape and to maintain the City-owned open space adjacent to the Property and
agreeing to restrict the project from generating condo conversion credits. The cafe to be added to
the ground floor of the project will be an amenity for nearby Lake Merritt users as well as the
public in general. Finally, the residents that will be attracted to live in this high density project
will contribute to Oakland's economic diversity and the demand that is needed to support
Oakland's growing economy.
Some affordable housing advocates have asked for some of the land sales proceeds to go toward
a fund for affordable housing. Measure DD Coalition members have asked for some of the land
sales proceeds to go toward a maintenance fund dedicated to the Measure DD-funded park
improvements.

Item: - - - - CED Committee


April14, 2015

John A. Flores, Interim City Administrator


Subject: DDA for 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Date: February 27, 2015

Page 14

CEQA
The project is expected to be approved by the Planning Commission on April1, 2015. The
anticipated environmental effects of the project have been. evaluated by the Lake Merritt Station
Area Plan Final Environmental Impact Report certified November 2014. The project is also
Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines: In-Fill Development
Projects; Section 15183 of the State CEQA Guidelines: Projects consistent with a Community
Plan, General Plan or Zoning; and Section 15183.3 (Streamlining for Infill Projects). These
analyses and exemptions satisfy CEQA requirements on a separate and independent basis.
A detailed CEQA analysis of the project is contained as Attachment B to staffs report to the
Planning Commission on March 18, 2015 3
For questions regarding this report, please contact Hui-Chang Li, Urban Economic Analyst II at
(510) 238-6239 ..

Respectfully submitted,

~==Mark Sawicki
Director, Economic & Workforce Development
Department
Reviewed by:
Patrick Lane, Acting Manager
Project Implementation Division
Prepared by:
Hui-Chang Li, Urban Economic Analyst II
Project Implementation Division

To view the "Final Lake Merritt Boulevard Apartments Project Environmental Review" report dated
February 25, 2015, visit the City's Planning Commission website:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PBN/OurOrganization/PianningZoning/o/Commissions/index.
htm; or visit the Bureau of Planning at 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 to request a
hard copy of the report.

Item: - - - - CED Committee


April14, 2015

John A. Flores, Interim City Administrator


Subject: DDA for 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Date: February 27, 2015

Page 15

Attachments
Attachment A. Parcel & Aerial Maps for 12th Street Remainder.Parcel
Attachment B. Development Plans for UrbanCore's "Lak:eHouse Residences"
Attachment C. DDA Term Sheet for UrbanCore's "Lak:eHouse Residences"
Attachment D. Analysis of Ground Lease Vs. Sale of the 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Attachment E: Major Housing Projects in Oakland with Affordable Housing Since 2012

Item: - - - - CED Committee


April14, 2015

Attachment A: Parcel & Aerial Maps, 12th Street Remainder Parcel

This illustration is an excerpt from the recorded parcel map. The property contains a total of
0.925 acres, or 40,271 square feet.
The Property consists of a single parcel as illustrated below. Since the Property (and boundaries)
have been defined relatively recently, there is no established street address to date.
The Property is gently downsloping from east to west, and at grade with the street frontages. It
fronts on East 12th Street for 305 feet, and on 2n~ Avenue for 73 feet. The westerly site
boundary is formed by a new City park constructed as part of the recently completed East 12th
Street Reconstruction Project. The southerly boundary is with the. former Oakland Unified
School District (OUSD) administration building, which fronts on East 1Oth Street and 2nd
Avenue.

- tf.i:iit'o?W ' !iii~' - B I 1 2

--- - - - - -

c;;

8 T R B B T

T H

I 'II
lPOlMI&.LY

----s----

VAlll&l
WAIBJNOTON

JT) (J)

I
Ill

:z:llo:
....
-Ill Oil

I>

<-

...

t::l "'

,...
.."'
X

:z:
OAKLAND IJN'f!ED

SCHOll. lllST!UCI

."'

/r- /' ,
0

~- .

_ . A-: ;-,B._N-VT_. . -U_.,. B~

11

.o

i1

STANO.IRQ CllY Of OAIMM> MONUMENT Ill AlONUMEIIT WeLl ( PER R06 231$

PROPERTYCORNER (OOT6E0

=~~~

- -- -- - ----- t.IONUI.IeNTLINE

- - - Olt.IENSIONLINE

--It- -

(I)

REFEAENCE I>NMOER

CENT11Ul

--~-- PllOI'EltTVLINE

. (FCflMERLY iiROC[ $1) j2)

1---~--------,

Attachment A: Parcel & Aerial Maps, 12th Street Remainder Parcel

1:: j
~

..
0

P"""""'
JI'BIT

280

1500

Remainder Parcel Boundary

Lake Merritt Station Area


Plan Boundary

Attachment A: Parcel & Aerial Maps, 12th Street Remainder Parcel

Attachment A: Parcel & Aerial Maps, 12th Street Remainder Parcel


\

Attachment B: Development Plans for UrbanCore's "LakeHouse Residences"

...:.

UrbanCore's proposed LakeHouse Residence is a 24-story residential apartment tower with a 3level podium base (one level below grade, two above grade) with 209 parking stalls, 298
residential units, approximately 1,500 square feet of ground level commercial space for a cafe
with a terrace, and associated amenities and improvements:

a lobby and lounge area, on ground level (3,000 sf)


a recreation room and exercise room, on 3rd fl (approx. 2,000 sf)
a garden and plaza, on the 3rd fl (approx. 15,400 sf, above the garage)
a green roof, on the 61h fl (approx. 3,400 sf)
a roof terrace, on the gth fl (approx. 3,500 sf)
off-site improvements that involve enhancement of the adjacent City-owned park (0.91
acre) with natural landscaping and its ongoing maintenance

Attachment B: Development Plans for UrbanCore's "LakeHouse Residences"

Attachment B: Development Plans for UrbanCore's "LakeHouse Residences"

Attachment B: Development Plans for UrbanCore's "LakeHouse Residences"

.I

J.,

ATTACHMENT

DDA TERM SHEET


"LAKEHOUSE RESIDENCES"
12 ST REMAINDER PARCEL

Note- This term sheet shall serve as the basis for the negotiations of a detailed final
disposition agreement between City staff and the developer. The terms hereof are not
binding on the City unless and until the Developer and the City Administrator, pursuant to
City Council authorization, have executed a mutually acceptable disposition agreement for
the proposed project.

2A

OWNER
DEVELOPER.

2B

GUARANTY

City of Oakland
UrbanCore Development, LLC, a California limited liability
company, or a to-be-formed limited liability company in which
an entity directly or indirectly controlled by UDR, Inc., a
Maryland corporation ("UDR"), and UrbanCore Development,
LLC, a California limited liability company, are members
("Developer")
Developer to provide City a Guaninty as part ofDDA. Developer
must be financially strong entity, and identify a guarantor entity,
with significant assets or capital commitments from its investors
to complete the Project, as approved by City in its sole and
absolute discretion.
'

PROPERTY

A "Form of Guaranty" will be included as an attachment to the


disposition agreement and will need to be executed by the
City-approved guarantor at close of escrow.
Approximately 0.92-acre of property located on the southeastern
edge ofthe Lake Merritt district in the City of Oakland, Alameda
County. The triangular parcel is generally bounded by Lake
Merritt Boulevard to the north, East 12th Street to the east, 2nd
Avenue and a vacant building formerly occupied by the Oakland
Unified School District (OUSD) to the south, and a recently
re-vegetated 0.91-acre City park/water treatment basin installed
as part of the East 12th Street Reconstruction Project and Lake
Merritt Channel to the west. Lake Merritt is located immediately
to the north of the site across Lake Merritt Boulevard.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A 21-story residential apartment tower over a 3-level podium


base, including 298 market-rate residential units, 2,000 square
feet of ground level market-rate commercial space, a minimum of
209 parking spaces, and associated amenities and improvements.
The proposed building would not exceed an overall height of275
feet, NOT including architectural and mechanical features that
extend above the roofline.

PURCHASE PRICE

TERMS OF
PAYMENT/CLOSING

DEPOSIT

REPURCHASE OPTION

$ 5,100,000, based on a Fair Market Value Final Appraisal Report


dated December 2014 considering the highest and best use of the
property
Purchase Price to be due and payable in cash submitted into
escrow 1 business day before close of escrow. Escrow to close in
accordance with the schedule of performance contained herein.
Within 5 business days after executing the DDA, Developer will
provide a $50,000 good faith deposit. Subject to the next
sentence, said good faith deposit shall be credited to the Purchase
Price at closing. If the Developer fails to close the purchase under
the DDA terms, unless extended in writing by the City, or for
reasons beyond the Developer's control (excepting financial
ability), or the Developer otherwise defaults on any obligation
under the disposition agreement, the City may exercise its option
to retain the Good Faith Deposit as liquidated darpages.
In addition to all other City remedies for Developer default, if
construction on the Project does not start within 30 days after
close of escrow or does not diligently continue construction
thereafter, or the Developer does not complete construction
within the time period required under the DDA (subject in each
case to extension for force majeure ), the City will have the option
to repurchase the Property for the original sale price (the .
"Option").
Citts Option is assignable or transferable in its sole and absolute
discretion.
There will be a 30 day notice and cure process for any such
default, and the cure period will be extended if the default cannot
reasonably be cured within such 30-day period and the Developer
has commenced and is proceeding diligently with efforts to cure
the default; subject, however, to an maximum cure date deadline
to be negotiated by the parties.
The City will execute and record such instruments as Developer
may reasonably request to terminate the Option, at such time as
the Option is no longer exercisaqle in accordance with its terms.

SCHEDULE OF
PERFORMANCE

l Schedule assumes (1) City Planning Commission approval of


[ Planning Application, including CEQA determination,
~ Conditional Use Permits, and other discretionary approvals on
; or about April1, 2015, (2) no appeal of the Planning
; Commission's approval is filed with the City Council, and (3)
l DDA term sheet is approved by the City Council by May 5,
l 2015. lfthe Project is subject to any appeal or subsequent
l challenge, the time periods below shall be tolled during the
l pendency of the appeal/challenge, subject to a maximum tolling
~ period to be negotiated between the parties.
: DDA Schedule of Performance

~#of months

:
:

:
:

!
:
:

~after

City
~ Council
~ approval of
1DDA
----1

). Developer submits 2 years of audited financial


statements for each prinCipal and joint venture
partner for City review and approval.

1 Resubmit
j updates prior to ~
~ close of escrow !
-

submits updated and refined Project ~Resubmit


f Developer
Proforma (Development Budget & Operating
~ updates prior to
Cash Flow) for City review and approval.
-~ close of escrow ~1Resubmit
~3. Developer submits Financial Plan, especially
evidence of funds/equity commitments for land ~ updates prior to i
acquisition for City review and approval ..
~ close of escrow ::

j<l. Developer submits "Construction


Pre-Application" and draft "Compliance
Matrix" to Bureau of Building
: _____________________.___,
;... _______________________________________________________________ ,;._

:6

:s.

Developer submits ''Construction Permit


Application" to Bureau of Building

: 12

k). Developer finalizes Project Financing:


construction financing (if construction of the
project will be financed with a construction
loan), and other sources (which may include
equity commitments from the investors in
Developer) and submits for City review and
approval.

! 15

(!. Developer submits approved Construction


Permits

:s.

:
:
:

----'

: 17
:1

Conveyance/Closing of Escrow, Execution of


Completion Guarantee

: 18

~. Commence Construction (within 30 days after

close of escrow)
l1 0. Complete Construction (30 month max.)

: 19
: 48

.,

10

OFF-SITE
IMPROVEMENTS

Developer to be responsible for the cost of off-site improvements


proposed to the existing stormwater retention basin/open space,
owned by the City (0.91 acres), located adjacent to the site.
Per the recommendations of Measure DD Coalition, CALM and
City staff (and pending approval by the Parks arid Recreation
Advisory Commission), these improvements will include the
installation of natural landscaping and will function as a passive
open green space consisting mostly of native plantings,
groundcover, shrubs and trees.

11

TITLE INSURANCE

12

CLOSING COSTS

13

LIMITATIONS ON
PROPERTY RIGHTS

Developer to secure title insurance policy, if desired, at its own


cost and expense. The issuance of a title insurance policy in favor
of Developer insuring that Developer is the owner of the fee
simple title to the Property, in form and substance acceptable to
Developer, ari.d subject only to exceptions that are acceptable to
Developer, and containing such endorsements as Developer may
require, shall be a condition precedent to Developer's obligations
to close on the acquisition of the Property under the DDA. .
Developer to pay all escrow fees and closing costs including,
without limitation, city and any other county taxes.
Without limiting Developer's title review contingencies,
Developer accepts and acknowledges the Property is subject to
deed restrictions and a recorded covenant to: 1) restrict use of
property to a residential mixed-use project with ground floor
commercial and associated building ~menities, and 2) restrict
property from generating "condo conversion rights".
Developer to comply with provisions of: 1) the Central District
Redevelopment Plan and nondiscrimination provisions of
redevelopment law and 2) the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan

14

CONDITION OF
PROPERTY AT
DELIVERY

Developer agrees to accept the Property "as is" in its current


condition without warranty express or implied by the City,
including without limitation, with respect to the presence of
hazardous materials known or unknown on or near the Property.
The soil stored on the site due to recent construction activities of
the City's Public Works Dept will be removed prior to
conveyance to Developer

15

ENVIRC>NMENTAL
REMEDIATION

Environmental Notice. The City hereby gives notice to the


Developer that, to the best of its knowledge and relying on
analysis performed by its environmental consultants, there are no
Hazardous Materials present on or beneath the Property other
than those set forth in those environmental site assessments
(ESA) and reports as follows:

Phase I ESA, by Adanta, dated 9/1/14


several soils & geotechnical reports by ESA developedfor
the E12th Street Reconstruction Project, dating from 2006
to 2009

However, depending on the findings of a pending Phase II report,


a not-to exceed-amount will be determined and set aside in
escrow for the purposes of reimbursing Developer during the
construction for qualified receipts related to environmental
remediation costs. For example, if dirty soil needs to be removed,
City will reimburse Developer for only the marginal difference
between the cost to remove soil and the cost to remove dirty soil.
16

INDEMNIFICATION

Developer shall agree to provide standard commercial hold


harmless and defend provisions to the City of Oakland and its
employees, officers, directors, shareholders, partners and agents.
City and Developer to negotiate the various levels of
indemnification and project stages as part of the DDA.

17

CITY MAINTENANCE

Upon Close of Escrow, Developer is responsible for all


maintenance within the Property.
City will convey one or more easements adjacent to the City open
space for an area to--be defined (i.e. temporary construction"
easement; and long term no-build easement, use easement, and
maintenance easement, including the outdoor terrace area shown
on the Developer's site plan which encroaches into the City open
space area) in consideration for Developer and/or subsequent
owner providing on-going maintenance of the open space or the
cost for ongoing maintenance of the open space in perpetuity.
Developer must provide a guarantor with significant financial
ability, as determined by City in its sole and absolute discretion,
to guarantee payment/reimbursement to City of "perpetual"
maintenance obligation.
Open space maintenance standards to be negotiated and captured
in easement itself which will be negotiated and agreed to between
the Developer and the City.
The groundcover will be low maintenance grasses and
wildflowers requiring mowing once or twice a year. Temporary
irrigation will be used for two or three years to establish the trees
and shrubs. All plantings will adhere to Bay friendly practices
and adhere to the State's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

18

NO COMMISSION

19

SIGNAGE

20

STANDARD OF
PROPERTY

21

CITY PROGRAMS &


COMMUNITY BENEFITS

22

PAYMENT&
PERFORMANCE BONDS

23

RIGHT OF ENTRY

24

FINANCING

25

STANDARD CONDITIONS

The parties shall hold each other harmless and defend against
any claims for commissions or brokerage ..
Developer may not install or place signage on any existing City
street outside the Property or in the public corridor. Developer
may install and place signage on the remaining Property in
compliance with City codes, or other applicable codes or
regulations.
Developer to maintain the Property and Project in first-class
condition and will ensure at no time does the Property violate the
City Blight Ordinance.
If (and only if) the Developer decides to pursue a project that
requires less than full market price for the land or includes some
other City subsidy -below market loan, tax credits, etc. -the
following City benefits would be required: labor peace
agreement, prevailing wages, living wages, local and small local
business, equal benefits, disabled access, and apprenticeship/job
training/first source hiring programs, and any other benefit which
a City statute requires by its terms applies to the Project.
Developer is not exempt from any other benefit or reql.}irement
imposed by any governmental entity other than the City.
Developer to provide payment and performance bonds in an
amount not less than 100% ofthe Project construction costs,
pursuant to the Developer-executed construction contract.
Developer to have the right to enter onto the property prior to
transfer to conduct any investigation, testing, appraisals and other
studies, at Developer's cost, required as part of its due diligence,
subject to providing the City with indemnity, insurance and other
reasonable conditions to entry.
DDA will include an objective standard (experience, size, etc.) of
what an "Approved Lender" is, subject to administrative
approval. The DDA shall include customary mortgagee
protections in favor of any Approved Lender.
DDA to include standard City conditions, including without
limitation, completion guaranty executed on or before the Closing
Date, and approval by City of fmancing plan, assignment and
transfer, amendments to project and project approvals, default,
notice and cure, and termination provisions, executed completion
guaranty from Developer, copies of all required regulatory
approvals, and insurance policies.

Attachment D: Analysis of Ground Lease Vs. Sale of the

12th

Street Remainder Parcel

--,

Below is a review of the pros and cons for ground lease and for sale of City property, based on the Agenda Report that accompanied Reso No.
85324 C.M.S., along with how those factors apply or do not apply in the case of the Remainder Parcel.

1. City retains
ownership of a
valuable City asset

By selling the parcel to a private


developer, the City forever loses all its
interest in the property, as opposed to
leasing it long term and having the
property revert back to the City for a new
future use or development.

1. Ongoing liability
for City

2.

By ground leasing, the City retains the


right to get back the property at the end of
the ground lease. In this case, the property
may well have appreciated considerably
over the ground lease term. The 'city,
rather than a private developer, would
then be the beneficiary of the property's
for the oublic benefit.
Landlords have considerable more
leverage to enforce lease provisions than a
seller has once the seller has actually
transferred its interest in land to a buyer.
Accordingly, the City could more easily
enforce community benefits, city policies
and monitor and enforce the tenant's lease
covenants and

2. Financing problems
for Developer

City realizes benefit


of property
appreciation

3. As Landlord, City
increases its ability to
oversee and enforce
City policy objectives

3. There is no downside
to the additional
leverage the landlord
has to enforce the lease.

By leasing the property, the City retains


potential landowner liability, including
environmental and tort issues. (However,
while not an absolute guarantee, these
risks typically can be covered by
requiring the ground tenant to obtain
appropriate insurance, and provide
warranties to the
A change to a ground lease would require
UDR to re-evaJuate this investment
opportunity and could cause the project
to be infeasible and/or slow development.

A sale, using a disposition and


development agreement (DDA), also
includes enforcement provisions
requiring the developer to comply with
City policies and objectives, although
these enforcement provisions are more
difficult to enforce and do not provide the
same enforcement leveral!e as a lease.

....

Attachment D: Analysis of Ground Lease Vs. Sale ofthe 12th Street Remainder Parcel

4. City preserves
increased flexibility
and potential
profitability from a
revenue stream

If the City desires a large upfront


payment, the City coufd require the tenant
to make a significant up front lease
payment, similar to a purchase price.

4. Because the City is retaining


its right to get back the property
at the end of the lease term and
thereby reserving to the City the
right to property appreciation
and ownership, the upfront rent
payment can approximate, but
not equal the amount the City
could get from a sale. The tradeoff from the lesser up-front rent
is the City's long-term right to
property appreciation by

5. Retaining Public
Property

By ground leasing the site to the


developer, the City would be retaining a
valuable future City property when the
lease term is up~

5. Potential for higher


infrastructure cost to City

6. Meeting the City's


Financial Goals

In general, sale ofland meets the City's


short term financial goals while ground
lease meets the City's long term financial
and public policy goals of maintaining
public property for the public.

6. Less marketable

7. City can enforce


Project Labor

Leasing provides greater legal


justification for enforcing a Project Labor

17.
-

No downside to this factor,


but a PLA is not

In terms of"Net Present Value",


the ongoing revenue stream from
this Project that the City can
receive through a likely ground
lease deal is worth less than a
payment upfront. The FMV
appraisal already assumed saie
of land for development of highdensity residential, so a new .
appraisal would be needed to
determine the FMV of land if it
is for lease. That amount will be
lower.
Because title to the land would
revert to the City when the lease
expires, in some, but not all,
cases developers legitimately
expect the City to pay more
for infrastructure costs.
Most developers in California
build projects as condominiums
so that they can sell the project
or the units when condominiums
are valued higher than rental
projects. Although
condominium projects can be
(and are) ground-leased in
certain cases, leasing to a
developer can reduce potential
profit and increase its risks.
City is not contemplating
requiring a Project Labor
on this deal.

Attachment D: Analysis of Ground Lease Vs. Sale ofthe 12th Street Remainder Parcel

1. Meeting the City's


short-term FinanCial
Goals

2. Faster
Development

$4 million of revenue from the sale ofthis


transaction was already budgeted in the
City's FY 2013-15 Budget.

Developer has been working on this project


for over two years and waiting on the City
Council to adopt the Lake Merritt Station
Area Plan and Final EIR. Developer is
ready to move quickly and will start
construction once the Planning Department
issues building permits. Commencement of
a new high rise construction in Oakland is
likely to precipitate the developer interest
and investment that Oakland is seeking to
attract.

1. Possible windfall to private


developer by permanently
transferring a valuable City
asset to private use

2.

City gives up its longer-term


right to keep the parcel as
public property, and the
City's right to future
property appreciation.

Developer is paying the FMV


for the land and is projecting to
meet the minimum returns on
investment required to attract the
capital/equity that is needed for a
development project of this size.
Developer will enhance and
maintain the adjacent open space
on behalf of the City that is
retained for public use.
Developer will also be giving up
298 "condo conversion credits"
that can be worth as much as
$20Keach.
The City's financi~ goal in FY
2013-15 is to receive $4 million
in revenue from land sale
proceeds. The Remainder Parcel
is the only property in the City's
control that can meet this goal.

ATTACHMENT E: MAJOR HOUSING PROJECTS IN OAKLAND WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING- COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS SINCE 2012

~I

3
4

5
6
7
8
9
10

~~~;-~~-~~~r:~~ ... --

I ;~

---. - -------.

---. -- ---- -----~-.

'-

Harrison Street Senior Housing

1633 Harrison Street

~~~~~- .. --~ ....,

l;~:~~;:~~~;,:..;~~<t

-~~-~-

' '- ~- '- .. -~ --

Christian Church Homes

Completed New Canst

---

--- -- - .. -- --

I ;~1-? I

11
12
13

~;I
16

~~~~;itt Crossings

...,.
Redwood Hill

-v

..

. ... -----

..

4856 Calaveras Ave

I__ -:_

. . __

--o

SAHA

1. . . -......

.. ,-

Planning

1......

I __ ._ I

..

17

18
191

20
21
22

- ....

................

- ..... ---

................

--

...... _. _____ .... ,........

'-

- .. _ ..

_,__

.. , -

updated March 2015


Note: Excluded from this list are those affordable housing projects completed with public subsidy for rehab (i.e. not new construction), such as the 136 units of CA Hotel and 106 units of the
Savoy; as well as "workforce housing" not relying on public subsidy or a City Regulatory Agreement, such as the 110 units of Coliseum Transit Village currently in planning by UrbanCore.

2015 MhR 3 I PM 12: ~ 1

Approved as to Form

Deputy City Attorney

ORDINANCE NO. - - - - - C.M.S.


AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING: (1) THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, WITHOUT
RETURNING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND RELATED
DOCUMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF OAKLAND, AND A DEVELOPMENT
ENTITY COMPRISED OF URBANCORE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, AND UDR, INC.,
(OR ITS RELATED ENTITIES OR AFFILIATES) FOR SALE OF THE 12TH
STREET REMAINDER PARCEL LOCATED AT E12TH STREET AND 2ND
AVENUE FOR NO LESS THAN $5.1 MILLION AND DEVELOPMENT AS A
RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE PROJECT, ALL OF THE FOREGOING
DOCUMENTS TO BE IN A FORM AND CONTENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN
CONFORMANCE WITH THE TERM SHEET ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A; (2)
SET-ASIDE OF NO MORE THAN $500,000 FROM LAND SALES PROCEEDS FOR
REMEDIATION OF PROPERTY, AND (3) APPROPRIATION OF $200,000 FROM
LAND SALES PROCEEDS TO FUND AN ASSET PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT
PLAN
WHEREAS, the City owns approximately 0.925 acres of property bounded by East 121h Street to
the east, Second A venue and property owned by the Oakland Unified School District to 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, disposition of the Property is governed by Chapter 2.42 of the Oakland Municipal
Code; and

WHEREAS, on December 21,2012, the City issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") to develop
the Property; and

WHEREAS, of the two proposals received in response to the RFP, the City's review panel
awarded the highest number of points to the proposal submitted by UrbanCore-Integral, LLC ("UCI");
and
WHEREAS, UCI was a partnership between UrbanCqre Development, LLC ("Urban Core") and
The Integral Group, LLC; and
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement in July 2013
("ENA") between the City and 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'') (Reso No.
84492 C.M.S.); and
WHEREAS, UrbanCore satisfied all the requirements of the ENA; and
WHEREAS, a December 2014 appraisal conducted by Yovino & Young concluded the as-is Fair
Market Value of the land is $5.1 million, considering the highest and best use of the Property to be a
multi-unit residential project that conforms to the new zoning regulations under the Lake Merritt Station
Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, UrbanCore is offering to pay $5.1 million for the Property; and
WHEREAS, UrbanCore proposes to build a 24-story residential apartment tower with a threelevel podium base, including approximately 298 residential units, approximately 2,000 square feet of
ground level commercial space, approximately 209 parking spaces and associated amenities and
improvements (the "Project") that conforms to the new zoning regulations under the Lake Merritt Station

Area Plan; and .


WHEREAS, UDR, Inc. is an S&P 400 Company and Real Estate Investment Trust ("REIT") with
a demonstrated performance history of delivering dependable returns by successfully managing, buying,
selling, developing and redeveloping attractive real estate properties in targeted U.S. markets; and
WHEREAS, UrbanCore proposes to form a new Limited Liability Company in a partnership with
UDR, Inc to acquire and develop the Property; and
WHEREAS, since the Property is being sold for development for a particular use to promote the
economic development, housing, environmental, and community development goals of the City, the
Property is not "surplus" property of the City; and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending a set-aside of no more than $500,000 from land sales
proceeds for remediation of Property, pending findings of a Phase II environmental investigation to
determine qualified remediation costs, if any; and

WHEREAS, Real Estate Services Division, under the direction of the City Administrator and in
coordination with the Finance Department and the Public Works Department, has identified the need to
develop an Asset Portfolio Management Plan for City-owned real estate, and is requesting that, unless
previously funded from the sale proceeds of 3455 and 3461 Champion Street pursuant to Ordinance No.
13264 C.M.S., the Council appropriate $200,000 from the sale proceeds ofthis Property transaction to
fund such Plan; and
WHEREAS, a Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") will set forth the terms and
conditions under which the City will sell the Property to the development entity comprised of UrbanCore
and UDR, Inc. (or its Related Entities or Affiliates; herein "Developer") and by which the Developer will
construct improvements to the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Resolution in December 2014 to establish a general
policy to lease rather than sell City property (Reso No. 85324 C.M.S.); and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending a sale of the Property instead of a ground lease in this case
because a sale is necessary to promote the economic development and housing goals of the City for the
reasons set forth in the Agenda Report for this item; now therefore
The Council ofthe City of Oakland does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds, pursuant to Resolutio~ No. 85324 C.M.S., that it is
in the best interests of the City to sell rather than lease the Property for the reasons described in the
Agenda Report for this item, and hereby authorizes the conveyance of the Property to the Developer
pursuant to the terms of the documents described in Section 6 hereof for the price of $5.1 million.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines, based on the appraisal
conducted by Yovino & Young, that the Property is being conveyed at its fair market value, and
that the City is not granting any economic development subsidy to the Project.
SECTION 3. The City Council authorizes the City Administrator to deposit land sales proceeds
in the General Purpose Fund ( 101 0), Real Estate Services Organization (85231 ), Sale of Land (48111 ),
Non-Project (0000000), Real Estate Program (PS32).
SECTION 4. The City Council authorizes the City Administrator to set-aside in escrow
no more than $500,000 from land sales proceeds for remediation of Property pursuant to the
terms ofthe DDA and to be released directly to Developer as remediation work is completed; any
amount remaining in escrow after remediation work is complete will be deposited in the General
Purpose Fund (1 01 0), Real Estate Services Organization (85231 ), Sale of Land (48111 ), NonProject (0000000), Real Estate Program (PS32).
SECTION 5. Unless previously funded from the sale proceeds of 3455 and 3461 Champion
Street pursuant to Ordinance No. 13264 C.M.S., the City Council authorizes the City Administrator to
appropriate $200,000 from this transaction's land sales proceeds to the City's Real Estate Services
Division (General Fund (1010), Real Estate Division (85231), Contract Contingency (54011), and Real

Estate (PS32)) to fund the development of an Asset Portfolio Management Plan for all City-owned real
estate.

SECTION 6. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Administrator or his/her designee,
without returning to the City Council, to negotiate and execute: (1) a Disposition and Development
Agreement and related documents with the Developer, for the sale and development of the Property, all of
the foregoing documents to be in a form and content substantially in conformance with the Term Sheet
attached as Exhibit A to this Ordinance; (2) grant deeds and any other agreements or documents as
necessary to convey the Property to the Developer; (3) such other additions, amendments or other
modifications to any of the foregoing documents that the City Administrator, in consultation with the City
Attorney's Office, determines are in the best interests of the City, do not materially increase the
obligations or liabilities of the City, and are necessary or advisable to complete the transactions
contemplated by this Ordinance, to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery by the City
Administrator of any such amendments; and (4) such other docu11;1ents as necessary or appropriate, in
consultation with the City Attorney's Office, to facilitate the sale and development of the Property in
order to consummate the transaction in accordance with this Ordinance, or to otherwise effectuate the
purpose and intent of this Ordinance and its basic purpose.
SECTION 7. The City Administrator, without returning to the City Council, shall determine
satisfaction of conditions precedent to the conveyance of the Property to the. Developer.
SECTION 8. All agreements associated with the Property and the Project shall be reviewed and
approved as to f<?rm and legality by the City Attorney's Office prior to execution by the City, and shall be
placed on file with the City Clerk.
SECTION 9. The City Council finds and determines that the anticipated environmental effects of
the project have been evaluated by the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
(Final EIR) (certified Novetpber 2014) and, as supported by substantial evidence in the record, no further
environmental review is required for sale of the Property and the development of the Project. As separate
and independent bases, the sale of Property and development of the Project are Categorically Exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA
Guidelines (in-fill exemption); Section 15183 ofthe State CEQA Guidelines (Projects consistent with a
Community Plan, General Plan or Zoning); and, Section 15183.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines
(Streamlining for Infill Projects).
SECTION 10. The City Administrator or his/her designee is hereby authorized to file a notice of
determination with the Office ofthe Alameda County Recorder and the State Office of Planning and
Research, and to take any other action necessary in furtherance of the Project, consistent with this
Ordinance and its basic purposes.
SECTION 11. The record before this Council relating to this Ordinance includes, without
limitation, the following:
A. All staff reports, decision letters and other documentation and information produced by or
on behalf of the City, including without limitation the Planning Commission Report and

all notices relating to this Ordinance and the DDA;


B. All oral and written evidence received by City staff and the City Council before and during
the consideration of this Ordinance, including without limitation the Planning Commission
consideration of general plan conformity; and
C. All matters of common knowledge and all official enactments and acts of the City, such as
(1) the General Plan; (2) the Oakland Municipal Code, without limitation, the Oakland real
estate regulations; (3) the Oakland Planning Code; (4) other applicable City policies and
regulations; and (5) all applicable state and federal laws, rules and regulations.

SECTION 12. The custodians and locations of the documents or other materials which constitute
the record of proceedings upon with the City Council's decision is based are respectively (a) the Project
Implementation Division, 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 5th Floor, Oakland, CA; (b) Planning and Building
Department, 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 3rd, Floor, Oakland, CA; and (c) the Office ofthe City Clerk, 1
Frank Ogawa Plaza, 1st Floor, Oakland, CA.

SECTION 13. The recitals contained in this Ordinance are true and correct and are an integral
part of the Council's decision.

SECTION 14. The Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage as
provided by Section 216 of the City Charter if adopted by at least six members of Council, or upon the
seventh day after final adoption if adopted by fewer votes.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.2015


PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES -BROOKS, CAMPBELL WASHINGTON, GALLO, GUILLEN, KALB, KAPLAN, REID, and
PRESIDENT GIBSON McELHANEY
NOESABSENTABSTENTION ATTEST: _ _-:---=---:-~----
LaTonda Simmons
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council
of the City of Oakland, California

EXHIBIT A
DDA TERM SHEET
"LAKEHOUSE RESIDENCES"
12TH ST REMAINDER PARCEL

Note- This term sheet shall serve as the basis for the negotiations of a detailed final
disposition agreement between City staff and the developer. The terms hereof are not
binding on the City unless and until the Developer and th~ City Administrator, pursuant to
City Council authorization, have executed a mutually acceptable disposition agreement for
the proposed project.

2A

OWNER
DEVELOPER

2B

GUARANTY

City of Oakland
UrbanCore Development,LLC, a California limited liability
company, or a to-be-formed limited liability company in which
an entity directly or indirectly controlled by UDR, Inc., a
Maryland corporation ("UDR"), and.UrbanCore Development,
LLC, a California limited liability company, are members
("Developer")
Developer to provide City a Guaranty as part ofDDA. Developer
must be financially strong entity, and identify a guarantor entity,
with significant assets or capital commitments from its investors
to complete the Project, as approved by City in its sole and
absolute discretion.
A "Form of Guaranty" will be included as an attachment to the
disposition agreement and will need to be executed by the
City-approved guarantor at close of escrow.
Approximately 0.92-acre of property located on the southeastern
edge of the Lake Merritt district in the City of Oakland, Alameda
County. The triangular parcel is generally bounded by Lake
Merritt Boulevard to the north, East 12th Street to the east, 2nd
A venue and a vacant building formerly occupied by the Oakland
Unified School District (OUSD) to the south, and a recently
re-vegetated 0~91-acre City park/water treatment basin installed
as part of the East 12th Street Reconstruction Project and Lake
Merritt Channel to the west. Lake Merritt is located immediately
to the north of the site across Lake Merritt Boulevard.

PROPERTY

(:.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A 21-story residential apartment tower over a 3-level podium


base, including 298 market-rate residential units, 2,000 square
feet of ground level market-rate commercial space, a minimum of
209 parking spaces, and associated amenities and improvements.
The proposed building would not exceed an overall height of275
feet, NOT including architectural and mechanical features that
extend above the roofline.

PURCHASE PRICE

TERMS OF
PAYMENT/CLOSING

DEPOSIT

REPURCHASE OPTION

$5,100,000, based on a Fair Market Value Final Appraisal Report


dated December 2014 considering the highest and best use of the
property
Purchase Price to be due and payable in cash submitted into
escrow 1 business day before close of escrow. Escrow to close in
accorda,nce with the schedule of performance contained herein.
Within 5 business days after executing the DDA, Developer will
provide a $50,000 good faith deposit. Subject to the next
sentence, said good faith deposit shall be credited to the Purchase
Price at closing. If the Developer fails to close the purchase under
the DDA terms, unless extended in writing by the City, or for
reasons beyond the Developer's control (excepting financial
ability), or the Developer otherwise defaults on any obligation
under the disposition agreement, the City may exercise its option
to retain the Good Faith Deposit as liquidated damages.
In addition to all other City remedies for Developer default, if
construction on the Project does not start within 30 days after
close of escrow or does not diligently continue construction
thereafter, or the Developer does not complete construction
within the time period required under the DDA (subject in each
case to extension for force majeure), the City will have the option
to repurchase the Property for the original sale price (the
"Option").
City's Option is assignable or transferable in its sole and absolute
discretic;m.
There will be a 30 day notice and cure process for any such
default, and the cure period will be extended if the default cannot
reasonably be cured within such 30-day period and the Developer
has commenced and is proceeding diligently with efforts to cure
the default; subject; however, to an maximum cure date deadline
to be negotiated by the parties.
The City will execute and record such instruments as Developer
may reasonably request to terminate the Option, at such time as
the Option is no longer exercisable in accordance with its terms.

S~hedule assumes (1) City Planning Commission approval of


Planning Application, including CEQA determination,
Conditional Use Permits, and other discretionary approvals on
:
or about April1, 2015, (2) no appeal of the Planning
Commission's approval is filed with the City Council, and (3) :
DDA term sheet is approved by the City Council by May 5,
:
2015. If the Project is subject to any appeal or subsequent
challenge, the time periods below shall be tolled during the
.
pendency of the appeal/challenge, subject to a maximuin tolling
period to be negotiated between the parties.
'

SCHEDULE OF
PERFORMANCE

DDA Schedule of Performance

# ofmonths

l after City
~ Council

j approval of
~

DDA
-l

). Developer submits 2 years of audited financial


statements for each principal and joint venture
partner for City review and approval.

~ Resubmit

) updates prior to
~ close of escrow

Developer submits updated and refined Project ~Resubmit


Proforma (Development Budget & Operating
~ updates prior to
Cash Flow) for City review and approval.
~ close of escrow

1 Resubmit
evidence of funds/equity commitments for land 1 updates prior to
\ close of escrow
acquisition for City review and approval..

). Developer submits Financial Plan, especially


:

4.

Developer submits "Construction


Pre-Application" and draft ."Compliance
Matrix" to Bureau of Building

~6

~5. Developer submits "Construction Permit

Application" to Bureau of Building

____,
:

: 12

115
.

!). Developer finalizes Project Financing:


construction fmancing (if construction of the
project will be financed with a construction
loan), and other sources (which may include
equity commitments from the investors in
Developer) and submits for City review and
approval.

;__----=---------------------------------------------:.-------------------------~

:
:

). Developer submits approved Construction


Permits

: 17

18. Conveyance/Closing of Escrow, Execution of


Completion Guarantee

118

......

~- Conimence Construction (within 30 days after


close of escrow)

! 19

~10. Complete Construction (30 month max.)

~ 48

10

Developer to be responsible for the cost of off-site improvements


proposed to the existing stormwater retention basin/open space,
owned by the City (0.91 acres), located adjacent to the site.

OFF-SITE
IMPROVEMENTS

11

TITLE INSURANCE

12

CLOSING COSTS

13

LIMITATIONS ON
PROPERTY RIGHTS

Per the recommendations of Measure DD Coalition, CALM and


City staff (and pending approval by the Parks and Recreation
.Advisory Commission), these improvements will include the
installation of natural landscaping and will function as a passive
open green space consisting mostly of native plantings,
groundcover, shrubs and trees:
Developer to secure title insurance policy, if desired, at its awn
cost and expense. The issuance of a title insurance policy in favor
of Developer insuring that Developer is .the owner of the fee
simple title to the Property, in form and substance acceptable to
Developer, and subject only to exceptions that are acceptable to
Developer, and containing such endorsements as Developer may
require, shall be a condition precedent to Developer's obligations
to close on the acquisition of the Property under the DDA. .
Developer to pay all escrow fees and closing costs including,
without limitation, city and any other county taxes.
Without limiting Developer's title review contingencies,
Developer accepts and acknowledges the Property is subject to
deed restrictions and a recorded covenant to: 1) restrict use of
property to a residential mixed-use project with ground floor
commercial and associated building amenities, and 2) restrict
property from generating "condo conversion rights".
Developer to comply with provisions of: 1) the Central District
Redevelopment Plan and nondiscrimination provisions of
redevelopment law and 2) the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan

14

CONDITION OF
PROPERTY AT
DELIVERY

Developer agrees to accept the Property "as is" in its current


condition without warranty express or implied by the City,
including without limitation, with respect to the presence of
hazardous materials known or unknown on or near the Property.
The soil stored on the site due to recent construction activities of
the City's Public Works Dept will be removed prior to
conveyance to Developer

15

ENVIRONMENTAL
REMEDIATION

'----

Environmental Notice. The City hereby gives notice to the


Developer that, to the best of its knowledge and relying on
analysis performed by its environmental consultants, there are no
Hazardous Materials present on or beneath the Property other
than those set forth in those environmental site assessments
(ESA) and reports as follows:

Phase I ESA, by Adanta, dated 911/14

several soils & geotechnical reports by ESA developed for


the E12th Street Reconstruction Project, dating from 2006
to 2009

However, depending on the findings of a pending Phase II report,


a not-to exceed-amount will be determined and set aside in
escrow for the purposes of reimbursing Developer during the
construction for qualified receipts related to environmental
remediation costs. For example, if dirty soil needs to be removed,
City will reimburse Developer for only the marginal difference
between the cost to remove soil and the cost to remove dirty soil.
16

INDEMNIFICATION

Developer shall agree to provide standard commercial hold


harmless and defend provisions to the City of Oakland and its
employees, officers, directors, shareholders, partners and agents.
City and Developer to negotiate the various levels of
indemnification and project stages as part of the DDA.

17

CITY MAINTENANCE

Upon Close of Escrow, Developer is responsible for all


maintenance within the Property.
City will convey one or more easements adjacent to the City open
space for an area to-be defined (i.e. temporary construction
easement; and long term no-build easement, use easement, and
maintenance easement, including the outdoor terrace area shown
on the Developer's site plan which encroaches into the City open
space area) in consideration for Developer and/or subsequent
owner providing on-going maintenance of the open space or the
cost for ongoing maintenance ofthe open space in perpetuity.
Developer must provide a guarantor with significant financial
ability, as determined by City in its sole and absolute discretion,
to guarantee payment/reimbursement to City of "perpetual"
maintenance obligation.
Open space maintenance standards to be negotiated and captured
in easement itself which will be negotiated and agreed to between
the Developer and the City.
The groundcover will be low maintenance grasses and
wildflowers requiring mowing once or twice a year. Temporary
irrigation will be used for two or three years to establish the trees
and shrubs. All plantings will adhere to Bay friendly practices
and adhere to the State's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

18
19

20
21

22
23

24

25

NO COMMISSION

The parties shall hold each other harmless and defend against
any claims for commissions or brokerage ..
SIGNAGE
Developer may not install or place signage on any existing City
street outside the Property or in the public corridor. Developer
may install and place signage on the remaining Property in
compliance with City codes, or other applicable codes or
regulations.
STANDARD OF
Developer to maintain ~he Property and Project in first-class
PROPERTY
condition and will ensure at no time does the Property violate the
City Blight Ordinance.
CITY PROGRAMS &
If (and only if) the Developer decides to pursue a project that
COMMUNITY BENEFITS
requires less than full market price for the land or includes some
other City subsidy -below market loan, tax credits, etc. -the
following City benefits would be required: labor peace
agreement, prevailing wages, living wages, local and small local
business, equal benefits, disabled access, and apprenticeship/job
training/first source hiring programs, and any other benefit which
a City statute requires by its terms applies to the Project.
Developer is not exempt from any other benefit or requirement
imposed by any governmental entity other than the City.
PAYMENT&
Developer to provide p(:l.yment and performance bonds in an
PERFORMANCE BONDS
amount not less than 100% of the Project construction costs,
pursuant to the Developer-executed construction contract.
RIGHT OF ENTRY
Developer to have the right to enter onto the property prior to
transfer to conduct any investigation, testing, appraisals and other
studies, at Developer's cost, required as part of its due diligence,
subject to providing the City with indemnity, insurance and other
reasonable conditions to entry.
FINANCING
DDA will include an objective standard (experience, size, etc.) of
what an "Approved Lender" is, subject to administrative
approval. The DDA shall include customary mortgagee
protections in favor of any Approved Lender.
STANDARD CONDITIONS DDA to include standard City conditions, including without
limitation, completion guaranty executed on or before the Closing
Date, and approval by City of fmancing pian, assignment and
transfer, amendments to project and project approvals, default,
notice and cure, and termination provisions, executed completion
guaranty from Developer, copies of all required regulatory
approvals, and insurance policies.

NOTICE AND DIGEST

An Ordinance Authorizing:
(1) the City Administrator, without returning to the City Council, to negotiate and execute a
Disposition And Development Agreement and related documents between the City of Oakland, and
a development entity comprised ofUrbanCore Development, LLC, and UDR, INC., (or its Related
entities or Affiliates) for sale of the 12th Street Remainder Parcel located at El2th Street and 2nd
Avenue for no less than $5.1 million and development as a residential mixed-use project, all of the
foregoing documents to be in a form and content substantially in conformance with the term sheet

attached as Exhibit A;
(2) a set-aside of no more than $500,000 from land sales proceeds for remediation of property, and
(3) appropriation of$200,000 from land sales proceeds to fund an asset portfolio management plan

I.::)
L;,J

;::

u;x;

!-.0
"!

~:f ~i
.;cl

U..l

;.:;
a::

.q

:IJC
1.<"::>
,_

fhJ

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Sandra Threlfall
Kalb, Dan
Community Input re: DDA for "Remainder Parcel"
Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:16:56 AM
Remainder_parcel_allocation_Kalb.pdf

Council Member Kalb,


Please see the attached letter from Waterfront Action urging you to approve the DDA for
the "remainder parcel" under terms consistent with the April 14, 2015 recommendation of
the Council's CED Committee dedicating 25% of the "remainder parcel" land sale
proceeds to a fund devoted to maintenance of Measure DD improvements around
Lake Merritt.
Thank you for considering this community input.
Sandra Threlfall
Executive Director
Waterfront Action

Oakland Measure DD
Community Coalition
4 May 2015
Mayor Schaaf and Members of the City Council
Subject:
Proposed allocation from sale proceeds of Lake Merritt Boulevard Remainder Parcel
Dear Mayor Schaaf and Councilmembers,
In response to inquiries from some councilmembers about the original City Councilselected CALM RFP response, and its references to a "remainder parcel," attached are:

The Executive Summary from the original proposal submitted 7 Sept. 2001 (See
highlighted reference on page 3.)
An excerpt from the proposal section headed Project Financial Resources
reference to "new and highly saleable parcel"
Initial Site Plan showing creation of a development parcel

The Measure DD Community Coalition considers that Council selection of the CALM
proposal represents an implicit commitment to dedication of parcel sale proceeds to the
now completed Lake Merritt Boulevard Project. In view of the City's continuing budget
squeeze, the Coalition unanimously voted to request only 50% of proceeds. The DD
Subcommittee has accepted the CED Committees recommendation for 25% of land sales
proceeds.
The Measure DD Community Coalition requests that the CED-recommended funds be
deposited in a locked "dedicated fund"the start of a conservancy or something
similarwhich the Coalition would help grow by means of donations, interest, and
grants (as we have helped the city in obtaining about $60 million to supplement the bond
funding for DD projects), and would retain as a rainy day reserve should a future
financial situation require the need to draw from it to assure an adequate level of
maintenance going forward.
Sincerely,

Naomi Schiff, for the


Measure DD Coalition Task Group

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

Lake Merritt Boulevard


PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAKE MERRITTS SOUTH SHORE

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
INTRODUCTION
The Lake Merritt Boulevard Plan (LMBP) is submitted on behalf of the community of
Oakland citizens by the Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt (CALM). The Plan addresses
development of the HJ Kaiser Convention Center parking lot, and its proximate environs. The
Plan is the product of two public meetings held August 2 and September 6, that were open,
broadly attended, and participatory. At these meetings, the LMB Plan was developed, refined,
unanimously endorsed, and those assembled directed that The Lake Merritt Boulevard Plan be
submitted as an alternative, equitable, and legitimate response to CEDAs Request for Proposals
(RFP) issued 9 July 2001.
Background of Applicable Policy Declarations and Historical Regulations. The HJ Kaiser
Auditorium is a city landmark. Lake Merritt itself, designated as a national wildlife refuge in
1870, is a National Historic Landmark. Alteration of these resources is strictly regulated. Also
included in the LMBP is a full exposition of applicable legislation and policies governing appropriate uses of the lands and environs encompassing the HJ Kaiser Auditorium. Consistent with
the body of adopted policies cited in this section, private development and sale of any of these
lands are strictly prohibited, unless first approved through a public referendum.

Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt


T E L E P H O N E 5 1 0 - 8 3 5 - 3 0 4 1 M A I L : 1 7 6 1 B R O A D WAY, O A K L A N D C A 9 4 6 1 2

9/13/01

OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN


A diverse community of Oakland residents spontaneously convened in early July, spurred by a
realization of the threat to the sanctity, serenity, and calm beauty of their beloved Lake Merritt,
its southern expanse, and its historic environs. Determined not to let such wanton destruction
occur without a fight, the advocates decided to put forth a more desirable plan, not only to preserve and protect South Lake Merritt, but also to provide for some much needed improvements
in contiguous areas.
The community plan would fulfill five (5) principal objectives:

rationalize the roadway system at the south lake channel overcrossing;

expand the currently non-existent shore area at the southern end of Lake Merritt;

increase the landscape treatment of Peralta Park and the auditorium parking area, and harmonize the park and recreational uses at the south lake area;

create and improve circulation pathways for pedestrians, hikers, and bikers through and
around the southern end of the lake; and

strengthen the relationship between HJ Kaiser Auditorium, Oakland Museum, Laney College,
Lake Merritt Channel, and Lake Merritt, by providing safe and improved pedestrian access
between the lake side and the auditorium side of 12th Street.

QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF DEVELOPMENT TEAM


The Lake Merritt Boulevard Plan (LMBP) is a coordinated set of public improvements for the
entirety of the South Lake Merritt area. All lands involved are owned by the city and except
for one possible disposable parcel will remain in city ownership. There are no air rights issues,
as no air rights would be transferred or sold. Accordingly, The City of Oakland, through its
Public Works Agency, is the only legally appropriate developer of the described capital improvements. Thus, for purpose of this proposal and its scope of operations, the City of Oakland would
be the developer of record for The Lake Merritt Boulevard Plan.

COMMUNITY INPUT PROCESS


Community involvement has been the source and motivation of The Lake Merritt Boulevard
Plan since its inception. Citizen involvement relating to improvements at the South Lake area
has a long history, most notably exemplified in the Community Assistance Team Study (CAT
Study) of 1989, and continuing to the time of the announcement of the citys intentions of developing the parking lot of the HJ Kaiser Convention Center. As citizen awareness grew, CALM
members also began to meet to discuss possible methods for coalescing community interest in
opposition to the proposed development. CALM formed a volunteer committee of professional
designers, and planned for the first of two community wide, participatory meetings to identify
community sentiment and to chart a program of action communicating the desire of the community to the elected officials of the city.
The first public meeting was held August 2 in a convenient, accessible, public-owned facility.
With little advance notice or publicity, about 130 Oakland citizens attended the first meeting,
and on September 6, a second confirming public meeting was held at the same location. About
50 Oakland citizens attended the second community meeting.

PROJECT FINANCIAL RESOURCES


Potential Funding Sources. Representatives of the community plan researched potential and
available funding sources, and confirm that abundant public, private, foundation, and the possibility of local initiatives exist to conclude that potential funding for the LMBP is highly probable.
Of funding sources, applicable to similar undertakings as the Lake Merritt Boulevard Plan, information is provided in the Proposal affirming that between $132,000,000 and $138,000,000 may
be available.
Demolition Proforma. The Demolition Operations proforma, a fairly detailed identification of
demolition and improvements operations, defines 28 operations, with added considerations for
phasing of the work, inflation impact for projection into the future, and contingency. For demolition operations, a cost range of $27,995,000 to $28,180,000 is projected.
Improvements and Reconstruction Proforma: The Improvements and Reconstructions proforma defines 14 categories of improvements, also with considerations for phasing of the work,
inflation impact for projection into the future, and contingency. For improvements and reconstruction operations, a cost range of $34,810,500 to $37,025,000 is projected.
Possible offsets against project cost are Tidal Trust funds, Measure B funds, Tax Allocation
Bonds, and an innovative concept the sale of community shares in the proposed development. Already allocated are Tidal Trust funds in the amount of $500,000 for improvement of the
Lake Merritt Channel Dam, and $1 million in Measure B funds for bicycle lanes and improvements around the South lake area. The Plan also creates a new and highly saleable 68,000 sq ft
parcel of developable real estate. Preliminary appraisals place the value of this new parcel
between $3.4 million and $5.6 million. Marketing of the new parcel can also be a partial offset
against the cost of the Lake Merritt Boulevard Plan.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN


Illustrative graphics for the community plan were prepared by a group of architects and landscape architects that volunteered their services to execute the vision advanced by the community
participants. With commentary from participants and from organizations that requested group
presentations, the design committee developed and refined preliminary and final design schemes
that were presented to the second community meeting, September 6, which unanimously
approved the Plan for formal submittal.
The community plan fulfills the five principal objectives established for the LMBP by:
a. realigning and expanding the capacity of 12th Street as a widened central artery for autopedestrian-bicycle traffic at the South lake area and the Merritt Channel crossing;
b. realigning all traffic, both inbound and outbound, to meet 12th Street at regularly designed,
signalized intersections;
c. providing broad sidewalks along both sides of the new arterial to encourage strolling at the
South lake area;
d. introducing parallel parking along both sides of 12th St facilitates access to facilities and
enhances pedestrian safety;

e. eliminating all current, but unused pedestrian underpasses;


f. relocating the North seawall substantially to the South, which enables the reclamation of a
generous beach area at the South terminus of the lake;
g. providing signalized intersections at 12th St-13th St and West Auditorium Way, including a
pedestrian-controlled signal at the Channel crossing, to directly connect the AuditoriumMuseum-Laney College complexes on the south to Lake Merritt, a long sought goal of the
City Council.
The Plan provides a variety of landscape improvements at the parking lot of the Kaiser
Auditorium, adjacent Peralta Park, along Lake Merritt Channel, and at Lakeside Park, including
the integration of Fire Alarm Park, made possible by removing the extension of the portion of
14th Street currently adjacent to the historic Cameron-Stanford House.
An illustration of The Lake Merritt Boulevard Plan follows this Summary.

CITY REQUIREMENTS
It is the intent of the community that implementation of LMBP be carried out in full compliance
with all regulations and requirements of the city of Oakland, including:
environmental, nondiscrimination, conflict of interest, disabled access, equal employment opportunity, prevailing wage, compliance with Oaklands living wage ordinance, where applicable, and
any other applicable requirements.

CITY SUBSIDY, (IF ANY)


The Lake Merritt Boulevard Plan, as prepared and submitted by Oakland residents as a community plan is presented as a capital improvement undertaking by the City of Oakland through its
Public Works Agency. It is proposed by this submittal that sufficient funds, through a variety of
means, may be obtainable to support the anticipated cost of the improvements. In that event,
subsidy, as such, may not be necessary.

Creation of New Marketable Parcel and Approximate Value: Finally, and of utmost importance,
is the fact that upon installation of the Lake Merritt Boulevard Plan, a new and highly saleable
68,000 sq ft parcel of developable real estate is created. Marketing of this parcel can be a partial
offset against the cost of the Lake Merritt Boulevard Plan. Two preliminary appraisals,
contributed to the community planners by professionals, place the value of this parcel at between
$3.4 million and $5.6 million (attached).

The following pages contain the related submittals:


h) Potential Funding Sources ........................................ 3 pages
i) LCB Associates Appraisal Letter .............................. 1 page
j) Ritchie Commercial Appraisal documents ............... 3 pages
k) Demolition Operations Proforma ............................. 2 pages
l) Graphic for Demolition operations ............................1 page
m) Improvements and Reconstructions Proforma ..........4 pages
n) Graphic for Improvements and Reconstructions .......1 page

14TH STREET

KE
SH

LAKE
MERRITT

OR
E

AV
EN

New 10 - 12 foot wide promenade with benches (Donor


Opportunity) * around Lake Merritt
The Necklace of Lights* extended around the south end of
the lake

Street Re-Configuration East

LA

12th - 13th - 14th Streets reconfigured into a new


urban boulevard with three lanes in each direction
separated by a ten foot wide planted median.
Lights, banners and art at either side and in the
median.
Class II bike paths on both sides of the boulevard and
connect to the bike path that surrounds Lake Merritt
and other downtown streets
Parallel parking along the boulevard to buffer
pedestrians
8 foot wide sidewalks on both sides

Lake Merritt Promenade

UE

Lake Merritt Boulevard

Lakeshore becomes one-way North from 1st Avenue


Traffic on Lakeshore and 1st Avenue is rerouted to a
signalized intersection at 1st and 12th
The 1st -12th maze is simplified to an ordinary intersection.

Sculpture Garden *

Development Parcel

The existing sculpture garden from Channel Park to


the new Green at the south end of the lake is
expanded in collaboration with the Oakland museum
and MOCA
Include permanent and changing venues for
sculptures by local artists and youth.

Fire Alarm Building

A new development parcel is created by re-configuring the


streets at the east end (approximately 68,000 square feet).

Lake Merritt Channel


13TH STREET

The channel that is currently covered between Peralta Park


and the lake is opened.
Add a new well-designed vehicular bridge* at 12th Street
with textured paving at the crossing to slow traffic and
identify it as a pedestrian environment.
A pedestrian activated signal at the bridge is added.
A pedestrian bridge* at the lake edge is integrated with an
environmental art element* at the channel connection.
Improve the channel to enhance the habitat
Kayaking between the Lake and Estuary
Add a pedestrian path along the channel, under the new
bridge to provide pedestrian access to Peralta Park

Convert to use by the Museum, Library or


as a caf
Outdoor terrace added

Street Re-Configuration West


14th Street becomes park land. Through traffic from
East Oakland would take 13th and turn right on Oak
Street
The intersection at 12th and Fallon is signalized
Fallon between 10th and 12th is reopened providing
direct access to the Museum and Convention Center
parking lot

Peralta Park Improvements

12TH STREET
12 ST.

Courthouse Improvements

Oakland Museum
Explore the feasibility of providing a museum entrance
at the Northeast corner of the building that would
provide a direct connection between the museum and
lake.

DS
2N

OAKLAND
MUSEUM

FALLON STREET

A well-designed pedestrian connection from 12th to


10th Street along Fallon and Peralta Park is added.
The underground pedestrian tunnel is filled in and an
at-grade greenbelt through the parking lot is created.

11TH STREET

OAK STREET

Convention Center Parking Lot


Phase 1

TR
EE
T

The original east entrance to the courthouse is


reestablished. Benches and site furnishings* are
added.
A planted buffer and additional parking is provided in
the island east of the courthouse

Peralta Park is redesigned to improve the pedestrian paths


on both sides of the channel
A pedestrian path from the 12th Street Bridge to the school
district site is provided.
The existing play area* is upgraded
Upgrade the channel habitat and provide interpretive signage

Convention Center Parking Lot


Phase 2
Below-grade parking and a new at-grade open space venue
for Festival at the Lake or other major outdoor events
associated with the Auditorium and Museum is created.
A plaza at the east side of the Convention Center that will
provide a transition between the convention center and the
park is added.

KAISER
CONVENTION
CENTER

PERALTA
PARK

* All items marked with an asterisk are opportunities to seek


donations from individuals or local businesses.

SCALE: 1= 50

Lake Merritt Boulevard


CONCEPTUAL PLAN
September 7, 2001

NORTH

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

Oakland Measure DD
Community Coalition
April 13, 2015
Members of the Community and Economic Development Committee
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Council Members:
Oaklands Measure DD Community Coalition voted on January 19, 2015 to advocate budget
allocations to protect the substantial investment in Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
Enormous excitement, increased visitation, and media attention have focused on the popular Lake
Merritt and Channel improvements, and have spurred interest in nearby development. However,
these enhancements require upkeep that by law cannot be funded by Measure DD bond proceeds,
which are restricted to capital projects. The taxpayers long-term investment requires maintaining
landscaping and providing attractive, clean, park facilities to enhance recreation, tourism, and
commerce. Yet, existing maintenance budgets have been cut, and are now totally insufficient.
The DD Coalition therefore requests that the CED Committee recommend devoting at least
50% of the proceeds from sale of the Measure DD remainder parcel to preserve and
maintain the new Lake Merritt and channel improvements, which represent a public
investment of more than $100 million from the bond and nearly $40 million from matching
grants.*
At the outset of the ambitious project to reconceive 12th Street/Lake Merritt Boulevard, the
Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt (CALM) realized that this remainder parcel would result.
We envisioned that its sale could help support the continued improvement of the Lake Merritt
environment. Now, we respectfully request that funds from the sale be devoted to the
longterm maintenance and repair of the Measure DD improvements.
Almost 80% of Oakland citizens voted for the DD bond measure. We must ensure that these wellloved improvements are not threatened with neglect. We should strongly support the publics
investment and faith in its city government by funding maintenance at a sustainable level.
The Measure DD Community Coalition was formed in 2003 and sanctioned by the Oakland City
Council to provide public input concerning projects and expenditures designated in the 2002
Oakland Trust for Clean Water and Safe Parks Measure DD Bond. DD is an inclusive coalition
with active participation by numerous community members and Oakland organizations and
agencies.
Sincerely,

Naomi Schiff
Committee on Funding for Measure DD Improvements
Oakland Measure DD Community Coalition
*Of $60 million in grants so far, $40 was for Lake Merritt and Lake Merritt Channel. Of $100 million allocated by the
bond measure to Lake Merritt and channel openings, about $85 million has been spent to date.

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

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Joyce Roy
Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Reid, Larry; Kalb, Dan; At Large; McElhaney, Lynette; Brooks,
Desley; Guillen, Abel
Office of the Mayor; Flynn, Rachel
DDA for 12th St. Remainder Parcel
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 9:42:25 AM

This Eastlake site on which a luxury residential hi-rise is proposed is the


ideal site for housing low-income families and seniors whereas the 2.4acre property the city purchased for $25.6 million at Brooklyn Basin (Oak
to Ninth) for that purpose is the worst possible location.
Brooklyn Basin is right next to the Nimitz freeway, with its noise and
pollution. In addition, this isolated site is devoid of transit and not near
schools or shopping.
The city owned Eastlake site is not near health risking pollution and is
served by excellent transit. It is easily accessible to schools and a variety
of shops.
Brooklyn Basin is fine for housing those with Lexus health plans and Lexus
cars who want a view of water from fully air-conditioned apartments.
Interesting that both developers used busloads of nave low-income people
to promote their projects. In the Eastlake case letting them believe the
project would have affordable housing. And in the Brooklyn Basin instance,
not informing them of the noise, health risks, and lack of transit and
shops.
Joyce Roy
510-

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,


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. 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:
Subject:
Date:

Chantelle Lorenz
undisclosed-recipients
E 12th Development
Monday, April 20, 2015 12:55:47 PM

Hi,
As a resident of Oakland, I amdeeply disturbedthat 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'm concerned that Oakland is so hungry for investors and money that the city will
take it from anywhere. If Oakland wants to grow bigger it needs"deep roots" and
roots with integrity or it will collapse at some point - pushing out culture with
homogeny and gentrification. I understand we live in a capitalistic society, but we
can also be creative and act with integrity to find solutions for those who have
history here instead of discarding and expanding for outsiders with new money.
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!
With sincere concern for the integrity and sustainability of our town,
Chantelle Lorenz
510-463-4330
ROOTS of TOUCH
2930 McClure St #4
Oakland, CA 94609

www.ROOTSofTOUCH.com

Eastlake United for Justice

April 27, 2015


To:

Councilmember Abel Guilln

From:

Eastlake United for Justice (EUJ), including our 130+ members,1,400+ petition signers,
and 14+ organizational and institutional endorsers

Subject:

Concerns related to Community Benefits amendments to the E. 12th St. Remainder


Parcel DDA proposed by Councilmember Guilln

Dear Councilmember Guilln,


Eastlake United for Justice commends your initiative in the face of difficult politics to attend the
Community and Economic Development Committee meeting on April 14, to advocate for a
reappraisal of the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel and the consideration of a Community Benefits
package to be included in the terms of the DDA. However, our same core commitment to supporting
and lifting up the cultural and economic diversity, vibrancy and resiliency of the Eastlake
neighborhood, which motivated us to endorse you during your campaign for officenow moves us
to call on you, our representative, to take a stronger stand for authentic Community Benefits as the
City considers the potential sale of the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel to UrbanCore, LLC for the
development of 100% market-rate luxury highrise condos. We outline our concerns of the
Community Benefits proposed for the E 12th project, and present our demands for real Community
Benefits from this pending transaction of our public land.
First and foremost, the Community Benefits were not drawn out of any actual community
engagement and feedback process from District 2 residents. Community Benefits can only be
recognized as such when they are drawn from the dialogue and approval of community
representatives.
Here are our concerns related to the April 14, 2015 draft of Community Benefits to be included
in the DDA Term Sheet for the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel:
1) Immediate legal requirements for affordable housing to be built on this public parcel, and
long term measures for ensuring the Citys future accountability to preserving and building
affordable housing, are not addressed
The only mention of affordable housing in this list is a suggestion to provide at least 20
hours of pro bono affordable housing development consulting to the City of Oakland,
Oakland Unified School District or a non-profit affordable housing developer planning a
project within Oakland. The objectives and outcomes of this 20 hours is not named, nor is
there any accountability to any outcomes or actions on behalf of the City. Moreover, the City
has continued to ignore the pro bono advice and concerns already shared by affordable
housing experts such as East Bay Housing Organizations, Community Economics and Causa
Justa::Just Cause regarding the community needs, legal failings, and policy recommendations
surrounding this project.
2) Weak and non-binding language and loopholes render these terms meaningless

Eastlake United for Justice


The introductory language has been changed from the original draft from The following list
of community benefits will be negotiated and considered to The following list of
community benefits will be negotiated in good faith The list also mentions a good faith
effort to accomplish a 25% local hiring goal and a good faith effort to meet the 25% goal
for local and small local business enterprise contracting. Such loose language leaves
expansive room for interpretation and renders these goals unenforceable. These goals
themselves are also low, and we believe that there should be an explicit minimum 50%
requirement for local hire, as was done recently within the Good Jobs Policy that was
negotiated for the Oakland Army Base. Similarly, provisions for union labor were weakened
from achieve labor peace by using union labor agreements and paying workers prevailing
wage to Developer will consider using a Union General Contractor at the Developers sole
discretion.
3) Restriction of condo conversion credits was removed from previous draft
A letter sent to the Measure DD Coalition on November 17, 2014 from the Citys Economic
and Workforce Development department, in response to a series of letters from the coalition,
confirmed that the developer would agree to include in the terms of the DDA an agreement to
not generate or exercise any Condo Conversion Credits from the E. 12th St. Remainder
Parcel, and thus prevent the future removal of additional rental units from the local housing
market. This language has yet to be presented in the DDA terms, and must be included and
explicitly agreed upon by the developer as promised.
4) Tenant Protections enforcement
As a tenant anti-displacement measure, the following term has been included: Developer
will fund at least $25,000 for a tenants rights education program to stem tenant displacement
within a radius of three miles of the program site, with a focus on monolinguists. Education
about displacement and displacement services is meaningless if it is not paired with
enforcement of existing tenant protections provided by the recently passed Tenant
Protections Ordinance, limits on pass-through rent increases to tenants, and other such
protections. Causa Justa::Just Cause has advocated for an umbrella administrative program
in the city to house tenants rights services, housing code enforcement, and the Housing
Assistance Center. CJJC has calculated $750,000 to be necessary to staff such an
administrative program, and at least $100,000 for the above education program to be
substantially effective.
5) Proposed token benefits are included that do not address the root causes of and solutions for
displacement and affordability in Oakland
Funds for programming at Fairyland and a skateboard park, while benign, do not address the
very serious issues of future long-term displacement of residents and the Citys violations of
its own laws regarding the use of public land for affordable housing. These are distractions
from the real issues at hand and underline the Citys silence about its own responsibilities.
cafghbd

Eastlake United for Justice

The following are the demands Eastlake United for Justice puts forth as the real Community
Benefits needed from the development of the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel. We would support
your advocacy for these demands:
E. 12th St. Project-Specific Demands
1. Any development on the E 12th parcel must include a percentage of on-site, low-income
affordable housing. Affordable housing is one of the most pressing needs in District 2 and all
of Oakland, and District 2 constituents have clearly outlined their desire to see more
affordable housing development. To pursue a housing development on publicly owned-land,
where the city has the capacity to require affordable housing to be built, is irresponsible and a
direct violation of its own laws and policies.
2. Establish a legal mechanism to ensure that if UrbanCore purchases the E 12th St. Remainder
Parcel, they cannot sell the parcel to another entity, developer or otherwise, until three years
after the project is completed and occupied. If Urban Core, LLC or UDR, Inc. and/or any
holders of financial interest in the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel wish to sell their interest in
the project, then the City would have the Right of First Refusal to purchase back the land at
the original sale price ($5.1 million). If Urban Core LLC and/or UDR, Inc. wish to sell to a
different purchaser at a different price, then Urban Core/UDR could purchase the City's right
at the negotiated new sales price.
3. Require that 50% of the sale proceeds go directly to fund new affordable housing
construction in District 2, and create a transparent tracking mechanism to ensure the funds
are used for such purposes.
Long-Term Equitable Development Policy Solutions to Pursue
4. Create legislation that establishes a clear requirement and plan to develop affordable housing
on any public land parcels within the Citys existing public land inventory that have been
identified as suitable for residential development. Implement continuous evaluation of this
plan in its contribution towards the Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals for local lowincome housing stock.
5. Create an administrative program to implement and enforce the 2014 Tenant Protection
Ordinance. This entails an umbrella administrative office that houses within the city tenant
protections services, housing code enforcement, and the existing Housing Assistance Center
within one fully staffed office.
6. Create legislation that requires the City to provide adequate and appropriate public notice of
the intent to lease or sell land for development, residential or otherwise, and to provide
adequate community engagement opportunities to directly inform the development of this
land.
New notification and community engagement requirements should include, at a minimum:
a) written notice in all of the languages most commonly spoken in the area within 14
calendar days of notice by mail to tenants and landowners within a mile radius of the
proposed development site

Eastlake United for Justice


b) a series of community feedback sessions throughout the development process, which are
co-facilitated by representatives of both the community and the City, and occur prior to
the RFP process, prior to ENA approval, and prior to approval of permits and DDAs
c) land use decisions regarding public land such as the intent to dispose of a public parcel or
issue an RFP for its development, must be made in public meetings and not in closed
session meetings.

As conversations with the developer move forward, we urge you to support the demands we have
outlined, and use your position as our representative to advocate for these authentic immediate and
long-term Community Benefits that we outline above. You will have the full force of your
constituents behind you, should you decide to do so.
La lucha continua,
Eastlake United for Justice

cafghbdcafghbdcafghbdcafghbdcafghbd
Eastlake United for Justices call for affordable housing and real community benefits on the E.
12th Remainder Parcel is endorsed by the following organizations and institutions:
East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
Causa Justa::Just Cause (CJJC)
Oakland Tenants Union (OTU)
SEIU 1021
Alameda County Public Health Department, Place Matters
Oakland Education Association (OEA)
Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)
East Bay Solidarity Network
Public Advocates
Oakland Rising
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE)
Black Seed
Asians for Black Lives
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)

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
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 9:05:51 AM

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:
Subject:
Date:

Greg Pasquali
Kalb, Dan
East 12th housing
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 8:53:08 AM

Council Member Kalb,


I know that the 12th street housing project is complicated by an RFP process that should have been
more transparent and that many opponents want to see more community benefits negotiated, but the
City of Oakland needs more housing of all types, and more market rate housing in particular, so I hope
that you will vote to approve the project and DDA negotiations tonight.
This project will help reduce housing pressures on existing rent controlled units, and will pay significant
annual taxes to the City of Oakland thanks to Oakland's Gross Receipts and other taxes. It will also spur
increased economic activity in the surrounding area of the lake. The proceeds from the sale can be
allocated toward affordable housing and lake maintenance - both great benefits - and the future tax
revenue will accrue to the general fund. There is a lot to like about this deal. Oakland should make sure
it happens. Thank you for your leadership.
Greg Pasquali
310.

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Ener Chiu
McElhaney, Lynette; Kalb, Dan
Farmer, Casey; Luby, Oliver
East 12th Parcel Transaction
Saturday, May 02, 2015 8:37:27 AM

Council President McElhaney and Councilmember Kalb:


I am writing to you as a private Oakland taxpayer, resident, and property owner.
First, I am glad to see that there is a development proposal for the 12th Street
Eastlake parcel. Although I believe the process was flawed in that there were no
opportunities for proposals with affordable housing to be considered, I do not think
that renegotiating the deal with UrbanCore at this point would be fair. I do strongly
believe that every publicly owned property should follow state law and be offered for
proposals including affordable housing first, especially given the state of housing
costs in Oakland now. However, I think UrbanCore's proposal has fairly responded to
all of the City's requests (flawed as they were), and should move forward.
That being said, I strongly protest the below market price for the land that is being
currently discussed as part of this deal. The RFP contemplated a market rate
transaction for land in exchange for market rate housing. This was to ensure that the
City got everything it could out of our taxpayer investment in Lake Merritt
improvements and so that we could fill a budget hole and provide needed services to
the rest of the City. UrbanCore always expected to pay a market rate for the land,
and the City should be expending energy now to get the most possible out of this
deal. The currently contemplated value of around $5M is ludicrously low, when you
consider that other developers have paid more than $5M in that neighborhood to
build 70 units of affordable housing, or the recent transaction in Jack London where a
market rate developer paid more than $20M to building 320 apartments.
It is not fiscally responsible to give away this parcel for the price that is currently being
negotiated. It would be well worth the effort and few extra weeks in order to get a
more favorable appraisal. It will not kill this deal, and it would benefit all Oakland
taxpayers and the Mayor and the Council as you head into budget negotiations.
And moving forward, the City needs an explicit policy whereby all public parcels that
are sold for residential development have an inclusionary affordable requirement of at
least 25% affordable units on site or reasonable in lieu fees. This needs to happen
immediately before we lose any more transactions through the cracks.
Thank you for your consideration, have a wonderful weekend.
Ener Chiu
District 3 Property Owner, Manager, Local Business Investor
District 1 Resident

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

sienna dawn
DL - City Council; lschaff@oaklandnet.com
East 12th Street and the Protest at the Tues Council Meeting
Friday, May 08, 2015 3:57:31 PM

May 8, 2015
Dear Mayor Schaaf, Councilmember Kalb and Oakland City Council Members,
I am writing with concerns about the sale of the City owned parcel at 1st Avenue and
East 12th Street to Urban Core development for the production of 100% un-affordable
apartments. I found out about the proposed sale though the East Bay Express article
about how Urban Core had paid for the bus to bring non English proficient residents
to the Planning Commission meeting under false pretenses. I used to own a house in
that neighborhood and I lived in the Eastlake neighborhood for over 10 years before
moving to North Oakland, so I reached out to several of my friends and neighbors in
the area. I could only find one person in the area who had even heard about the
proposal.
I attended the City Council meeting this past Tuesday to speak my opposition to
selling City land for high end development in the worst housing crisis of our lifetime. I
was not a part of the protest, but I was very glad they stopped the meeting, as it had
become very clear to me while Mayor Schaaf was reviewing the budget, that you had
apparently made up your minds well before the meeting. Why even have public
comment on the issue when you have already written the proceeds of this sale into
your two year budget? How is that being open to input from your constituency? I was
actually glad the protesters took over the meeting because they stopped you from
carrying out this irresponsible misuse of public resources. Really, you left them no
other option. If that meeting had gone forward, it sounds like you would have
squandered this opportunity.
This land could be sold to an affordable housing developer and still net the City a
sizable profit, while creating affordable housing with minimal subsidies. I heard a
rumor (from a reliable source- I work in the real estate community) that the city had
been contacted by at least one nonprofit developer who was interested in this parcel.
That nonprofit developer was told in no uncertain terms that the city was not
interested in utilizing this lot for affordable housing. Why not?
A few of you have made the point that this is a net gain development, as the lot is
currently empty, no one will be displaced. However, Urban Core has made it very
clear that they intend to price their units at the top end of the market. This will set a
new price threshold for one of the few remaining affordable pockets of this City. Im
sure you are all familiar with the 2007 study commissioned by the San Francisco
Planning Commission which demonstrates how, in a climate of so much pent up

demand, market rate development actually increases the need for affordable housing
at a one to one unit ratio. I absolutely welcome new residents with higher incomes to
Oakland, but $3,000 per month for a 1 bedroom apartment is statistically unaffordable
to 2/3 of the existing residents of this city, and frankly, to many of the people you
might hope to attract from outside this City. And the desire to encourage market rate
development and bring in new residents does not override your obligation to the
current residents of Oakland. Selling this land to Urban Core is effectively using
gentrification in lieu of responsible community development. How does that ensure
that community benefits are equitably distributed? Who will benefit from that decision,
and who will be displaced as a result of it?
We already own this land- and since the City can not afford new property acquisition
at Oaklands current real estate prices, it is especially important to maximize the use
of this land. This situation with the protesters has given you the chance to do better,
to listen to input from the community, and to be smarter about the stewardship of our
resources. I pray that you will do right by all the residents of Oakland.
Sincerely,
Shannon Way
Oakland, Ca 94608
______________________________________________________________

Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.
I made this letter longer because I have not had the leisure to make it shorter.
Blaise Pascal

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

David Zisser
Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid,
Larry; Kaplan, Rebecca
amyvander@gmail.com; Sam Tepperman-Gelfant; mrawson@pilpca.org; jsmith@oaklandcityattorney.org; City
Administrator"s Office; City Clerk; bparker@oaklandcityattorney.org; Sawicki, Mark
East 12th Street Parcel Legal Requirements (Enclosures)
Monday, May 04, 2015 1:24:43 PM
Agenda Report for Laws for Real Property Acquisition and Disposition 10 13 14.pdf
City Council Agenda Report 2 27 15.pdf
EUJ PA PILP Letter to Oakland City Council re East 12th St 5-4-15.pdf

Dear President McElhaney and Members of the Oakland City Council:


Please find attached a letter from Public Advocates and the Public Interest Law Project on behalf of
Eastlake United for Justice (EUJ) outlining our concerns about the City's compliance with legal
requirements regarding disposition of the East 12th Street Parcel. We urge you to remove the item
from tomorrow's City Council meeting agenda until the City has publicly demonstrated that it has
complied with all legal requirements.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
David Zisser
Staff Attorney, Metropolitan Equity Team
Public Advocates, Inc.
131 Steuart Street | Suite 300 | San Francisco, CA 94105
415.625.8455
dzisser@publicadvocates.org

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
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 8:54:50 AM
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!

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

David Jaeger
Kalb, Dan
East 12th Street
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 8:23:35 AM

Dear Council Member Kalb:


As a resident of District 1, I'm writing to express my support for approval of the
ordinance authorizing the city attorney to execute a DDA for the 12th Street
remainder parcel. This ordinance is on the agenda for tonight's City Council meeting.
This project is good for Oakland. Oakland needs market rate housing to
accommodate the influx of residents who can afford, and demand, "luxury" housing.
Further, the anticipated annual tax revenue from this project will be an important
part of the solution to our impending budget crisis. We need tax revenue from
additional housing and this project squarely meets that need.
Council Member Kalb, I encourage you to support the recommendation of the
Community and Economic Development Committee that 25% of the proceeds of the
sale be put into affordable housing and that 25% go toward the maintenance of the
lake. I also support a robust community benefits package to bring additional benefits
to the community. Lastly, I support the requirement of an additional property value
assessment ONLY if it does not substantially delay the progress of the project.
I agree with many opponents of this project that initial solicitation for bids could
have been handled with more transparency. I encourage you to support measures
which would ensure that projects on public land are handled in a less secretive
manner in the future.
Thank you for your service and for your hard work on this and other important
issues.
Sincerely,
David Jaeger

94609

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.

Community and Economic Development Committee


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.

Community and Economic Development Committee


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

Community and Economic Development Committee


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

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.

Community and Economic Development Committee


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.

Community and Economic Development Committee


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

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

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

Oakland Planning Commission


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.

Oakland Planning Commission


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

May 5, 2015
Oakland City Council
Oakland City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Council President Gibson McElhaney, Vice Mayor Kaplan, Council President Pro-Tem
Reid, Councilmember Brooks, Councilmember Campbell Washington, Councilmember Gallo,
Councilmember Guilln and Councilmember Kalb:
We, the members of Eastlake United for Justice (EUJ), have spoken with many of you over the
past few months about our concerns regarding the proposed development on the E. 12th St.
Remainder Parcel. The dialogue and learning that has been engendered within this time has
revealed many lessons to us, the community, and, we hope, to the City and its representatives
about the serious need for Accountability, Transparency, Enforcement and Follow-through,
and a more proactive Commitment to ensuring Real Community Benefits from our
economic development and community engagement processes. Today as you shape your
final proposals, cast your votes and provide your analysis of the events that have transpired, we
call on you to take a stand for these four principles that are necessary for truly equitable
development and cultivation of the cultural and economic diversity that makes Oakland unique.
We call on you also to set into motion today clear action steps to ensure that such a misuse
of public land and a flawed community process do not happen moving forward. Decisive
action is needed now to avoid a losing situation for both the community and the city, as you
consider the sale of a valuable public asset for a highly undervalued price, and the authorization
of a development on this public asset that requires no affordable housing in a city undergoing a
crisis of affordability and displacement.
The community has clearly outlined the direct violations of various city and state laws,
policies and codes that are already in place to protect the opportunity, especially on public
land, to develop affordable housing, and thus ensure adequate housing city-wide for all income
levels. The recent letter from Public Advocates and the Public Interest Law Project, the previous
letter from EUJ to the Planning Commission, and the series of letters to the City from East Bay
Housing Organizationscall for redress of the Citys violations of the state Surplus Lands Act,
the citys Housing Element, the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan, the citys Real Property
Acquisition and Disposition Ordinance, and other laws.
These letters and direct testimony from the community have also documented a nontransparent development process for this parcel, in which no members of the public were
notified about this development until after the approval of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
with UrbanCore, LLC; and only two community meetings were held, 15 months apart, facilitated
by the developer, exclusively in English, and for which notice was given only to landowners and
not tenants within a 300 foot radius of the development site. There was no opportunity for the
community to provide feedback before the RFP was developed and sent out or before a
developer was selected, in order to ensure that the development of this public land parcel require


and prioritize affordable housing. The RFP process was selective and private, not competitive
and open.
In addition to exposing these shortcomings, EUJ has also refuted the claims that it is not possible
to develop affordable housing on this site. We presented to CED and directly to many
councilmembers the attached budget projection for an affordable housing development that
could be built on the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel, drawn from calculations of existing
affordable housing funding sources and the averages of real numbers from in-construction or
soon-to-be-constructed affordable housing developments in Oakland and the East Bay. Mr.
Johnson of UrbanCore, LLC himself has acknowledged the accuracy of these calculations upon
being shown them.
We commend Councilmember Guillns leadership at the CED committee in calling for
reappraisal of the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel, developing a community benefits package for
this development, and engaging with us in dialogue several times in a true effort to be responsive
to his constituents. However, we have also shared with Councilmember Guilln and many of
you that those proposed community benefits do not reflect concerns and needs that we and
other Oakland and Eastlake representatives have expressed. In addition, they were not
developed using any sort of public or deep community engagement process, and thus are not
authentic community benefits.
Thus, Eastlake United for Justice urges you, our Councilmembers, to support the following
proposals that will win real Community Benefits for Oakland from the E. 12th St. Remainder
Parcel. These proposals reflect the recommendations made by the Oakland Planning
Commission on April 14th that City Council use the sales proceeds of the E. 12th Remainder
Parcel for community benefits and affordable housing, and encourage the City Council to
negotiate for Community Benefits to be required in the DDA for the final sale, as well as their
stated intention to examine ways to amend the Planning Code to facilitate stronger community
engagement and noticing requirements for development projects. Our proposals also reflect the
recommendations of the CED Committee to set aside a portion of the proceeds from the sales
of the E. 12th Remainder Parcel for affordable housing and Measure DD Lake improvements.
Our proposals are as follows:
E. 12th St. Project-Specific Demands
1. Any development on the E 12th parcel must include a percentage of on-site, low-income
affordable housing. Affordable housing is one of the most pressing needs in District 2 and
all of Oakland, and District 2 constituents have clearly outlined their desire to see more
affordable housing development. To pursue a housing development on publicly owned-land,
where the city has the capacity to require affordable housing to be built, is irresponsible and a
direct violation of its own laws and policies.
2. Require reappraisal of the E.12th St. Remainder Parcel development site to ensure that the
City is receiving full market value for this prime public land by the Lake. The appraised
value of this site has been set at a level far below that of comparable sites in the City. (The


City purchased land at Brooklyn Basin for $50,000/unit, and is selling land at E. 12th St. for
$17,000/unit. The 11th and Jackson site was appraised at $25,000/unit in June 2014.)
3. Require that 50% of the sale proceeds go directly to fund new affordable housing
construction in District 2, and create a transparent tracking mechanism to ensure the funds
are used for such purposes.
4. Include in the DDA terms under Section 13, Limitations on Property Rights, language
to the following effect: If UrbanCore purchases the E 12th St. Remainder Parcel, they cannot
sell the parcel to another entity, developer or otherwise, until three years after the project is
completed and occupied. If Urban Core, LLC or UDR, Inc. and/or any holders of financial
interest in the E. 12th St. Remainder Parcel wish to sell their interest in the project, then the
City would have the Right of First Refusal to purchase back the land at the original sale
price. If UrbanCore, LLC and/or UDR, Inc. wish to sell to a different purchaser at a different
price, then Urban Core/UDR could purchase the City's right at the negotiated new sales price.
Long-Term Equitable Development Policy Solutions to Pursue
5. Create legislation that establishes a clear requirement and plan to develop affordable
housing on any public land parcels within the Citys existing public land inventory that
have been identified as suitable for residential development. Implement continuous
evaluation of this plan in its contribution towards the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
goals for local low-income housing stock.
6. Create an administrative program to implement and enforce the 2014 Tenant Protection
Ordinance. This entails an umbrella administrative office that houses within the city tenant
protections services, housing code enforcement, and the existing Housing Assistance Center
within one fully staffed office.
7. Create legislation that requires the City to provide adequate and appropriate public
notice of the intent to lease or sell land for development, residential or otherwise, and to
provide adequate community engagement opportunities to directly inform the development
of this land.
New notification and community engagement requirements should include, at a minimum:
a) written notice in all of the languages most commonly spoken in the area within 14
calendar days of notice by mail to tenants and landowners within a mile radius of the
proposed development site
b) a series of community feedback sessions throughout the development process, which are
co-facilitated by representatives of both the community and the City, and occur prior to
the RFP process, prior to ENA approval, and prior to approval of permits and DDAs
c) land use decisions regarding public land such as the intent to dispose of a public parcel or
issue an RFP for its development, must be made in public meetings and not in closed
session meetings.


We thank you for the opportunities we have had for direct dialogue with many of you about
these concerns, and appreciate your serious consideration of these recommendations for how you
can best serve the public good with our public resourcesnow, and moving forward.
Respectfully submitted,
Eastlake United for Justice and our 1,500 petition signers

cafghbdcafghbdcafghbdcafghbdcafghbd
Eastlake United for Justices call for affordable housing and real community benefits on the E.
12th Remainder Parcel is endorsed by the following organizations and institutions:
East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
Causa Justa::Just Cause (CJJC)
Oakland Tenants Union (OTU)
Public Advocates
Alameda County Public Health Department, Place Matters
Urban Strategies Council
SEIU 1021
Oakland Education Association (OEA)
Classroom Struggle
Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)
Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)
East Bay Solidarity Network
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE)
Black Seed
Asians for Black Lives
Oakland Rising
Transform
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE)
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)

TOTAL Costs
per unit

41,023,333
477015.5

733,334
1,500,000

projects
projects

Within current averages for per unit total costs.

5,100,000
27,933,333
1,333,333
1,966,667
1,423,333
233,333
800,000
projects
projects
projects
projects
projects
projects

41,023,333

average of 3 current projects with similar unit mix/financing


3,633,333
average of 3 current projects with similar unit mix/financing
3,133,333
Land purchased at full appraisal price
0
Based on recent City of Oakland HOME funding award
2,750,000
(Initial estimate of $3 million avail 2016)
1,500,000
(initial funding round of $130 million to be divided by appx 20 projects statewide)
6,000,000
not used in this budget
0
not used in this budget
not used in this budget
0
based on recent awards to similar size/ occupancy projects
850,000
based on recent awards to similar size/ occupancy projects
23,000,000
156,667

Completion 2019

Development Costs
Land acquisition
Appraisal price
Construction (including contingency)
average of 3 current
Architecture/engineering
average of 3 current
Permits and fees
average of 3 current
Construction loan fees/costs/interest
average of 3 current
Legal/ consulting/ tax credit syndication fees
average of 3 current
Other soft costs
average of 3 current
(marketing, furnishings, const mgmt, security, taxes, insurance, title, etc.)
Reserves
average of 3 current
Developer Fee
average of 3 current

TOTAL Sources

Sources of Funds
Perm loan supported by tenant rents
Perm loan supported by Section 8
Land donation
City funds (HOME)
County (Boomerang)
State funds (AHSC)
HOPWA
Housing Authority
State/ County MHSA
FHLB AHP
Investor equity- Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program
Deferred developer fee

Affordable Family Housing at E. 12th Street Parcel


Budget for 85 unit sample project

A note from Eastlake United for Justice about affordable housing at the E. 12th St.
Remainder Parcel
In the course of our conversations with various Councilpersons we heard the mistaken idea
expressed that building affordable housing on this site was financially unfeasible. So we
consulted with experts in the field of financing affordable housing to determine if a 100%
affordable housing project could be built within the fiscal limits that the City of Oakland is
constrained by. We explored possible sources of funding for affordable housing at the E. 12th
parcel and identified some existing and some new funds for the parcel. We also analyzed the
costs of recently built and/or funded affordable housing projects in Oakland and other Alameda
County cities.
Attached you will find a simplified budget for a 100% affordable project at the E. 12th parcel.
The E. 12th site could fit a project in the vicinity of 90-100 family size apartments, in a mix of
one, two, and three bedroom units. The sources of funding listed are sources that will be
available for projects seeking funding in 2016 and beyond. The amounts included in our budget
from those sources are based on amounts awarded to projects of similar size and with similar
financing. Where a new source is listed, the anticipated award size for E. 12th Street was arrived
at according to the sources guidelines.
Similarly, the project costs are based on projects of similar size and construction type. The costs
come from an average taken of three current projects between 71 and 100 units in size.
Regulations of some of the funding sources determine some of the costs, and when there is a
maximum amount allowable we factored in the average project size of the three projects, an 86
unit project. The last number in the budget is the calculation of what this affordable housing
development would cost per unit. The number calculated fits well into the current average of
many affordable housing projects.
We acknowledge that since the demise of the Redevelopment Agencies, it has been very hard for
Oakland and other cities to honor their affordable housing needs with new units. However, there
are now a few new sources coming on line, and luckily they can be utilized well for this site,
which will score very well in the State of CA competitive rounds. This is another reason why it
is so important to build affordable housing on this public site, because it can better utilize these
competitive sources than other sites could and since the resources from the State of CA are
competitive Oakland needs every advantage it can get.

April 1, 2015
Oakland Planning Commission
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

Community Facility: 1
Cultural center

Parking

Community Facility: 1

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

Board of Governors
Joan Harrington, Chair
Santa Clara University
School of Law
Fred W. Alvarez
Jones Day
Denelle M. Dixon-Thayer
Mozilla Corporation
Martin R. Glick
Arnold & Porter LLP
Bruce Ives
InnVision Shelter Network
Dolores Jimenez
Kaiser Permanente
Leo P. Martinez
UC Hastings College of the Law
Robert H. Olson
Squire Patton Boggs (retired)
Jahan C. Sagafi
Outten & Golden LLP
Rohit K. Singla
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
Abdi Soltani
ACLU of Northern California

Staff
Guillermo Mayer
President & CEO
John T. Affeldt
Richard A. Marcantonio
Managing Attorneys
Isabel Alegra
Director of Communication
Liz Guillen
Director of Legislative
& Community Affairs
Deborah Harris
Director of Development
Sumi Paik
Director of Finance &
Administration
Angelica K. Jongco
Samuel Tepperman-Gelfant
Senior Staff Attorneys
Rigel S. Massaro
Marybelle Nzegwu
David Zisser
Staff Attorneys
Hilary Hammell
Attorney & Law Fellow
Patty Leal
Finance Manager
Princess Masilungan
Legal Administrative Coordinator
Madelyn Wargowski
Development & Administrative
Assistant
Jesse White
Communication Coordinator

Oakland City Council


1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Item #13, Agenda for the May 5th Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency and the City Council
Dear President McElhaney and Members of the Oakland City Council:
We write on behalf of Eastlake United for Justice (EUJ), a neighborhood
organization of concerned residents who live in Oaklands Eastlake
neighborhood, regarding the disposition of the 12th Street Remainder Parcel
located at East 12th Street and 2nd Avenue. EUJ is committed to ensuring
that Oakland uses all public land for the public good and that the 12th Street
Parcel include affordable housing.
As described below, there are serious unanswered questions about the
Citys compliance with federal, state and local laws governing disposition of
this property, including the California Surplus Lands Act, Oakland
Ordinance No. 13287, the Housing Element of Oaklands General Plan,
and federal and state fair housing laws. EUJs concerns center on
compliance with these legal requirements:
1) Disposition of the 12th Street Parcel is governed by the Surplus
Lands Act;
2) The 12th Street Parcel must include at least 15% affordable housing;
3) Disposition of the 12th Street Parcel must comply with specific state
and local procedural requirements; and
4) Disposition of the 12th Street Parcel for housing development must
comply with fair housing laws.
We urge you to remove the DDA For 12th Street Remainder Parcel
(item #13) from the Meeting Agenda for the May 5th Concurrent
Meeting of the Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency and the
City Council until the City has publicly demonstrated that it has
complied with all legal requirements.
1. Disposition of the 12th Street Parcel Is Governed by the
Surplus Lands Act
Pursuant to the California Surplus Lands Act, Gov. Code 54220 et seq.,
the 12th Street Parcel qualifies as surplus land and disposition must
therefore comply with all procedural and substantive provisions of the Act.

President McElhaney and Members of the Oakland City Council


May 4, 2015

Page 2 of 4

The Surplus Lands Act provides an unambiguous definition of surplus land: land owned by any
local agency, that is determined to be no longer necessary for the agencys use, except property being
held by the agency for the purpose of exchange.1 The Act enumerates only limited exemptions
from the procedural and substantive requirements for disposition of surplus land, none of which
apply to the 12th Street Parcel.2
Strict adherence to all provisions of the Act is necessary to accomplish the Legislatures intent that
all public lands no longer needed for public use be made available for affordable housing, recreation,
and other state priorities.3
The relevance of the Citys characterization of the 12th Street Parcel as property for development
as defined by local Ordinance No. 132874 does not change the property from surplus property to
non-surplus property. Indeed, the Ordinance acknowledges explicitly and appropriately that
disposition of both surplus land and property for development must comply with the Surplus
Lands Act.5 Moreover, Staff analysis of the Ordinance noted that [t]here is no basis for
distinguishing between surplus and nonsurplus property transactions.6
2. The 12th Street Parcel Must Include At Least 15% Affordable Housing
To help ensure a decent home and a suitable living environment for every Californian, the Surplus
Lands Act mandates any entity that develops more than 10 units of housing on surplus land
provide not less than 15 percent of the total number of units developed on the parcels at affordable
housing cost or affordable rent to lower income households.7 There are no exceptions.
Despite this state statutory requirement, it appears that the City is preparing to enter into a DDA
with a developer that intends to build 298 market-rate units and no affordable units on the 12th
Street Parcel.8 In order for the City, developer, and public to be assured of compliance with
Government Code 54233, it is important that any Council resolution relating to disposition of the
12th Street Parcel and any DDA explicitly require inclusion of at least 15 percent lower-income units
in all future housing development on the site.
3. Disposition of the 12th Street Parcel Is Subject to Specific Procedural Requirements
The Surplus Lands Act, Oaklands General Plan, and Oaklands Municipal Code all impose
procedural requirements on the disposal of city owned property. These procedures ensure
compliance with the affordable housing and other obligations of the Act and laws of Oakland. It
appears that many, if not all, of these procedures were ignored in preparing the 12th Street Parcel for
sale.

Gov. Code 54221(b).


See Gov. Code 54221(e).
3 Gov. Code 54220(a)-(b).
4 Codified as Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 2.42, available at
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT2ADPE_CH2.42DIREPRCI
5 Oakland Municipal Code 2.42.040 and 2.42.160.
6 Agenda Report (Oct. 13, 2014), p.3, attached.
7 Gov. Code 54220; 54233 (emphasis added). The Citys 2014 Housing Element reiterates this requirement in Action
2.7.3, p.306, available at http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak050615.pdf.
8 See Agenda Report, Attachment C, Project Description (Feb. 27, 2015), attached.
1
2

President McElhaney and Members of the Oakland City Council


May 4, 2015

Page 3 of 4

As the California Court of Appeal recently observed: The applicable provisions of the Surplus
Land Act are quite simple. When a local agency wishes to dispose of land it no longer requires
(surplus land), the Surplus Land Act requires the local agency to send a written offer to sell or lease
the property to certain entities for affordable housing or park purposes.9 Among other things,
notice must be provided to housing sponsors agreeing to make available not less than 25 percent of
the total number of units developed on the parcels at affordable housing cost or affordable rent
to lower income households.10
The Oakland Municipal Code both requires compliance with the Surplus Lands Act and imposes
additional procedures to advance affordable housing goals, including 1) offering housing providers
first priority for 90 days to negotiate for the purchase or lease of the property for the development
of affordable housing; 2) transparent notice requirements beyond the floor established by the
Surplus Lands Act; and 3) competitive bidding.11 The Citys Housing Element imposes similar
requirements.12 Waiver of some locally mandated procedures is permitted only in limited
circumstances and requires specific public findings by the City Council, and in some cases by the
City Administrator.13 We note, however, that the City is not empowered to waive the minimum
requirements of the Surplus Lands Act.
It is unclear whether the City complied with any of these procedural requirements. On the contrary,
it appears that staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to those developers who had shown
interest in the Property.14 The City Administrator and City Councils failure to take the necessary
procedural steps would put the City out of compliance with Ordinance No. 13287 and its
predecessor, Ordinance No. 13185 (July 2013), as well as the Citys Housing Element.
4. Disposition of the 12th Street Parcel Is Subject to State and Federal Fair Housing
Laws
The federal Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) prohibits practices that
actually or predictably result[] in a disparate impact on a group of persons or creates, increases,
reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns.15 Californias Fair Employment and
Housing Act (FEHA) also makes it unlawful to discriminate through public or private land use
practices, decisions, and authorizations that have the effect, regardless of intent, of unlawfully
discriminating on the basis of [a protected class].16 And, as an entitlement jurisdiction that receives
federal housing funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the City is
also required to take actions that eliminate identified impediments by [p]romot[ing] opportunities
for inclusive patterns of housing occupancy and eliminating racial and ethnic segregation.17 To
this end, Oaklands Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing identifies the severe shortage of
The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 202 Cal. App. 4th 603, 613 (2012); see also City of Cerritos v. Cerritos
Taxpayers Assn., 183 Cal. App 4th 1417, 1444 (2010), citing Gov. Code 54222(a)-(b).
10 Gov. Code 54222.5.
11 Oakland Municipal Code 2.42.040; 2.42.140; 2.42.170(A); 2.42.050(A).
12 2014 Housing Element, Action 2.7.3, p. 306.
13 Oakland Municipal Code at 2.42.050(B)(4)-(5); 2.42.170(B).
14 Agenda Report, (Feb. 27, 2015), p.3.
15 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 24 CFR Part 100, Implementation of the Fair Housing
Acts Discriminatory Effects Standard; Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 32, Part IV (Feb. 15, 2013) 11482 (24
CFR 100.500(a)), available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=discriminatoryeffectrule.pdf.
16 Gov. Code 12955.8(b).
17 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), Fair
Housing Planning Guide (Mar. 1996) 1-1 to 1-5 available at http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/images/fhpg.pdf.
9

President McElhaney and Members of the Oakland City Council


May 4, 2015

Page 4 of 4

decent housing available and affordable to low income persons as a significant impediment to fair
housing choice because minorities are far more likely than non-minorities to be low income.18
Approving a DDA that allows for 100 percent luxury housing on a publicly owned site without
including affordable housing, accordingly, would disproportionately impact people of color and
individuals with disabilities, perpetuating segregation in the city.
Finally, state law also forbids local governments in the enactment or administration of ordinances
from taking any action to prohibit any residential development because of the method of
financing or because the development is intended for occupancy by persons and families of
very low, low, or moderate.19 To the extent that the City discouraged affordable housing,
prioritized luxury housing over affordable housing or refused to consider affordable housing during
its disposition process, it would be in violation of this requirement.
We look forward to public disclosure by the City of the steps that have been and will be taken to
comply with the legal requirements for disposition of the 12th Street Parcel outlined in this letter.
We urge you to postpone consideration or authorization of a DDA for the Parcel until this
information has been disclosed and vetted by the public and the City Council and until the proposed
disposition is in full compliance with all legal requirements.
Sincerely yours,

David Zisser
Staff Attorney, Public Advocates
(415) 625-8455

Sam Tepperman-Gelfant
Senior Staff Attorney, Public Advocates
(415) 625-8464

Michael Rawson
Director, The Public Interest Law Project
(510) 891-9794 ext. 145

Cc:

Barbara Parker, City Attorney


John Flores, Interim City Administrator
LaTonda Simmons, City Clerk

City of Oakland, Fair Housing Planning: Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (Jan. 2011) 64, available at
http://www.achhd.org/documents/OAK3aifh.pdf.
19 Gov. Code 65008(a)-(b).
18

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Edmund Clausen
Kalb, Dan
Funding Maintenance at Lake Merritt
Monday, May 04, 2015 11:05:20 AM

Dear Council Member Kalb,


I am Edmund Clausen, a Measure DD Community Coalition participant representing the
Alameda County Historical Society. I am writing to urge the Oakland City Council to approve
the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Councils CED Committee that 25% of
remainder parcel land sale proceeds be devoted to a fund for maintenance of Measure
DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly recognized open space
improvements around the city in decades. Nevertheless, as a capital bond, Measure DD
cannot provide funds for maintenance and protection of these widely praised new facilities. I
fear that these facilities will soon fall into disrepair without special and urgent action.
The remainder parcel is a product of Measure DD plans, construction and road
realignment which created the successful Lake Merritt Boulevard. Accordingly, one
appropriate and vastly needed special action is exactly that recommended by the CED
Committee. Please approve the above recommendation. Thank you.
Sinceerely,
Edmund A. Clausen

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:
Attachments:

Kalb, Dan
Bolotina, Olga
Fwd: 12th Street remainder parcel, Measure DD improvements
Tuesday, April 21, 2015 7:12:54 PM
dd_coalition_CED_ April 14 2015.pdf
ATT4503168.htm

-Dan Kalb
City Councilmember
District One
Oakland, CA
510-238-7001

Begin forwarded message:


From: Naomi Schiff <naomi@17th.com>
Date: April 21, 2015 at 4:59:37 PM PDT
To: Dan Kalb <dkalb@oaklandnet.com>
Cc: James Vann <JamesEVann@aol.com>, William Threlfall
<wthrelfall@pacbell.net>
Subject: 12th Street remainder parcel, Measure DD
improvements
Dear Councilmember Kalb,
A few of us would like an opportunity to meet with you to discuss how to
fund the Measure DD Lake Merritt maintenance. Here's the letter we sent
to the CED Committee for their hearing on the DDA for the parcel at 12th
Street. Would you have some times you could suggest that would be
convenient for you?
Thanks so much!
Naomi Schiff
Measure DD Coalition and Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt
------------------------------Naomi Schiff
Seventeenth Street Studios
410 12th Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94607
510-835-1717
www.17th.com

Just a few steps from the 12th StreetBART station

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Jeffrey Levin
McElhaney, Lynette; Kalb, Dan; Abelforoakland@gmail.com; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks,
Desley; Reid, Larry; Kaplan, Rebecca
City Council
Fwd: Draft e-mail to City Councilmembers re: 12th Street
Monday, May 04, 2015 3:11:45 PM
EBHO Letter to Oakland City Council re 12th St Remainder Parcel.pdf

Dear City Councilmembers:


Attached please find a copy of a letter sent by EBHO last month to the CED
Committee regarding the proposed sale and development of the "Remainder Parcel"
at East 12th and 2nd Avenue.
We support the CED Committee recommendation to allocate 25% of the proceeds from this sale to the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund. We also believe the appraisal severely underestimates the value of the
property, and we support Councilmember Guillens request at CED Committee for the City to
commission a new appraisal to more accurately determine the price the City should receive for the
land.

However, as noted in the letter, we continue to have a number of serious concerns


about the proposal itself, the failure to comply with State law, and the lack of a
transparent and public process:
1. We believe that balanced residential development across the income spectrum
is crucial for Oakland's diversity and prosperity. In the last 15 years, Oakland
saw the development of over 7,700 new market-rate units and just 2,800
affordable units. Nearly all of the market-rate units were developed on privately
owned land, and we fully expect that trend to continue. However, we believe
that publicly owned land should be used for the public good; it is too valuable a
resource to be used to develop projects that are exclusively market rate and
will rent at levels that require 3 - 4 times the median income of current Oakland
renters, especially with no strong community benefits or fee requirement. This
is of particular importance in the City's Specific Plan areas, where the City is
providing considerable incentives for development of market-rate housing but
has no strategy for ensuring inclusion of affordable housing. The
encouragement of high income enclaves close to transit is not consistent with
the City's stated values of diversity and housing for all economic segments, nor
is it consistent with Plan Bay Area (the region's Sustainable Communities
Strategy) and ABAG's Priority Development Areas program. In fact, promotion
of luxury housing close to transit without adequate safeguards against
displacement of existing lower income households in the neighborhood will
increase rather than decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Since we are still
waiting for the city to pass a citywide framework for funding affordable housing
in the form of an impact fee, it is imperative that we value our public land as a
leveraging resource for affordable housing development.
2. As noted in our letter, we believe the City has not complied with the
requirements of the State's Surplus Property statute. State law requires that

first consideration for disposition of surplus property go to developers proposing


to provide at least 25% affordable housing - not only did the City not invite any
affordable housing developers to submit proposals, we know of at least one
affordable housing developer who was actively discouraged by City staff from
submitting a proposal. Moreover, the decision to make the parcel available
only for market rate housing was apparently made by City staff with no public
consideration by the City Council. The statute also requires that if the City does
not reach an agreement with an affordable housing developer, and the land is
subsequently conveyed for residential development of more than 10 units, then
15% of the units in that development must be affordable to lower income
households.
3. We continue to have concerns about the proposed sales price. The City's
appraisal at $17,000 per unit is far out of line with recent sales. The property at
11th and Jackson - where an affordable housing development is about to begin
construction - was appraised at $25,000 per unit. Two of the comparable
properties used for the 11th and Jackson appraisal were also used for the 12th
Street appraisal, but the latter appraisal assigned much lower values to those
comparable sales. In addition, the City itself paid $50,000 per unit for the
affordable housing parcels in the Brooklyn Basin development - based on an
appraisal prepared for the City over a year ago that found property values to be
in the range of $30,000 to $70,000 per unit. These discrepancies are too great
to be explained by differences in location or entitlement status (and the
Brooklyn Basin site is in many respects and inferior site, located adjacent to a
freeway and not easily accessible by public transit).
4. The City should prepare a more accurate appraisal that takes these factors into
account. We understand that City staff have already completed solicitations for
a new appraisal contract. It would therefore be possible to select one of the
responding firms for a single appraisal contract, which could be approved by the
City Administrator. Under these circumstances, a new appraisal could be
prepared in far less than the 8 weeks that was stated at last week's CED
Committee meeting.
5. Finally, we are concerned that the entire decision-making process around this
parcel has been made outside of the public eye. Not only was the decision to
limit the parcel to market rate housing made without public discussion, but the
"community meetings" around the proposed project were limited to
presentations about the design of the property and were coordinated by the
developer, not by City staff. Disposition of scarce and valuable public land
should be subject to broad community input.
We ask that the City both respond publicly to these concerns and adopt new policies
that will ensure that future disposition of public land complies with both State law and
City ordinance requirements, and that the process be open and transparent and
afford ample opportunity for community input.

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!

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Larry Fishman
Kalb, Dan
Halt the proposed project on E 12th!
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:50:18 PM

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:

Mycah J. Wilson
Kalb, Dan
Hello Mr. Dan Kalb (Selling of Public Land to Private Developer)
Saturday, April 18, 2015 7:28:58 AM

Hi Mr. Dan Kalb


I hope you are well.
I am very concerned about the plans to sell the public land on E12th to a private
developer with no plans for affordable housing.
For years no-one wanted to come to Oakland, but families built their lives here. Now
we are at risk.
Are there any efforts to prevent this?
Thank you,
Mycah

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Christine Moriuchi
Kalb, Dan
I support "remainder parcel" land sale funds for maintenance of Measure DD
Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:39:00 PM

I strongly support the CED Committee recommendation to dedicate 25% of the "remainder parcel" land
sale proceeds to a fund devoted to maintenance of Measure DD improvements around Lake Merritt.
Christine Moriuchi
Sent from my iPad

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

claire palmgren
Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid,
Larry; At Large
I support "remainder parcel" land sale funds for maintenance of Measure DD
Monday, April 27, 2015 5:27:26 PM

I strongly support the CED Committee recommendation to dedicate 25% of the


"remainder parcel" land sale proceeds to a fund devoted to maintenance of
Measure DD improvements around Lake Merritt.
After all of the improvements that have been implemented, I strongly support efforts
to provide funding to maintain the lake area.
Thank you for considering.
Claire Palmgren
Resident of Oakland in the Lakeside neighborhood

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Galatea King
DL - City Council
I support affordable housing in Oakland!
Friday, May 01, 2015 10:18:31 AM

Dear City Council Members,


I've been an Oakland resident for 12 years, a homeowner for 3 years, and I'll be involved in the OUSD system for
another 18 years as my boys grow up here.
I love the diversity both racially and economically -- but I want to keep Oakland affordable to it's long-time
working-class residents! I'm very concerned with the rapid development taking place, catering to the needs of the
upper-class. I do think development is good for a city, but we need to make sure we have enough affordable
housing to support all our families.
I am disappointed that the E 12th st development project has gone forward in the back-door manner that it has. I
join the many other concerned residents and community groups who urge the following:
1. Include affordable housing on the E 12th site and ensure that all public lands be used for affordable housing
in the future.
2. Set aside 50% of the E 12th sale proceeds for affordable housing.
3. Undergo an updated, more accurate appraisal of the land so the city doesn't get shortchanged.
I hope you all share my concerns and are committed to providing sufficient affordable housing in Oakland!
Thanks in advance for your consideration,
Gala King
District 2

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

J Fong
Kalb, Dan
In Support of the 12th Street Development Project
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:39:28 PM

Dear Council Member Kalb,


I live quite close to the proposed development project on 12th and had hoped to speak on
the matter during tonights council meeting. For obvious reasons, I didnt have the
opportunity to express my views.
Unlike the more vocal attendees at tonights meeting, Im in favor of the project. The parcel
is currently unused so its a net addition to the housing stock. Further, we already have
significant greenspace around the lake, so its questionable how valuable an extra acre of
parkland would be when it could house hundreds of residents. And finally, its quite close
to the Lake Merritt Bart Station makes it perfect for encouraging public transit.
Some opponents of the project call it luxury housing that no one can afford. The fact of the
matter is that there are plenty of people who can afford $3,000 a month rents. And theyre
moving to Oakland whether we like it or not. What the project represents is the ability to
house hundreds of those residents on less than one acre of land instead of spread across
the existing housing stock where theyll displace lower income residents.
There are many of us that both care deeply about the changes that the city is going
through and recognize the necessity of building more housing. It is my hope that you will
also recognize that necessity and support this project.
Best Regards,
Jeff Fong
Resident of District 2

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Christine Cherdboonmuang
McElhaney, Lynette; Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; Abelforoakland@gmail.com; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo,
Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid, Larry; Kaplan, Rebecca
DL - City Council; Wald, Zachary; Farmer, Casey; Bolotina, Olga; Gerard, Jennie; Kong, Heidi; Simons, Adam
J.; Garzon, Clara; Winston, Ashley; Merriouns, Iris; Jones, Andre; eastlakeunited@gmail.com
Item#13- Letter re. E.12th St. Parcel from Eastlake United for Justice
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 11:21:32 AM
EUJ letter to City Council 05.05.15.pdf
EUJ Letter to Planning Commissioners FINAL 04.01.15.pdf

Dear Councilmembers,
Please find attached a letter from Eastlake United for Justice regarding the E. 12th
St. Parcel, outlining our concerns and proposals. Also attached is a previous letter
sent to the Oakland Planning Commission last month with more background
information and analysis. Please let us know if you request copies of any other
letters from our ally organizations referenced in our letter to the Council--some of
which you have already received.
Thank you for your careful consideration and your commitment to Oakland. See you
tonight,
Eastlake United for Justice

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Edith Yhuel
Office of the Mayor
Kalb, Dan
Lake Merritt improvements/Budget
Thursday, April 30, 2015 2:28:14 PM

Dear Councilmember,
I am writing you as a member of Oakland Heritage Alliance. I urge the Council to
approve the the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's CED Committee
that 25% of the 12th Street "remainder parcel" land sale proceeds be devoted to a
fund for maintenance of Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space
improvements around the city in decades. However, Measure DD's capital funds
cannot be used for maintenance and protection of the lake improvements. With
its greatly increased usage, the park needs more care and maintenance than the
current park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the realignment of roadway through
Measure DD's pedestrian, bicycle, and park visitor enhancements, now known as
Lake Merritt Boulevard. The CED Committee's recommendation deserves your
support. We urge you to include this recommendation in your action on the
remainder parcel.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Edith Yhuel
-Oakland CA 94606
_________

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

John
Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid,
Larry; At Large; Office of the Mayor
Lake Merritt responsibilities
Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:48:36 PM

Dear Council Member


I am John Kirkmire, a Measure DD Community Coalition participant representing
LakeMerrit.org and the Lake Merritt Institute. The lake has never looked better or
been used by the public as much as it is today. It is reflective of the continuing
commitment of civic leaders to offer the community the best common space
possible for recreation and relaxation. The uniqueness of Lake Merritt at the center
of our revitalized city is beyond question.
I am writing to urge the Council to approve the April 14, 2015 recommendation of
the Council's CED Committee that 25% of "remainder parcel" land sale
proceeds be devoted to a fund for maintenance of Measure DD
improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space
improvements around the city in decades. Nevertheless, as a capital bond, Measure
DD cannot provide funds for maintenance and protection of these widely-praised
new facilities, which will soon fall into shameful disrepair without special and urgent
action.
The "remainder parcel" is a product of Measure DD plans, construction, and road
realignment, which created the successful Lake Merritt Boulevard. Accordingly, one
appropriate and vastly needed special action is exactly that recommended by the
CED Committee. Please approve the above recommendation.
John Kirkmire
lakemerritt.org

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Oakland Heritage Alliance


Office of the Mayor; Kalb, Dan; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley;
Reid, Larry; At Large; Guillen, Abel
Land Sale Proceeds of the 12th Street "remainder parcel"
Thursday, April 23, 2015 5:40:04 PM
Maintenance-Measure DD Lake Merritt.docx

Please see attached letter.


Joann Pavlinec & Christina Herd
Administrative Directors
Oakland Heritage Alliance
446 17th Street, #301
Oakland, CA 94612
510-763-9218

Effects from Living in Mixed-Income


Communities for Low-Income Families
A Review of the Literature

Diane K. Levy
Zach McDade
Kassie Dumlao

With support from


The Annie E. Casey Foundation

November 2010

Table of Contents
I

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

II

Definitions and Components of Mixed-income Housing ....................................... 3


Scale and Intent............................................................................................................ 3
Income, Tenure and Design ......................................................................................... 4
Sustainability ............................................................................................................... 6

III Hypothesized Benefits of Mixed-income Environments ........................................ 8


IV Mixed-income Communities and Housing Developments ................................... 11
V

Prevalence and Sustainability of Mixed-Income .................................................. 23

VI Future Research....................................................................................................... 25
References Cited ............................................................................................................. 30

Introduction

There long has been interest among policymakers and researchers in the potential of
mixed-income communities as an approach to address a number of problems
associated with concentrated poverty and neighborhood disinvestment. The goals or
purposes claimed for mixed-income housing strategies can be categorized as poverty
alleviation (benefiting low-income families), desegregation (affecting both disadvantaged
and advantaged neighborhoods which may or may not lead to a number of benefits or
challenges to residents), and urban revitalization (bringing investment to disinvested
neighborhoods) (Brower 2009; Duke 2009; Joseph 2006; Joseph and Chaskin 2010;
Joseph et al. 2007; Kleit 2005).
Though often thought of in terms of the redevelopment of public housing developments
through the federal HOPE VI program and similar local efforts, mixed-income strategies
can be understood more broadly to include efforts to relocate poor households to
relatively higher income neighborhoods, such as through the Gautreaux program in the
greater Chicago area and through the use of Housing Choice Vouchers. In addition to
these intentional efforts to create mixed-income developments and neighborhoods,
mixed-income communities can be thought to include those that occur organically
through shifts in a neighborhoods resident base.
The Casey Foundation1 and other members of the philanthropic community are
interested in surveying the field of knowledge regarding mixed-income housing, defined
broadly, and benefits associated with it for low-income families. This annotated literature
review addresses the following major questions:
How is mixed-income defined?
What are the theorized benefits thought to accrue to lower-income families from
living in mixed-income housing?
What benefits have been identified for children and adults from mixed-income
housing?
How prevalent and sustainable are mixed-income developments and
neighborhoods?
The final section of this report identifies gaps in what is known about mixed-income
communities that foundations might consider addressing through the support of future
research.
In preparing this review of the literature, we began by identifying relevant articles
included in existing bibliographies prepared by UI staff and a project advisor and by
searching for articles via the Google Scholar search engine. We restricted the search to
published articles that discussed theories of the impact of living in mixed-income housing
on low-income families or presented results from empirical work that examined impact.

This project was funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The authors would like to thank Dr.
Charles Rutheiser at The Casey Foundation for supporting this effort and for his helpful
comments along the way. Dr. Mark Joseph of Case Western Reserve University graciously
shared his extensive bibliography on mixed-income communities. Dr. Claudia Coulton, also with
Case Western Reserve University, offered valuable suggestions for the study as did Tom
Kingsley of the Urban Institute who provided excellent comments on the draft report as well.

Although we do include some research on mixed-race housing to the extent that an


article addressed both mixed-race and income, we did not set out to cover the body of
work focused on mixed-race housing per se.
We did not collect technical reports on mixed-income communities, relevant Masters
Theses or doctoral dissertations, all of which would be valuable to review but would have
required additional resources to identify and locate. We have not included work on the
origins of mixed-income programs and policies as this topic is well documented
elsewhere (e.g., Joseph, Chaskin, and Webber 2008; Popkin et al. 2000). Mixed-income
strategies that extend beyond those covered here include literature on Mt. Laurel I and II
and research on mixed-income achieved through inclusionary zoning programs. Though
there has been considerable research on some aspects of inclusionary zoning, there
have been few studies to date on benefits to residents (Levy et al. 2010).

II

Definitions and Components of Mixed-income Housing

In this section of the report, we take up definitions of mixed-income housing in the


research literature and consider issues that must be addressed in both the development
and study of such communities. Issues include the scale and intent of mixed-income
housing, the income mix, housing tenure and physical design, and the sustainability of
mixed-income housing. We briefly consider the concept of community.
How is mixed-income defined and what are key elements of mixed-income housing?
Scale and Intent
Mixed-income housing, whether coming about as a result of federal, state or local
programs, legal decisions, or private market forces, can differ along a number of
dimensions, including scale, intent, income mix, tenure type, and design. In this section
we first take up issues of scale and intent before turning to the other factors. We
distinguish between mixed-income developments and neighborhoods. Most definitions of
mixed-income housing developments include references to a bounded area, usually a
multifamily housing development, in which unit prices are structured to target residents
of more than one income level.
There is no agreed-upon definition of mixed-income developments although one
definition has gained traction. Varady, Raffel, Sweeney, and Denson note that even
HUD has yet to define mixed-income internally (2005). However, the definition offered by
Brophy and Smith captures key elements and has been used in recent research (e.g.,
Joseph, Chaskin, and Webber 2007). Brophy and Smith (1997, 5) define mixed-income
as the
deliberate effort to construct and/or own a multifamily
development that has the mixing of income groups as a
fundamental part of its financial and operational plans.
Other definitions have been put forth, including this one by Khadduri and Martin in their
review of de facto rather than intentional mixed-income, HUD-assisted multifamily
housing developments (1997, 37):
Mixed-income housing must, at a minimum, give poor
children an opportunity to live close to families that are not
dependent on welfare and instead belong to the
mainstream working culture. Other motivations may be
present and other objectives served, but we do not
consider housing to be mixed income if it serves mainly
nonworking elderly or persons with disabilities, or if it
excludes the poor.
For Khadduri and Martin, the presence of poor children is central to the definition of
mixed-income housing. Although their definition has not been used by other researchers
to the extent that Brophy and Smiths definition has been picked up, it is interesting to
note that much of the mixed-income research implicitly includes children in the definition
as evidenced by the selection of study sites and discussions of benefits that do or do not
accrue to low-income adults and children.

Mixed-income neighborhoods can be defined by the degree of income diversity that is


present in an area or the percent of poor households that resides within, regardless of
the breadth of income mix. For example, Galster, Booza, and Cutsinger (2008)
characterize areas in terms of four degrees of income diversity (high diversity, moderate
diversity, low diversity, and not diverse) and by area median income (AMI) based on
HUDs six income categories: very low-income, low-income, moderate-income, highmoderate, high-income, and very high-income.
The Mixed-Income Research Design Group (MIRDG) uses the term mixed-income
housing broadly to encompass both mixed-income developments and neighborhoods.
They define the term to mean all intentional efforts to generate socioeconomic diversity
in a targeted geographic area (Briggs et al. 2009).
Because of the close association of the term mixed-income with intentional efforts to
create mixed-income housing developments, we follow Galster et al. (2008) and refer to
the broad range of communities that are characterized by a diversity of household
incomes as income diverse areas. Using two terms helps create a distinction between
low-poverty neighborhoods low-income families move into, whether via a mobility
program or independently, but that are not the target of mixed-income efforts per se and
developments designed as mixed-income housing.
Income, Tenure and Design
There is not a consensus among researchers on the optimal degree of income diversity,
income tiers, tenure mix (rental or owner-occupied units), or development design. On the
ground, decisions are made based on a mix of policy interests, financing streams, and
construction schedules. Researchers have discussed factors that ought to be taken into
consideration when decisions related to income mix are made.
Mixed-income developments vary in the range of incomes and degree of income
diversity among residents. Depending on the development, relatively higher-income
households have been defined as those earning anywhere from 51 percent to 200
percent of AMI. A development might have only two income tiers or three or more. The
percent of units targeted to low-income families also ranges from a small percent of all
units to more than half. (See Brophy and Martin 1997; Khadduri and Martin 1997;
Schwartz and Tajbakhsh 1997.)
The degree of income mix can affect residents ability to bridge differences. Vale
(2006) raises the question about the types and extent of income mixing that may be
necessary to achieve desired objectives. Based on his review of HOPE VI research, he
argues that if gaps in income among residents are too great, it is unlikely that residents
will be able to bridge their differences, especially in places with language diversity and
any racial tensions. This suggests that when planning the mix of incomes, developers
need to take this point into consideration.
A range of incomes might be necessary to affect certain outcomes. Because
people will be more likely to mix with those of a similar income, there is a tradeoff
between providing affordable housing and stable, successful mixed-income
communities. To achieve stability, its likely important to include a middle income tier
between the poorest and wealthiest residents (Joseph 2006).

In another piece, Joseph, Chaskin, and Webber (2007) emphasize the importance of
income strata and the value of having an even mix of low-income, moderate-income and
high-income households because people are more likely to mix socially with relative
socioeconomic peers. This argument is in line with Vales point that residents might not
be able to bridge income gaps.
The optimal income mix should be determined based on goals and on an
understanding of the mechanisms by which neighborhoods can affect resident
outcomes. Galster (2007) rejects the idea of one optimal mix. He broadens the
discussion of possible benefits derived from living in mixed-income communities by
shifting to a consideration of mechanisms of influence. He focuses on internal social
interactions, one of two major types of mechanisms (the other being external forces) and
breaks interactions into seven specific mechanisms by which neighborhoods can affect
residents. Depending on the mechanism in play and a communitys goal (equityto
enhance the well-being of disadvantaged residents, or efficiencyto maximize the good
for the greatest number of households), Galster theorizes the mix of incomes that would
serve best. Beyond this discussion of income mix, the article is valuable for its expansive
discussion of the ways in which residents can be influenced, in positive or negative
ways, by the social dynamic in a neighborhood or development (see also Galster,
Booza, and Cutsinger 2008).
Market strength should be a factor in deciding the mix of incomes in a
development. Based on their literature review on the state of mixed-income housing in
the United States, Brophy, Garcia, and Pooley (2008) argue that the specific mix of
incomes within any particular development should take into consideration market
conditions. Stronger markets can support a wider mix of incomes than can weaker
markets.
The research literature reviewed for this report does not directly address the issue of
housing tenure. Case studies include information on whether a development includes
both rental and owner-occupied housing units and how housing tenure relates to
resident interactions but do not address explicitly the issues of whether or in what mix
developments should include both types of units. There is consideration of development
design in terms of designing space to encourage interaction among residents, designing
units to be indistinguishable or identifiable by income tier, and placing units within
developments in ways to integrate or segregate residents by income.
Specific design elements might foster interactions among residents of varying
incomes and housing tenures. Briggs (1997, 2005) has discussed the theory of
physical determinism which posits that design elements can influence social interactions
among diverse people. Design elements believed to support the development of resident
interactions include common areas with places to sit and narrower hallways, among
others.
The integration of units of different housing tenures and income levels is
important to consider when planning mixed-income developments. Brophy and
Smith (1997) use the term seamless integration to describe housing developments
designed to make subsidized units indistinguishable from market rate units. They argue
that this homogenizes a development and contributes to making residents feel equal
with one another. Schubert and Thresher (1996) write that an important lesson to be
drawn from Atlanta, Georgias Village at Techwood mixed-income development was its

emphasis on visual integration. Tach (2008) reports that the redevelopment strategy for
one of Bostons mixed-income developments included the visual and spatial integration
of its subsidized and unsubsidized units. She notes that from the exterior, an observer
would be unaware that there were subsidized units in the development though unit
interiors do vary by income level. (See also Schwartz and Tajbakhsh 1997.)
It remains unclear whether the location of housing units within mixed-income
developments might be significant to the development of resident interactions
and the realization of benefits. Some developments mix income groups on the same
floor of a multifamily building, while others segregate income tiers by floor or building.
Further, some developments vary the quality of units based on income, while others
simply subsidize market-rate quality units for low-income families (Schwartz and
Tajbakhsh 1997). It has been posited that an integrated design of units is important to
the development of resident interactions. Research conducted in the U.K. does not
support this argument (discussed below in the section on resident interactions). Whether
or not the impact of design differs across contexts is unclear. There has been relatively
little research focused on the issue of unit integration (Roberts 2007; Kleit 2004).
Sustainability
There is limited discussion in the literature on how sustainable mixed-income housing is
over time and how long residents might need to reside in such areas to capture any of
the theorized benefits. This issue of the sustainability of income mix is addressed in
Section IV.
What is community?
The terms community and neighborhood often are used interchangeably as both social
and spatial constructs (Briggs 1997, 2005; Brower 2009; Kleit 2005). Communities, or
neighborhoods, are places within which it is hoped proximate neighbors can gain access
to a range of resources and will develop a sense of connectedness across any
differences in income, race and ethnicity. Researchers caution that these assumptions
might be misplaced.
Communities might or might not provide access to services or support the
development of meaningful relationships among residents. Briggs (2005) discusses
assumptions made about communities. He argues that communities can provide access
to resources and opportunities but there is no guarantee that residents will establish
meaningful relationships with other residents, be influenced by neighbor role models,
gain access to all services and amenities, or develop economic security.
For purposes of this literature review, an understanding of community and neighborhood
that teases the concepts apart is useful.
Community refers to connections and neighborhood is a spatial construct. Based
on his review of the literature, Chaskin (1997) defines community in terms of connection.
The connection can be social, functional, cultural, or circumstantial and might or might
not involve spatial proximity of community members. Neighborhood is contrasted to
community in that it is a spatial construction in which residents share proximity and
the circumstances that come with it (52223). Chaskin finds a conflation of community-

like expectations for solidarity and connection within the geographical construction of
neighborhood.

III

Hypothesized Benefits of Mixed-income Environments

What benefits are thought to accrue from living in a mixed-income development or


income-diverse neighborhood for children and adults?
Discussions in the research literature on theorized benefits to low-income families from
living in mixed-income environments distinguish, implicitly or explicitly, between benefits
anticipated from living in such a development or neighborhood and benefits anticipated
from living among higher income families. Benefits associated with place include gaining
access to more and improved services, good quality housing and neighborhood
amenities, and a safer environment. These benefits are associated with both mixedincome developments and income-diverse neighborhoods. Benefits associated with
people include accessing instrumental networks through higher-income neighbors and
learning from the behavior and lifestyle choices modeled by higher-income neighbors.
Influence is assumed to flow from higher- to lower-income families and the behaviors
and lifestyles of higher-income families are assumed to be better or more productive
than those of lower-income families (see Galster 2007; Joseph, Chaskin and Webber
2007; Popkin, Buron, Levy, and Cunningham 2000).
Theoretical arguments for neighborhood and community heterogeneity have been
made for decades. Gans (1961a, b) proposed four benefits to living in a community
heterogeneous with respect to age groups and socioeconomic levels: a valuable
diversity of experiences, resources, and enrichment; promotion of tolerance for social
and political differences, which can enhance democratic practices; a broader educational
influence on children through teaching tolerance, acceptance and global understanding;
and encouragement of alternate lifestyles (e.g., showing working-class families how
middle-class families live). Gans noted that these benefits were empirical questions that
had not yet been answered as of 1961. He also argued that some degree of cultural
homogeneity was necessary for social mixing to occur.
Four primary goals or hypothesized benefits of mixed income development form
the theoretical basis supporting the use of mixed-income and income-diversity
strategies. With a nod toward Gans work, Joseph, Chaskin, and Webber (2007) identify
four ways in which mixed-income environments are thought to improve the
socioeconomic positions of poor people. Mixed-income environments are believed to:
improve social networks whereby poor people expand their job-search and acquisition
networks; improve social control, where the presence of higher-income people leads to
higher levels of accountability to established norms and rules followed by increased
order and safety; offer behavioral effects in which higher-income residents model
alternate lifestyles and norms, which in turn promote behavioral change and increased
self-efficacy among low-income residents; and improve the political economy of place,
where the presence of higher-income residents will create new market demand and
effective political pressure that will lead to higher-quality goods and services for all
residents. As the researchers point out, early advocates of mixed-income housing
adopted these propositions from urban poverty theory before there was empirical
support for their validity.
Residents of mixed-income communities are expected to gain access to more and
better quality community services and amenities. Proponents of mixed-income
assume that relatively higher-income residents attract quality community services and

amenities. When lower-income families live among higher-income households, whether


in housing developments or neighborhoods, they are expected to benefit from services
and amenities they likely would not have had access to in predominantly poor areas,
such as quality schools and responsive public agencies (Duke 2009; see also Kleit 2001;
Briggs 1997).
Enriched social interactions can lead to positive outcomes for disadvantaged
families. Mixed-income advocates assume that spatially integrating low-, moderate- and
higher-income residents will provide opportunities for people from different backgrounds
to learn about and gain tolerance for people different from themselves (Duke 2009).
Briggs (1997) suggests that mixing residents of varying incomes will enrich the lives of
white, middle-class residents through exposure to more diverse populations. Much of the
literature also emphasizes the role higher-income neighbors are assumed to play as role
models for lower income residents, demonstrating standards of behavior, housekeeping
etiquette, parenting skills, and other social norms (Duke 2009).
Children also are assumed to benefit from living in mixed-income environments in
ways similar to adults. Children are expected to benefit from interactions with positive
role models and from exposure to socially or culturally diverse people. It is assumed
children and youth will develop greater educational and employment aspirations and
stand a greater chance of realizing their aspirations (Brower 2009).
Benefits associated with living in mixed-income environments have been questioned for
as long as they have been touted. Concerns center on arguments that diverse people
are unlikely to develop close enough ties with neighbors to benefit disadvantaged
residents.
To achieve benefits, relationships with people across income levels would need to
be stronger than they are likely to be. As early as 1961, Gans argued that
heterogeneityis unlikely to produce relationships of sufficient intensity to achieve
either a positive social life or cultural, political, and educational values sought through
balanced community (1961a, 181).
Even if proximity to jobs increases, it cannot be assumed that low-income families
will benefit. Briggs (1997) argues that despite any increase in job opportunities for lowincome residents moving to income diverse areas, there are no guarantees that these
families will be able to access the jobs or that the jobs will offer higher wages, better
benefits, job security, or job advancement, each of is important to realize gains in selfsufficiency.
Some benefits might be more likely to materialize than others, such as those
associated with improvements to place. Joseph (2006) suggests that low-income
residents in mixed-income developments might benefit from increased informal social
control and access to higher quality goods and services, but that they are unlikely to
benefit from increased social interaction. Vale (2006) argues that the same results,
increased social control and access to quality goods and services, can be achieved
without income mixing through good housing design, good management, and careful
tenant selection in wholly low-income housing developments.

Questions also have been raised about expected benefits for children. Lipman
(2008) argues that the expectation that low-income children will benefit from attending
schools with mostly middle-class children is based on an assumption that exposure to
higher-income children will lead to positive behavioral changes and improved
educational attainment. At heart a cultural-deficit argument, this assumption does not
take into account structural economic factors that affect child (and family) outcomes.

10

IV

Mixed-income Communities and Housing Developments

In this section we review research that addresses the hypothesis: living in a mixedincome housing development or income-diverse neighborhood is better for poor children
and adults than living in a poor community. We begin with a review of the benefits that
have been documented for residents of mixed-income developments and incomediverse neighborhoods. From there we focus on research that examines interactions
among residents across income levels, the nature and extent of interactions, and
evidence of any benefits that stem from social relationships. The section ends with a
consideration of factors other than social interactions that might affect the likelihood that
low-income families will benefit from living in mixed-income environments.
What benefits have been documented for residents of mixed-income developments and
income-diverse neighborhoods?
Among residents of mixed-income developments, people across income levels have
reported benefits. A number of studies have found that residents across income levels
agree that housing quality and the location of mixed-income developments are good.
There is considerable agreement that mixed-income developments are relatively safe
and well managed and maintained (so far). Lower-income families also have reported
benefits associated with moving to mixed-income developments or neighborhoods in
terms of employment, mental health, and educational opportunities, although findings
are not consistent across studies. Benefits tend to stem from positive aspects of place
rather than from interactions with other residents or neighbors.
There is interest in the optimal income mix in developments in order for low-income
families to benefit and developments to be viable. Beyond the work cited in section II, we
did not find much research that addressed this question. Likewise, we did not find
research that addresses the question of whether low-income families are more likely to
realize benefits based on whether they move from poor to non-poor areas, from poor to
mixed-income or income-diverse areas, or from poor to affluent areas.
Low-income residents identify some benefits of living in improved developments
though no tangible benefits from social interactions with higher-income
neighbors. A study of resident perceptions of benefits and disadvantages of living in
mixed-income developments in Chicago found that lower-income residents cited housing
quality, the overall environment, reduced stress from increased safety, increased selfesteem, and increased motivation to advance their lives (Joseph and Chaskin 2010).
Some residents also thought living in proximity to people from different socioeconomic
backgrounds and racial groups would benefit their children by preparing them to function
well in the world. However, because of constrained interactions across class lines,
discussed below, the researchers do not think benefits expected from cross-class
interactions will be realized.
Residents across income groups in well-designed mixed-income developments
report satisfaction with housing and neighborhood services and amenities.
Studies from as early as the mid-1970s have reported findings that residents of mixedincome developments (HOPE VI and otherwise) have been satisfied, for the most part,
with the quality of developments. Residents are satisfied with their dwellings; there are
low levels of turnover and long waiting lists, even for the market-rate units. Residents

11

and prospective residents report satisfaction with the quality of buildings, maintenance
and management, the neighborhoods, and access to services and amenities. (See
Brophy and Smith 1997; Buron and Khadduri 2005; Calavita and Grimes 1988; Doerr
and Siegal 1990; Joseph, Chaskin, and Webber 2008; Mulroy 1991; Popkin et al. 2000;
Rosenbaum, Stroh, and Flynn 1998; Ryan et al. 1974; Schwartz and Tajbakhsh 2001;
Smith 2002.)
Evidence shows that mixed-income developments promote positive place-based
change. In their review of the research on effects of mixed-income housing strategies,
Fraser and Nelson (2008) found that previously disadvantaged neighborhoods that gain
mixed-income developments experience lower criminal activity and increased property
values.
Residents of both mixed-income developments and income-diverse
neighborhoods are satisfied with safety. Joseph and Chaskin (2010) report that most
low-income and higher-income residents who relocated to mixed-income reported
feeling safe. A Moving to Opportunity (MTO) study found that households in the studys
experimental group reported living in safer neighborhoods with lower levels of drug
trafficking and violence and higher levels of social organization (Popkin et al. 2000). A
study in NC from 1989 found that residents who left the central city experienced a
reduction in the fear of crime (cited in Briggs 1997). Libson (2007) also documents how
the returning public housing residents in a New Orleans HOPE VI development reported
feeling safer than they had felt in the original development.
Some studies have documented employment gains among low-income families
correlated to living in mixed-income developments or income-diverse
neighborhoods. Employment gains have not always come with higher income and
some employment findings have been called into question. Studies of Gautreaux
have found increased job aspirations and readiness, employment, and job promotions
among participating families (Briggs 1997; Rosenbaum and Popkin 1991). Briggs argues
that despite there being more job opportunities for low-income residents in closer
proximity to their new neighborhoods, there are (1) no guarantees that in-movers will be
able to assess and retain these jobs, and (2) no guarantee that these jobs will offer
higher wages, benefits, job security, or career ladders. Rosenbaum and Popkin found
this to be true in their 1991 Gautreaux housing mobility programeven though families
that moved with Gautreaux were more likely to hold jobs compared to their former inner
city counterparts, their wages were no higher. MTO families that moved to low-poverty
areas also had higher employment rates than families that had not moved but about the
same hourly wage (Johnson, Ladd, and Ludwig 2001).
Tach (2009) found higher rates of labor force participation and higher educational
attainment among lower-income residents in mixed-income communities; however, she
attributed the employment rates to mixed-income developments screening requirements
rather than change in work habits.
Residents who move to less poor neighborhoods have measurably better job
outcomes. Kleits (2002) quasi-experimental study of 256 low-income women who
either lived in concentrated poverty or moved to scattered-site housing in Montgomery
County, Maryland, found that movers had more job contacts, more racially diverse job
networks, more job contacts who were men, and higher levels of occupational prestige,
measured by type/quality of job. In a Swedish study of the universe of adult, metropolitan

12

workers (Galster et al. 2007), low-income laborers who moved into higher-income
neighborhoods had higher earnings than laborers who didnt move. Findings from both
studies are tempered by sample selection bias.
Employment status improved among voucher holders who relocated from public
housing. In his study of families that relocated from traditional public housing
developments in Atlanta, Boston (2005) found that those renting housing with a voucher
reported higher rates of employment than families living in other public housing. Boston
attributes the higher rates to improvements in neighborhood environment rather than
attributes of the families. Study findings appear to rest on correlation rather than
causality, however.
When families move from high-poverty to low-poverty neighborhoods they
experience improvements in health and education outcomes. In their review of MTO
and Gautreaux studies, Johnson, Ladd, and Ludwig (2001) found that families that
moved to lower-poverty areas reported fewer mental or emotional health problems and
improved physical health. Children reported feeling less sad, arguing less and
disobeying their parents less often. They reported working harder in more challenging
schools and did not experience a drop in grades relative to non-movers.
The authors caution interpretation of their results. Although nearly half of all public
housing beneficiaries receive vouchers, only 19 percent of those studied actually moved
to a lower-poverty tract. Further, these data do not reliably correct the endogeneity
between moving, income and other variables.
Residents of mixed-income environments realize mental health benefits. Joseph
and Chaskin (2010) found that 75 percent of relocated residents in their study reported
psychological benefits associated with their move to a mixed-income development; twothirds mentioned reductions in stress since moving from their old neighborhoods to the
new developments. In a study of MTO in Boston and New York, Popkin and colleagues
(2000) found that adults who relocated from high-poverty to lower-poverty
neighborhoods experienced improvements in mental health. The authors caution that
that these findings are limited because participants were self-selected.
There is some evidence of increased self-esteem and motivation among lowerincome residents of mixed-income developments. Joseph and Chaskin (2010) found
that 50 percent of relocated residents at both study sites reported increased self-esteem
and sense of accomplishment for successfully navigating the process to move into the
new developments. Of the people who relocated to the developments, half reported
increased motivation to continue to make advancements in their lives.
There have been small increases in residents understanding of others
backgrounds, cultures and perceived stereotypes and prejudices. Though not
widespread, some residents across income groups in Joseph and Chaskins (2010)
study suggested that they benefited from living in the mixed-income developments in
terms of learning from and about residents of different socioeconomic backgrounds.
Lower-income residents talked about their hope for being better understood while
moderate- and higher-income residents spoke of gaining appreciation for the issues lowincome families face.

13

Children may benefit from living in income-diverse neighborhoods. The Gautreaux


study found that children of parents that moved to suburban areas were more likely to
stay in school, be employed after graduating, and attend four-year colleges or
universities compared to city movers (Rosenbaum and Popkin 1991). Yet, these findings
should not be generalized for a number of reasons, including the self-selection of
participants self-selected who were heavily screened and the fact that many participants
were not public housing residents but had been on a waiting list (Popkin et al. 2000).
Educational gains associated with moves to less poor areas are fragile. Analysis of
student test scores, behavioral data and school quality data from the follow-up MTO
study found no lasting effects on educational outcomes for children four to seven years
after baseline even though families with housing vouchers moved to less poor
neighborhoods. Researchers found that students attended schools of only slightly higher
quality. Other factors researchers thought might have affected the lack of positive impact
include families moves to less than affluent areas, moves to non-racially integrated
neighborhoods, and multiple moves. They conclude that interventions focused
exclusively on neighborhoods rather than on factors directly related to the child, family,
and school are unable to solve the myriad problems of children growing up in poverty
(Sanbonmatsu et al. 2006, 686).
Sanbonmatsu et al. (2006) cite other research that has found improvements in
educational outcomes associated with moves to affluent neighborhoods and placement
of children in schools with higher average test scores. (See also Ellen, Schwartz, and
Stiefel 2008.)
Educational gains associated with attending low-poverty schools is stronger than
those associated with living in low-poverty neighborhoods. Taking advantage of a
natural experiment that allowed for a comparison of academic performance between
poor children living in low-poverty areas and attending advantaged schools and poor
children living in moderate- to higher-poverty areas and attending disadvantaged
schools, Schwartz (2010) found significant impact from attending low-poverty schools.
Public housing is scattered in Montgomery County, MD because of implementation of
the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Families are randomly assigned to public housing
units and, therefore, neighborhoods and schools. Data showed that school-based
economic integration had about twice as large an effect as neighborhood-based
economic integration on low-income childrens academic performance after five to
seven years (Schwartz 2010, 8).
Children who relocate to income-diverse neighborhoods have fewer behavioral
and health problems. Reviewing research on the Gautreaux and MTO programs,
Popkin and colleagues (2000) cite findings that children that moved to low- and lowerpoverty neighborhoods experienced fewer incidences of arrest and convictions, fewer
injuries, and fewer episodes of asthma. The childrens mothers held more positive views
of childrens new schools and teachers. Popkin et al. point out that findings are limited by
research design problems, including but not limited to the self-selection of program
participants and the likelihood that families that successfully moved were the most
motivated of those that participated in either program.
It is not yet clear whether benefits for children are caused by or only associated
with living in mixed-income areas. The evidence does not establish causality. Joseph,
Chaskin, and Webber (2008) find that research is showing educational, health and

14

behavioral benefits to low-income children who are living in mixed-income developments


but no clear evidence on the actual cause of or mechanism behind the benefits.
Schwartzs (2010) work on academic performance found that while there were gains
associated with living in low-poverty areas, greater benefit came from attending lowpoverty schools.
Another question on which there is little direct research to date is whether low-income
households living in mixed-income developments or income-diverse neighborhoods are
more stable than households living in income-segregated areas. Two studies included
below speak to the question to a degree.
Housing, or at least neighborhood, stability outcomes might relate to the level of
relocation assistance. In their follow-up study of Gautreaux families, DeLuca and
colleagues (2010) found that a majority of families that were placed in suburbs still lived
in areas that were more racially diverse and less poor than their original public housing
neighborhood, even if they made subsequent moves, whereas many MTO families made
subsequent moves back to high poverty areas. Researchers conclude that providing
assistance with finding and working with landlords appears to lead to better housing
stability outcomes. This suggests that services might be more important than
neighborhood characteristics for residential stability.
Racial composition of destination neighborhoods might relate to neighborhood
outcomes for relocating families. In their re-analysis of MTO data, Clampet-Lundquist
and Massey (2008) found that experimental households that moved back to poor
neighborhoods tended to be those families that initially moved to segregated nonpoor
neighborhoods as opposed to integrated nonpoor neighborhoods. This suggests that the
initial relocation matters for longer-term neighborhood location, and that the racial
composition of a neighborhood could affect residential stability.
What is known about interactions among residents across income?
Research since the late 1990s has found that interaction across income groups has
been limited at best. Most of the research on this topic focuses on mixed-income
developments, but even work focused on income-diverse neighborhoods has come to a
similar conclusion. Most interaction occurs among neighbors of similar income level.
Cross-income interactions tend to be infrequent and superficial. Within Chicagos
Lake Parc Place development, simple interactions such as greeting residents in passing
were common. Rosenbaum, Stroh, and Flynn (1998) found that residents talked to
neighbors for more than 10 minutes about once per month and shared a meal with
another resident about once per year. Both higher- and low-income residents reported a
greater number of friends within their income group than outside of it.
A number of other studies have found limited social interaction across incomes levels in
mixed-income developments and income-diverse neighborhoods. Brophy and Smiths
(1997) study of seven mixed-income developments found that residents described low or
very low levels of interaction with neighbors. Many study respondents did not know the
names of their immediate neighbors. Brower (2009) found that residents of three mixedincome developments in Baltimore had low levels of interaction across income and
across housing type (owners and renters). Hogan (1996) found that residents of

15

scattered-site housing and non-subsidized neighbors had only minimal levels of


interaction (cited in Kleit 2001). A study of the Gautreaux program found that city movers
experienced a decrease in day-to-day aid from neighbors but an increase in terms of
greeting their neighbors (Rosenbaum and Popkin). Briggs (2005) ethnographic work in
Yonkers found few indications of meaningful interactions among people living in mixedincome neighborhoods. Duke (2009) cites a study by Clampet-Lundquist (2004) that
found that women who were relocated to lower poverty neighborhoods faced barriers
forming social ties. As part of the MTO experiment, Popkin et al. (2000) found relatively
low levels of interaction across income groups within neighborhoods, and that the
interactions that did occur were often superficial.
Social interactions tend to occur among residents with similar housing tenures
and circumstances. In Kleits (2005) study of social interactions among residents of
Seattles New Holly HOPE VI redevelopment, she found that relationships were more
likely to form among residents of similar housing tenure. For example, homeowners
reported that they were more likely to know other homeowners than renters, while
renters were most likely to have established relationships with other renters. Public
housing residents knew more people on welfare and fewer employed people. She also
found that children played a role in bridging resident relationships and interactions.
However, child-related interactions were more likely to occur among subsidized renters
because homeowners were less likely to have children.
Limited interaction among residents of different income levels is attributed to a
range of individual and structural factors. Researchers have posited a range of
reasons for the minimal level of interaction across income groups. Joseph has found
low-income residents keep a low profile to avoid any chance of jeopardizing their
housing. Kleit (2005) and Joseph (2008) find that elements of developments design can
serve to limit informal interactions, which could serve as the basis for developing more
significant ties. In the study of a highly diverse development, Kleit discovered differences
in language, educational attainment, race and ethnicity, marital status and family
composition to be important to lines of interaction.
Resident interaction might be motivated or limited by the design of housing units
and public spaces. In a review of case studies from three developments in the U.K.,
Roberts (2007) focused on the intersections of design and social interaction. She found
some evidence that the organization of the housing units mattered less for social
interaction than did the organization of public space. Interaction was more likely among
residents when the layout of public spaces led to encounters, even casual ones. This
held regardless of whether the housing units were integrated, segmented or segregated
by income. Kleit (2005), however, notes that homeownership and rental units were not
integrated in the Seattle development, making it less likely that owners and renters
would cross paths and get to know one another. Some homeowners thought this lack of
propinquity of housing units helped explain the lack of relationships across housing
tenure. Joseph and Chaskin (2010) suggest that other factors can trump any potential
impact of design when residents make an effort to avoid others.
Limited interactions across income might reflect limited interactions among
residents in many neighborhoods. In his study of low-income minority families who
moved from public housing developments to mixed-income neighborhoods, Briggs
(2005) notes that most U.S. neighborhoods are not social worlds but rather collections
of strangers and those with mostly casual contacts. In his research in Yonkers, New

16

York, Briggs found little evidence of ties formed with new neighbors but ongoing ties with
people and institutions from past neighborhoods (i.e. relocated children were bussed to
neighborhood schools across town; churchgoers attended church in their old
neighborhood). He did find that some adults interacted across income levels on a casual
basis around their children.
Neighborhood residents connections vary in part by the degree to which they are
integrated into the broader society. People who are more highly integrated into a
larger society tend to have larger neighbor networks though more casual relationships
while those less integrated tend to have more engaged relationships within their
neighborhood (Chaskin 1997).
Do interactions tend to be positive, negative, or insignificant?
There is some evidence for positive and negative interactions across income
groups. In their study of two mixed-income developments in Chicago, Joseph and
Chaskin (2010) found that there were both positive and negative interactions among
residents across income groups though interactions of any kind were minimal. Some
higher-income residents they interviewed reported giving up on efforts to interact with
lower-income residents because they felt unwelcome. For some but not all of these
higher-income people, the social distance was a disappointment.
Where negative interactions do occur, differences in behavior have been cited. In
Libsons (2007) study of a mixed-income housing development in New Orleans, she
found very little interaction between public-housing and market-rate residents.
Management staff reported that market-rate residents often complained about the
conduct of public housing residents. Public housing residents said they did not feel
respected by other residents or management staff. Libson quotes the director of
neighborhood-based organization that worked with residents in the New Orleans
development as saying, Theres just a different style of living that very low-income
people have in terms of the way they see things, the way they do things, the way they
interact with each other, and the way that middle-class more affluent group of people
generally behave, and they run into conflict with each other.
The degree and type of interactions among residents might change over time
though evidence is mixed. Patillo (2007) found that a number of higher-income
homeowners who moved into a revitalized Chicago neighborhood felt isolated and
somewhat frightened by their surroundings initially. As they became familiar and
increasingly comfortable in their surroundings, many of the homeowners became
involved in the community. Tach (2009) raises the possibility that the same increase in
engagement might take place over time in the Boston development she studied. Joseph
and Chaskin (2010), however, found less interaction over time as residents tended to
give up the effort.

17

Do interactions among residents increase or decrease low-income residents access to


potential benefits of living in mixed-income housing?
Research to date has not found evidence of benefits for low-income families stemming
from interactions with higher-income residents. There has been some evidence of social
isolation developing in the midst of mixed-income housing.
Theoretical assumptions about the creation and impact of community in mixedincome developments need to be tempered. Chaskin and Joseph (2010) examined
strategies to build community, residents expectations regarding community, and
residents experiences in mixed-income developments in Chicago. They found that
residents expected casual interactions with neighbors, shared instrumental interests,
such as a clean and safe environment, and quality housing and services. These
expectations were far more modest than those held by policymakers related to poverty
alleviation. Their research did not find support for the realization of a strong community
or of the hoped-for benefits from community for low-income families. Instead they found
more of an us and them sensibility, community participation along class lines, and
some degree of conflict over expectations for behavior. Efforts to foster resident
participation and engagement were found to reinforce divisions along lines of income,
housing type and housing history as participation tended to occur by residents of the
same group. (See also Fraser and Nelson 2008.)
Social isolation among residents by income and tenure groups has increased over
time. In the study of resident perceptions in Chicago cited above, lower-income
residents reported feeling stigmatized by their higher income neighbors even while
enjoying the new-found lack of stigma from outsiders because of where they live.
Residents across income levels talked about negative interactions and a sense of social
detachment and social isolation within the development. Time has not appeared to help
matters. In a second round of interviews, residents talked more about challenges than
positive interactions. The authors write, Across tenure and class, many residents are
simply withdrawing from engagement with others locally and relying on pre-existing
relationships for social and instrumental support (Joseph and Chaskin 2010, 15).
Authors cite other research that finds the level of trust among residents decreases as the
resident diversity increases.
Interactions occur within rather than across class lines thereby limiting the
potential benefits of living in mixed-income areas. A study of a HOPE VI
redevelopment in Boston found that lower-income residents were more involved in
creating social ties with (like) neighbors and taking actions to enforce social control than
were higher income residents, who were found to avoid forming social ties or supporting
social control efforts, such as reporting crimes (Tach 2009). They were also less likely to
allow their children to play with other children in the development. While the lowerincome residents activities supported social organization within the development, the
lack of interaction across class lines served to maintain social isolation and reduce the
likelihood of realizing any benefits that might come from cross-class relationships.
Income-related differences in interaction and community engagement correlated with
differences in neighborhood perception. Those who viewed the development through a
negative lens, mostly the higher-income residents new to the area, were less engaged
than those who held a positive view of the area, who were more likely to be lowerincome residents.

18

What structures are in place that shape or otherwise affect resident interactions?
Governance structures can affect resident interactions and sense of unity. In their
study of two mixed-income developments in Chicago, Joseph and Chaskin (2010) found
that the governance structure in a mixed-tenure building has led to a sense of division
between low-income renters and the owners of condo units. The condominium
association in the building has control over rules that govern the entire building,
effectively precluding opportunities for low-income residents to participate.
The lack of an effective development-wide organization for residents can impede
resident interactions and community building efforts. In his study of mixed-income
developments in Baltimore, Brower (2009) argues that the lack of resident interaction
can be attributed to the lack of mechanisms, such as community organizations,
responsibilities, shared facilities, that can help foster interaction and build trust across
lines of difference. Although each of the developments he studied called for the creation
of a single residents organization to represent both homeowners and renters, only one
development established a joint organization. Even so, renters in that development said
they still did not feel as though they had a say in decision-making. Brower found that
there was no organization in any of the developments focused on community-building
efforts.
Brower also found that resident interactions could be impeded by management rules
perceived to be unequal and unfair (tenants can be evicted for not following certain
rules; owners do not face such risk); lack of incentives for renters and owners to interact;
and envy that some tenants pay less for the same unit.
Access to and use of community space can affect the development of social
relations among residents. Kleits (2005) research in a HOPE VI development in
Seattle found that although it was assumed that community facilities would foster
interactions among residents, they did not play that role. One reason was related to
usepublic-housing residents used the facilities more frequently than homeowners or
tax-credit renters. Opportunities for residents to interact and establish relationships in
these spaces were infrequent. Brower (2009) found that a community space in one of
the Baltimore developments was run by tenants. Homeowners who wanted to hold a
meeting in the space had to request permission from the tenant council. The owners felt
the difference in access to the space was unfair.
Kleit also notes that homeownership and rental units were not integrated, making it less
likely that owners and renters would cross paths and get to know one another. Some
homeowners thought this lack of proximity helped to explain the lack of relationships
across housing tenure.
Does research suggest that neighborhoods or neighbors matter more for low-income
residents ability to realize benefits from living in mixed-income areas?
The benefits low-income families have realized from living in mixed-income
developments and income-diverse neighborhoods have been derived from changes in
the place more than from people, although the two affect each other. Documented
benefits include improved housing quality, better housing and property maintenance,
improved management, increased security, and opportunities to access improved

19

services and amenities. There have been at least two analyses of the Gautreaux
program and the MTO Demonstration data that suggest neighborhoods can make a
difference for family outcomes related to employment and educational attainment.
Although critiques have been leveled against a couple of the articles included below and
findings from them do not quite align, these studies keep open the question of
neighborhood influence on a broad range of outcomes. Research suggests other factors
important to outcomes for low-income families.
Individual attributes affect outcomes more than neighborhood quality. Goetzs
(2010) literature review and case study explores why low-income public housing
residents who relocated to relatively better neighborhoods in terms of poverty rate, racial
composition and housing market value did not realize individual-level improvements in
economic security or employment. Economic security declined for families that moved to
areas with more White residents and employment was not found to be related to
neighborhood. The literature supports the connection between neighborhood change
and perceptual changes, such as sense of safety, but not the theorized connection
between neighborhood and behavioral change. Goetz (2010, 21) posits that individual
attributes [such as age, health status, and so on] play a more central role in determining
how and whether families benefit from displacement and relocation than neighborhood
quality plays.
An areas racial composition and resource availability appear to make a difference
in family outcomes. In their follow-up study with Gautreaux movers, DeLuca and the
research team (2010) found that women placed in integrated or predominantly white
areas with higher levels of resources (i.e., colleges and jobs) worked more and earned
more compared with women placed in areas with a high black population and fewer
resources irrespective of whether the area was urban or suburban. The team also found
that improvements held for the now-adult children of these families in that they lived in
less segregated and less poor neighborhoods than their neighborhoods of origin.
However, young men did better in suburban areas compared to urban areas whereas
findings for young women were mixed. Findings still need to be considered in light of the
selection bias and other critiques made against previous Gautreaux research, which limit
the generalizability of the results (Popkin et al. 2000).
The length of time spent living in more advantageous neighborhoods correlates
with better self-sufficiency related outcomes. In their re-analysis of MTO data,
Clampet-Lundquist and Massey (2008) found that the length of time families resided in
low-poverty areas and integrated low-poverty areas correlated to better self-sufficiency
outcomes. Each additional month living in a low-poverty neighborhood, whether or not it
is segregated, correlated with an increase in the odds of being employed. Each
additional month living in an integrated low-poverty neighborhood was associated with a
slightly higher increase in weekly earnings compared with living in a segregated lowpoverty area, though the difference was not statistically significant. Each additional
month living in an integrated low-poverty area correlated with a slightly higher rate of
decrease in the likelihood of receiving TANF compared with living in a segregated lowpoverty area. The researchers conclude that specific neighborhood targets and a longer
required stay are important to self-sufficiency outcomes. However, other MTO
researchers have criticized Clampet-Lundquist and Masseys analysis arguing that
previously reported findings of little to no overall impact from MTO on employment and
earnings still hold. (See also Ludwig et al. 2008.)

20

An accounting of the realized benefits for low-income families from mixed-income


housing suggests the strategy should be reevaluated. Vale (2006) argues that if
theorized benefits from interactions are not being realized and benefits are limited mostly
to those associated with improvements in housing quality, management, and
neighborhood safety, these benefits can be realized in ways other than the
redevelopment of public housing into mixed-income developments. He argues that a
development can serve only low-income tenants and still institute a strict screening
process and intensive management.
Gains in self-sufficiency and educational outcomes require targeted resources.
Based on their review of the literature, Brophy, Garcia, and Pooley (2008, 10) find that it
is insufficient for low-income people to live next to people of different income and class
in order to realize gains in self-sufficiency. Efforts to promote upward mobility need to be
intentional, focused in purpose, and included in developments budgets. Similarly,
Sanbonmatsu and colleagues (2006) suggest that for poor children to realize
educational gains, interventions need to focus on the children themselves, their families,
and schools rather than neighborhood alone. (See also Upshur, Werby, and Epp 1981.)
Are schools a necessary feature of successful mixed-income housing?
The role of schools in the success of mixed-income communities is as yet
unknown. Joseph and Feldman (2009) developed a model of the ways in which schools
might affect the success of mixed-income developments and income-diverse
neighborhoods: schools socialize and build skills of students; serve as amenities to
attract middle-income families; provide forums for interactions among students and
parents; help build a collective identity; and serve as a resource for the broader
community. Based on their review of the literature, Joseph and Feldman find that: quality
schools can lay the groundwork for future success of children of all backgrounds; that
there has been little study of the impact of school quality on changes in neighborhood
composition but that a high performing school could lead to increased housing demand,
rising prices, and a decrease in an areas economic diversity; that meaningful interaction
among parents across income will not occur in schools on its own; that middle-income
parents in mixed-income schools act on behalf of their own childs interests rather than
on that of the student body; and that the possibility of a school serving as a community
resource is as yet untested.
Hope VI in most places has not explicitly attempted to attract middle-income
families with children or to develop relationships with local schools. Few Hope VI
developments have attracted families with income greater than 80 percent AMI with
children, and only a few developments worked with local schools during the design
phase (Varady et al. 2005). Some developments made efforts to work with schools after
the development was complete but faced resistance from districts that did not want to
upset existing racial/demographic balances. A development in Kentucky did attract
middle-income families with children, but developers attribute this difference to district
policies in which address does not determine home school. (See also Abravanel, Smith,
and Cove 2007; Johnson, Ladd, and Ludwig 2001; Joseph and Feldman 2009; Lipman
2008.)

21

In their case study of mixed-income communities in three cities, however, Schubert and
Thresher (1996) did find that Atlantas approach to neighborhood revitalization around
Techwood, which included school redevelopment, helped attract market-rate families.
For case studies of HOPE VI and school redevelopment experiences, see Abravanel,
Smith and Cove (2007) and Khadduri et al. (2003).

22

Prevalence and Sustainability of Mixed-Income

How prevalent are mixed-income developments and income-diverse neighborhoods? Do


these developments and neighborhoods tend to be located in certain kinds of cities?
There has not been an effort, of which we are aware, to identify and map all known
mixed-income developments and income-diverse neighborhoods. Consequently, it is not
possible to say how prevalent they are at this time. Some researchers have examined
factors associated with the location of mixed-income environments.
Constrained housing markets can support the feasibility of mixed-income
developments. In their review of data from project-based, multifamily assisted housing
stock that was de facto mixed income, Khadduri and Martin (1997) found that mixedincome projects tended to be located in low-poverty census tracts. They also found that
relatively higher-income households were more likely to live in mixed-income housing
developments in areas with tighter housing markets where there were fewer alternatives
available.
Income diversity attributed to market forces has been on the rise, especially in
certain types of areas. Brophy, Garcia, and Pooley (2008) cite a 2005 study that found
a significant increase between 1970 and 2000 in the percent of census tracts that could
be characterized as mixed-income and mixed-race. The increase in income and racial
diversity was attributed to market forces rather than intention. These tracts tended to be
located in metropolitan areas that were more racially and economically diverse and
where housing markets were tighter, more expensive, and home to a substantial rental
population (Brophy et al. 2008, 78).
Have policies and practices in support of mixed-income housing been effective in
helping to sustain income mixes over time?
There has been some research on resident stability and the sustainability of the mix of
incomes. Intentional mixed-income developments appear able to maintain income
diversity at least in the short term; we did not find studies that examine longer-term
income mix. Some research has found high turnover rates though research to date has
not reported high vacancy rates. Income-diverse neighborhoods, on the other hand,
appear to shift toward income homogeneity over time. Factors to consider in efforts to
sustain the mix of incomes include careful monitoring of occupancy, quality management
of developments, and the level of support for the development and retention of area
services and amenities.
There is some evidence that sustaining the income mix in intentional mixedincome developments is possible. In a study of the marketing, management and
occupancy practices at eight mixed-income developments considered successful, Buron
and Khadduri (2005) found that the developments were able to sustain their planned
income mix for at least five years. Each of the developments in the study had at least
three income tiers, and all but one was mixed-race as well. The study did not examine
resident interaction but did find that residents were satisfied with the housing and the
location, and management was effective in working with residents across income
groups.

23

Income-diverse neighborhoods are less likely to remain diverse over time.


Krupkas (2008) panel study using Census data from 1980, 1990 and 2000 shows that
neighborhoods identified as income-diverse at a point in time slowly transition toward
income homogeneity. The findings present compelling evidence of trends toward income
homogeneity in organic mixed-income neighborhoods, as predicted by earlier theoretical
work.
Residential stability appears to vary by income. There can be high turnover of
middle- and high-income residents, but there are rarely vacancies in those units.
In a study of seven mixed-income developments Brophy and Smith (1997) found that
turnover among middle- and high-income residents resulted from market forces rather
than tenant dissatisfaction. In all developments the tenants reported high levels of
satisfaction with the quality of units and the safety of the buildings and neighborhood.
Waiting lists for vacant units indicate strong interest in the developments.
Effective partnering in early stages of development of mixed-income housing is
important to longer-term success. In their comparative study of two mixed-income
developments, Fraser and Kick (2007) argue that for mixed-income housing to be
successful in attracting a range of residents and achieving benefits for low-income
families, four key groups of stakeholders need to develop shared goals and to build
capacity across their groups. Fraser and Kick identify key stakeholders as investors,
local government staff, nonprofit staff, and community residents.
Managing for a mix of incomes is an ongoing task. Vale (2006) points out that
establishing a mix of incomes among residents early on in the life of a development is
insufficient to the longer-term sustainability of income diversity. The mix needs to be
monitored and managed for decades.
Quality schools can be a factor in the retention of higher income families. Khadduri
and Martin (1997) observed that it is difficult to attract and keep relatively higher income
households with children to mixed-income developments. They state that a good school
system can help retain families that have housing options.

24

VI

Future Research

The research literature on mixed-income developments and income-diverse


neighborhoods converges on consensus in some areas, provides contradictory evidence
in others, and leaves some questions as yet unaddressed. In this final section, we
provide an overview of the current state of knowledge related to benefits of mixedincome housing for low-income families and present a number of questions sparked by
the literature review. We conclude with a consideration of what a framework for future
research might look like.
Summary
Low-income families have realized benefits from living in mixed-income developments
and income-diverse neighborhoods. Benefits are associated with improvements in place
rather than interactions with people.
Documented benefits for low-income families from living in mixed-income developments
and income-diverse areas include those related to place, such as improved housing
quality, increased safety, and improved property management, and improved mental
health from a reduction in stress.
Whether or not low-income families have benefited economically or educationally is
contested. Research has provided evidence that both bolsters and challenges claims
that living in mixed-income developments and income-diverse neighborhoods will lead to
increased family self-sufficiency and better educational outcomes for children.
Findings related to socioeconomic outcomes are mixed. Some researchers have
reported gains in employment correlated to living in mixed-income housing and incomediverse neighborhoods. Other researchers have found little to no change in employment
rates or that gains in employment have come without improvements in wage income,
benefits or job security.
Research on educational gains among low-income children also has led to mixed
findings with some researchers finding improved educational outcomes associated with
moves to mixed-income developments or income-diverse neighborhoods. Other studies
have found a lack of positive impact or early gains that are lost over time.
Research has not lent support to the hypothesis that interactions among residents
across income levels will be the primary mechanism by which benefits will be derived.
Cross-income interactions have been found to be infrequent and inconsequential for the
most part. A specific mechanism of influence hypothesized for mixed-income housing is
behavior modeling. Again, research has provided no evidence to date of residents
learning positive behaviors from the actions of neighbors, nor has it confirmed a priori
assumptions related to income level, personal behavior, and civic involvement that
underlay the behavior modeling hypothesis. Studies have found that most interactions
occur between people of similar socioeconomic background.

25

Questions
The literature review raises as many or more questions than it answers related to
benefits for low-income families. We list questions here that were sparked by the
literature review. These questions, organized by general topic areas, are by no means
exhaustive, but can serve as ideas to consider when developing a future research
agenda.
Interactions and Community
Are there developments and neighborhoods in which residents have developed
social and instrumental relations across lines of income?
o What factors have supported resident interactions and development of
ties?
How do governance models (different structures of resident community groups)
support or undermine efforts to build community?
Does the degree and kind of interaction change over time among adults? Among
children?
o If so, does the change trend toward positive or negative interactions?
o Is time the key factor or do other things lead to the change?
Do higher turnover rates among higher-income households affect efforts to
establish community within MI developments?
Economic Well-being
Research findings are mixed on the question of whether living in mixed-income
developments and income-diverse neighborhoods has a positive effect on the
employment rate and self-sufficiency of low-income families.
o How can research better approach this question?
Approximately what percent of low-income families live in mixed-income
developments or income-diverse neighborhoods?
o If the percent is low, are resources best put toward studying mixedincome housing as a poverty alleviation strategy, especially in light of
findings so far, or are other strategies worth (re)considering (see
Imbroscio 2008a, b; Vale 2006)?
Children
Are children more likely than adults to interact with children and adults across
lines of income?
Over time are children influenced by neighbors in detectable ways?
Do educational outcomes improve for children who live in mixed-income
developments?
Under what circumstances does living in mixed-income developments lead to
attending low-poverty or income-diverse schools?
Sustainability of Income Mix
Will the quality of housing, public space, and management in mixed-income
developments hold up over time?
Will higher-income households, households with alternatives, choose to remain
in mixed-income developments or income-diverse neighborhoods for at least the
average length of residency in a given area?

26

What factors predict the likelihood that a low-income family will remain in a nonpoor neighborhood?
How can services and supports best be targeted to families renting with Housing
Choice Vouchers to help them remain in low-poverty areas?
Future Research
Missing from the extant research is a bigger picture of mixed-income developments and,
to a certain extent, income-diverse neighborhoods, and their impact on low-income
families. A number of researchers have called for comparative studies of multiple sites
(e.g., Briggs et al. 2009; Kleit 2004) in order to push toward generalizable findings on a
number of topics. Site-specific studies are important and no doubt will continue to be
carried out both for site evaluation purposes and to expand our knowledge on a range of
issues, but there is need for larger-scale studies that can provide expanded empirical
evidence related to the benefits and challenges of living in and managing mixed-income
and income-diverse environments.
Larger, multi-site studies will be difficult to design and conduct in income-diverse
neighborhoods for a number of reasons, including challenges related to defining
meaningful neighborhood boundaries and identifying individuals and organizations with
whom to meet. New studies using Census and other secondary data are valuable but
they can only go so far toward providing evidence of neighborhood and neighbor
influence on low-income families.
Studies of mixed-income developments are relatively easier to design and conduct
because of developments spatial boundaries and identifiable management structures. A
research agenda that focused on cross-site, comparative studies of mixed-income
developments would push the research and knowledge base further than it has so far
been able to go. Here we provide suggestions for what such an agenda could look like.2
A survey of mixed-income developments. Much of the published research on mixedincome developments has been conducted in a relatively small number of HOPE VI
sites. It would be informative and highly useful for future research to compile basic
information on the universe of HOPE VI redevelopments. A short survey could cover
topics of management structure, governance structures, income tiers, housing layout,
basic management information (turnover rate, vacancy rate, and so on), general
assessments of resident interaction levels, and overall safety assessments. The content
of the survey could help determine the appropriate respondents. If questions were of a
more general nature, the local housing authority might be able to respond. Questions
targeting development management practices and experiences or information
concerning residents would need to be directed to the management entity, which could
be the local housing authority or a private management company. Though the cost for
such an undertaking would be considerable, such a survey could produce consistent
information with which to create a profile of most HOPE VI sites across the country. If
made available broadly, researchers could draw upon this data resource when designing
and selecting sites for future research.

For a broad consideration of possible research agendas related to mixed-income housing, see
Briggs et al. 2009.

27

Focusing on HOPE VI sites would allow researchers to identify the sample more easily
than were the focus on mixed-income developments more broadly. That said, it would be
valuable to attempt to identify the universe of mixed-income developments (at a point in
time). Were this possible, a similar general survey could be administered that would
provide rich data with which to create a picture of mixed-income developments that
extended well beyond HOPE VI sites. The data also could be used to design and select
sites for future research.
Multi-site studies. Examples of larger studies related to mixed-income and poverty
alleviation include the ideas listed below. The study ideas could be carried out either in
developments or neighborhoods, assuming appropriate income-diverse neighborhoods
could be identified.
Comparisons of developments or neighborhoods with different mixes of
incomes (e.g., 30-30-30, 60-40, etc.) to examine whether and in what way
income mix might affect resident interactions. A similar study would be to
compare mixed-income developments or income-diverse neighborhoods with
different tenure mixes;
Comparisons of mixed-income developments with different resident
governance structures (e.g., residents organized by tenure, building, etc.) to
examine any impact formal resident organizations might have on interactions
and community engagement;
Comparisons of child and youth engagement across developments or
neighborhoods to identify factors that support and discourage interactions with
other children and adults, community engagement, and the impact on
behavior, if any, from living in mixed-income and income-diverse
environments;
Comparisons of developments with and without significant resident interaction
to identify factors associated with higher levels of interaction;
Comparisons of developments with varying rates of household turnover to
identify factors associated with residential stability among lower- and higherincome families;
Comparisons of childrens educational outcomes in developments or
neighborhoods with different income mixes and/or relatively higher and lower
median household income to examine whether living in mixed-income or highincome areas affects success in school.
Single-site studies. More is known about some mixed-income developments than
others, which increases the likelihood that policymakers and others will draw from
research on a small number places in discussions of how mixed-income works and what
impact it might have. To broaden what is known about specific sites and bring that
knowledge into program and policy discussions, support is needed for research in places
about which little is known. It is likely to be the case, however, that considerably more
research has been conducted than has been published. Support for researchers to
prepare articles or to turn technical reports into articles for publication also would be an
effective way to extend the knowledge base at minimal cost.

28

As the philanthropic community considers a mixed-income research agenda, the


selection of specific studies could be guided by a foundations primary interest among
the purposes identified with mixed-income housingpoverty alleviation, income
desegregation, or urban revitalization. Though these three general purposes overlap,
deciding which among them is of major concern can help shape the specific elements of
a research portfolio. The questions and study examples listed above relate to poverty
alleviation and income desegregation. An interest in urban revitalization would lead to
different projects. Because the research to date has found a closer association between
mixed-income housing and income desegregation however, an interest primarily in
poverty alleviation alone could lead to a path that diverges over time from studies of
mixed-income or income-diverse settings.

29

References Cited
Abravanel, Martin D., Robin E. Smith, and Elizabeth Cove. 2007. Linking Public Housing
Revitalization to Neighborhood School Improvement. Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute.
Boston, Thomas D. 2005. Environment Matters: The Effect of Mixed-Income Revitalization on
Socio-economic Status of Public Housing Residents: A Case Study of Atlanta. (abstract
only). Georgia Institute of Technology.
Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 1997. Moving Up Versus Moving Out: Neighborhood Effects on
Housing Mobility Programs. Housing Policy Debate 8 (1): 195234.
. 2005. Social Mixing and the Geography of Opportunity: Lessons for Policy and
Unanswered Questions. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Briggs, Xavier de Souza, Greg Duncan, Katherine Edin, Mark Joseph, Robert D. Mare, John
Mollenkopf, Mary Patillo, Lincoln Quillian, Robert Sampson, Claudia Solari, Laura Tach,
and Sudhir Venkatesh. 2009. Research Design for the Study of Mixed-Income
Housing. Los Angeles: California Center for Population Research, UCLA.
Brophy, Paul C., Miguel Garcia, and Karen Pooley. 2008. Mixed-Income Housing: A Promising
Approach to Improved Housing and Neighborhoods. Unpublished manuscript.
Brophy, Paul C. and Rhonda N. Smith. 1997. Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success.
Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 3(2): 331.
Brower, Sidney. 2009. The Feasibility of Mixed-Income Communities. University of Maryland.
Presented at the international symposium jointly organized by the IAPS-CSBE Network
and the IAPS Housing Network, Istanbul, Turkey, October.
Buron, Larry, Jill Khadduri, Judy Weber, Frances Ferguson. 2005. Strategies for Successfully
Marketing and Stabilizing the Occupancy of Mixed-Income/Mixed-Race Properties.
Summary Report commissioned by the Ford Foundation.
Calavita, Nico and Kenneth Grimes. 1998. Inclusionary Housing in California: The Experience
of Two Decades. Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (2): 150169.
Chaskin, Robert J. 1997. Perspectives on Neighborhood and Community: A Review of the
Literature. Social Service Review 71(4): 521547.
Chaskin, Robert J., and Mark L. Joseph. 2010. Building Community in Mixed-Income
Developments: Assumptions, Approaches, and Early Experiences. Urban Affairs
Review 45(3): 299335.
Clampet-Lundquist, Susan, and Douglas S. Massey. 2008. Neighborhood Effects on Economic
Self-Sufficiency: A Reconsideration of the Moving to Opportunity Experiment. American
Journal of Sociology 114(1): 107143.

30

DeFilippis, James, and Jim Fraser. Forthcoming. Why Do We Want Mixed-Income Housing and
Neighborhoods? In Critical Urban Studies: New Directions, edited by Jonathan S.
Davies and David L. Imbroscio. Albany: SUNY Press.
DeLuca, Stefanie, Greg J. Duncan, Micere Keels, and Ruby M. Mendenhall. 2010. Gautreaux
Mothers and Their Children: An Update. Housing Policy Debate 20(1): 725.
Doerr, Tom, and Joy Siegal. 1990. Mixing Incomes at Timberlawn Crescent. Urban Land
49(4): 811.
Duke, Joanna. 2009. Mixed Income Housing Policy and Public Housing Residents Right to the
City. Critical Social Policy 29 (100): 100120.
Ellen, Ingrid Gould, Amy Ellen Schwartz, and Leanna Stiefel. 2008. Can Economically
Integrated Neighborhoods Improve Childrens Educational Outcomes? In Urban and
Regional Policy and Its Effects, vol. 1, edited by Margery Austin Turner, Howard Wial,
and Harold Wolman (181205). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Ellickson, Robert C. 2010. The False Promise of the Mixed-Income Housing Project. UCLA
Law Review 57:983.
Fraser, James, and Edward L. Kick. 2007. The Role of Public, Private, Non-Profit and
Community Sectors in Shaping Mixed-Income Housing Outcomes in the U.S. Urban
Studies 44(12): 235777.
Fraser, James, and Michael H. Nelson. 2008. Can Mixed-Income Housing Ameliorate
Concentrated Poverty? The Significance of a Geographically Informed Sense of
Community. Geography Compass 2(6): 212744.
Galster, George. 2007. Neighborhood Social Mix as a Goal of Housing Policy: A Theoretical
Analysis. European Journal of Housing Policy 7(1): 1943.
Galster, George, Roger Andersson, Sako Musterd, and Timo M. Kauppinen. 2008. Does
Neighborhood Income Mix Affect Earnings of Adults? New Evidence from Sweden.
Journal of Urban Economics 63:85870.
Galster, George C., Jason C. Booza, and Jackie M. Cutsinger. 2008. Income Diversity within
Neighborhoods and Very Low-Income Families. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy
Development and Research 10(2): 257300.
Gans, Herbert J. 1961a. Planning and Social Life: Friendship and Neighbor Relations in
Suburban Communities. Journal of the American Planning Association 27(2): 13440.
. 1961b. The Balanced Community: Homogeneity or Heterogeneity in Residential
Areas. Journal of the American Planning Association 27(3): 17684.
Goetz, Edward G. 2010. Better Neighborhoods, Better Outcomes? Explaining Relocation
Outcomes in HOPE VI. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research
12(1): 532.

31

Imbroscio, David. 2008a. [U]nited and Actuated by Some Common Impulse of Passion:
Challenging the Dispersal Consensus in American Housing Policy Research. Journal of
Urban Affairs 30(2): 11130.
. 2008a. Rebutting Nonrebuttals: A Rejoinder to My Critics. Journal of Urban Affairs
30(2): 14954.
Johnson, Michael P., Helen F. Ladd, Jens Ludwig. 2001. The Benefits and Costs of
Residential-Mobility Programs for the Poor. Prepared for the Conference:
Opportunities, Deprivation, and the Housing Nexus: Trans-Atlantic Perspectives.
Joseph, Mark L. 2006. Is Mixed-Income Development the Antidote to Urban Poverty? Housing
Policy Debate 17 (2): 20934.
. 2008. Early Resident Experiences at a New Mixed-Income Development in Chicago.
Journal of Urban Affairs 30(3): 22957.
Joseph, Mark, and Robert Chaskin. 2010. Living in a Mixed-Income Development: Resident
Perceptions of the Benefits and Disadvantages of Two Developments in Chicago.
Urban Studies 47(11): 120.
Joseph, Mark, Robert J. Chaskin, and Henry S. Webber. 2007. The Theoretical Basis for
Addressing Poverty through Mixed-Income Development. Urban Affairs Review 42(3):
369-409.
Joseph, Mark, and Jessica Feldman. 2009. Creating and Sustaining Successful Mixed-Income
Communities: Conceptualizing the Role of Schools. Education and Urban Society 41(6):
623-652.
Khadduri, Jill, and Marge Martin. 1997. Mixed-Income Housing in the HUD Multifamily Stock.
Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 3(2):3369
Kleit, Rachel. 2001. Neighborhood Relations in Suburban Scattered-Site and Clustered Public
Housing. Journal of Urban Affairs 23(3-4): 40930.
. 2002. Job Search Networks and Strategies in Scattered-site Public Housing. Housing
Studies. 17 (1): 83-100.
. 2005. HOPE VI New Communities: Neighborhood Relationships in Mixed-Income
Housing. Environment and Planning A. (37): 1413-1441.
Krupka, Douglas, J. 2008. The Stability of Mixed-Income Neighborhoods in America. IZA
Discussion Paper Series No. 3370.
Lees, Loretta. 2008. Gentrification and Social Mixing: Towards an Inclusive Urban
Renaissance. Urban Studies 45(2): 244970.
Levy, Diane K., Martin Abravanel, Vicki Been, Kassie Dumlao, Lynn Fisher, Kaitlin Franks,
Gerrit Knapp, Nancy Pindus, Larry Rosenthal, and Jason Sartori. Unpublished report,
2010. Benefits and Costs of Inclusionary Zoning Programs in the United States: A
Literature Review to Inform Assessment of Inclusionary Zoning Programs. Project

32

deliverable submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,


Office of Policy Design and Research.
Libson, Brittany. 2007. River Garden: New Orleans Model for Mixed Income Housing.
American Institute for Social Justice.
Lipman, Pauline. 2008. Mixed-income Schools and Housing: Advancing the neo-Liberal Urban
Agenda. Journal of Education Policy 23(2): 11934.
Ludwig, Jens, Jeffrey R. Kling, Lawrence F. Katz, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, Jeffrey B. Liebman, Greg
J. Duncan, and Ronald C. Kessler. 2008. What Can We Learn about Neighborhood
Effects from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment? American Journal of Sociology
114(1): 14488.
Mulroy, Elizabeth. 1991. Mixed-Income Housing in Action. Urban Land 50(5).
Musterd, Sako, Roger Andersson. 2005. Housing Mix, Social Mix, and Social Opportunities.
Urban Affairs Review 40(6): 76190.
Popkin, Susan J., Larry Buron, Diane K. Levy, and Mary K. Cunningham. 2000. The Gautreaux
Legacy: What Might Mixed-Income and Dispersal Strategies Mean for the Poorest Public
Housing Tenants. Housing Policy Debate 11(4): 91142.
Roberts, Marion. 2007. Sharing Space: Urban Design and Social Mixing in Mixed Income New
Communities. Planning Theory and Practice 8(2): 183204.
Rosenbaum, James E., Linda K. Stroh, Cathy A. Flynn. 1998. Lake Parc Place: A Study of
Mixed-Income Housing. Housing Policy Debate 9(4): 70340.
Ryan, William, Allan Sloan, Maria Seferi, Elaine Weberly. 1974. All In Together: An Evaluation
of Mixed-Income Multi-Family Housing. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency.
Sanbonmatsu, Lisa, Jeffrey R. Kling, Greg J. Duncan, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 2006.
Neighborhoods and Academic Achievement: Results from the Moving to Opportunity
Experiment. The Journal of Human Resources 41(4): 64991.
Schubert, F. Michael, and Alison Thresher. 1996. Lessons from the Field: Three Case Studies
of Mixed-Income Housing Development. Great Cities Institute. University of Illinois at
Chicago.
Schwartz, Alex, and Kian Tajhabhsh. 1997. Mixed-Income Housing: Unanswered Questions.
Cityscape 3(2): 7192.
Schwartz, Alex, Kian Tajhabhsh. 2001. Mixed-Income Housing as Social Policy: The Case for
Diminished Expectations. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of
Collegiate Schools of Planning.
Schwartz, Heather. 2010. Housing Policy Is School Policy: Economically Integrative Housing
Promotes Academic Success in Montgomery County, Maryland. A Century Foundation
Report.

33

Smith, Alastair. 2002. Mixed-Income Housing Developments: Promise and Reality.


Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation.
Tach, Laura M. 2008. More than Bricks and Mortar: Neighborhood Frames, Social Processes,
and the Mixed-Income Redevelopment of a Public Housing Project. City and
Community 8(3): 26999.
Upshur, Carol C., Elaine Werby, and Gayle Epp. 1981. Social Service Programs Essential for
Mixed-Income Housing Developments. Journal of Housing 38(5):26269.
Vale, Lawrence J. 2006. Comment on Mark Josephs Is Mixed-Income Development an
Antidote to Urban Poverty? Housing Policy Debate 17(2): 25969.
Varady, David P., Jeffrey A. Raffel, Stephanie Sweeney, and Latina Denson. 2005. Attracting
Middle-Income Families in the Hope VI Public Housing Revitalization Program. Journal
of Urban Affairs 27(2): 14964.

34

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Kathleen Tandy
Office of the Mayor; At Large; Guillen, Abel; Kalb, Dan
luxury apartment tower proposed for E 12th
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 8:24:10 PM

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!
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
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:44:57 PM

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:

ilene@ileneweinreb.net
Kalb, Dan; At Large
Maintenance funds for the Lake from the remainder parcel sale
Thursday, April 23, 2015 4:19:37 PM

Dear Councilmembers Kalb and Kaplan,


As a concerned supporter of the 2002 DD bond measure, I urge the Council to
approve the the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's CED Committee that
25% of the 12th Street "remainder parcel" land sale proceeds be devoted
to a fund for maintenance of Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt .
Measure DD rovided a much-needed restoration of historic features, the new,
heavily-used bridge connection across the widened channel, and a welcome
expansion of the usable areas at Lakeside Park. Oakland's reputation has been
burnished by these projects and if we can keep it in good condition, it will serve as
an attraction and a wonderful recreation area for many decades.
However, Measure DD's capital funds cannot be used for maintenance and
protection of the lake improvements. With its more intense use and greater visibility,
the park needs more care and maintenance than the current park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the reconfiguration of a 12-lane roadway into
a 6-lane boulevard, now Lake Merritt Boulevard. The CED Committee's
recommendation deserves your support. We urge you to set aside some of the land
sale proceeds toward funding maintenance, as you act on the remainder parcel.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Ilene Weinreb

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Alison Finlay
Guillen, Abel; Kalb, Dan; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid,
Larry; At Large; Office of the Mayor
Maintenance of Measure DD improvements to the Lake
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 12:58:37 PM

Dear Mayor Schaaf and esteemed City Council Members,


Tuesday evening the Council will vote on the sale of the "remainder parcel" created by the Measure DDfunded realignment of 12th St. A Council committee has recommended setting aside 25% of the sale
proceeds toward maintenance of Measure DD projects at Lake Merritt. This could be the start of an
endowment fund to provide a steady income stream for Lake maintenance, which would be wonderful!
Second, the Council will begin discussing the City budget. The Mayor's proposed budget includes money
in 2016-17 for Lake Merritt. While a good start, much more is needed! Currently the Lake has 1.5
gardeners, down from a high of 15 some years ago. The Lake is our crown jewel, and deserves to be
kept up!
Please support for additional funding to enhance maintenance of the Measure DD improvements at Lake
Merritt!
Thank you!
Alison Finlay
Oakland Heritage Alliance Board,
Proud Oakland resident

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Tom Willging
Office of the Mayor; Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel;
Brooks, Desley; Reid, Larry; At Large
naomi@17th.com
Maintenance of Oakland"s Crown Jewel--Lake Merritt
Friday, April 24, 2015 5:49:40 PM

Dear Councilmember,
I am writing you as a member of Oakland Heritage Alliance and as a resident of
the neighborhood near Lake Merritt. I urge you and the Council to approve the
the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's CED Committee that 25% of
the 12th Street "remainder parcel" land sale proceeds be devoted to a fund for
maintenance of Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space
improvements around the city in decades. The area is highly used and greatly
enjoyed by residents of the entire city (and surrounding areas as well, some
even from San Francisco). However, Measure DD's capital funds cannot be used
for maintenance and protection of the lake improvements. With its greatly
increased usage, the park needs more care and maintenance than the current
park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the realignment of roadway through
Measure DD's pedestrian, bicycle, and park visitor enhancements, now known as
Lake Merritt Boulevard. The CED Committee's recommendation deserves your
support. We urge you to include this recommendation in your action on the
remainder parcel.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Tom Willging
Oakland, CA 94612-4653
510-Tom Willging
Oakland, CA 94612
510(home)
202(cell)

April 23, 2015

Dear Mayor Schaaf and Councilmembers,


As members of the original coalition that supported the Lake Merritt Boulevard Plan and the
subsequent 2002 DD bond measure, Oakland Heritage Alliance urges the Council to approve
the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's CED Committee that 25% of the 12th
Street "remainder parcel" land sale proceeds be devoted to a fund for maintenance of
Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD provided a much-needed restoration of historic features, the new, heavily-used
bridge connection across the widened channel, and a welcome expansion of the usable areas
at Lakeside Park. Oakland's reputation has been burnished by these projects and if we can
keep it in good condition, it will serve as an attraction and a wonderful recreation area for many
decades.
However, Measure DD's capital funds cannot be used for maintenance and protection of the
lake improvements. With its more intense use and greater visibility, the park needs more care
and maintenance than the current park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the reconfiguration of a 12-lane roadway into a 6-lane
boulevard, now Lake Merritt Boulevard. The CED Committee's recommendation deserves your
support. We urge you to set aside some of the land sale proceeds toward funding maintenance,
as you act on the remainder parcel.

Thank you!
Sincerely,

Alison Finlay, President


Oakland Heritage Alliance

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

jamesevann@aol.com
jamesevann@aol.com
May 5 Council Item -- 25% of 12th St "Remainder Parcel" for Maintenance of Meas DD Improvements
Monday, April 27, 2015 11:58:22 AM

To: Mayor Schaaf:


To: City Councilmembers:
As a member of CALM (Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt), I write regarding the
E 12th Street "remainder parcel," scheduled for action of City Council, 5 May 2015.
CALM is the organization that envisioned Lake Merritt Boulevard and related
improvements at the south end of the Lake, and whose proposal was selected by the
City Council in 2001, leading to the $198 million Measure DD bond -- approved by
over 80% of Oakland voters -- and the 56 improvement projects around the city that
are now completed or nearing final stages of implementation
CALM strongly urges the Council to approve the 14 April 2015 unanimous
recommendation of the Council's CED Committee that25% of proceeds from sale
of the 12th Street "remainder parcel" be devoted to a dedicatedfund for
maintenance of Measure DD improvements at the Lake Merritt area.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space
improvements around the city in decades. However, Measure DD's capital funds
cannot be used for maintenance and protection of the variousimprovements. With its
greatly increased usage, LakeMerritt and its newparksmust be carefullymaintained
-- which is presently impossible with the reduced budget of the Parks & Recreation
Agency that has currently been reduced to onlyone-&-one-halfpark staff for the
entire Lake Merritt area.
The "remainder parcel," created by Measure DD, resulted from realignment of the
former impenetrable roadway system into newpedestrian, bicycle, parks,
andvisitor enhancements, now known as Lake Merritt Boulevard.
The CED Committee's recommendation deserves the Council'senthusiasticsupport.
Accordingly, CALMurges the Councilto give strong approval to CED's
recommendation. The City owes it to Oakland voters toprotect and safeguard the
huge investment made to successfully transform the Lake's trafficways, as well as
beautifying the now popular Lake Merritt, its environs and parks well into the future.
Thank you !
Sincerely,
James E Vann
Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt
and Measure DD Community Coalition

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Gregjurin@aol.com
Kalb, Dan
MEASURE DD - FUND LAKE MERRITT MAINTENANCE COSTS
Monday, April 27, 2015 4:27:37 PM

Oakland, CA 94610-1019
April 27, 2015
Dan Kalb - District 1
City Councilmember, Oakland CA
Oakland CA City Hall
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
FUND LAKE MERRITT MAINTENANCE
Dear Mayor Schaaf:
I am writing you as a member of Oakland Heritage Alliance. I urge the Council to approve the
April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's CED Committee that 25% of the 12th Street
"remainder parcel" land sale proceeds be devoted to a fund for maintenance of Measure DD
improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space
improvements around the city in decades. However, Measure DD's capital funds cannot be
used for maintenance and protection of the lake improvements. With its greatly increased
usage, the park needs more care and maintenance than the current park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the realignment of roadway through Measure DD's
pedestrian, bicycle, and park visitor enhancements, now known as Lake Merritt Boulevard.
The CED Committee's recommendation deserves your support. We urge you to include this
recommendation in your action on the remainder parcel.
Should you have any questions, I can be reached at (510)
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Gregory Jurin

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Yolande Barial Knight


Kalb, Dan
Measure DD Improvements
Monday, April 27, 2015 10:20:30 AM

Dear Council Member Kalb,


I am John Sutter, a Measure DD Community Coalition participant representing the East Bay Regional Park
District. I am writing to urge the Council to approve the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's CED
Committee that 25% of "remainder parcel" land sale proceeds be devoted to a fund for maintenance of
Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt. In addition, I urge that these proceeds also be available for
maintenance of DD improvements along the waterfront.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space improvements around the
city in decades. Nevertheless, as a capital bond, Measure DD cannot provide funds for maintenance and
protection of these widely-praised new facilities, which will soon fall into shameful disrepair without special
and urgent action.
The "remainder parcel" is a product of Measure DD plans, construction, and road realignment, which created
the successful Lake Merritt Boulevard. Accordingly, one appropriate and vastly needed special action is
exactly that recommended by the CED Committee. The same need exists on the waterfront projects. In fact
some, like the Union Point Park, are already in disrepair. Please approve the above recommendation.
Sincerely,
John
Yolande Barial Knight
Acting Clerk of the Board | General Manager's Office
East Bay Regional Park District
2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland, CA 94605
Tel: 510-544-2020 | Fax: 510-569-1417
ybarial@ebparks.org | www.ebparks.org
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY | This electronic message and any files or attachments transmitted with it may be confidential, privileged, or proprietary information of the East Bay
Regional Park District. The information is solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it was intended to be addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that use, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, destroy any copies, and
delete it from your system.

P Please consider the environment before you print

From:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Christopher P. Hadley
Oakland Heritage Alliance
Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt Needed
Friday, April 24, 2015 1:55:53 PM

Dear Councilmember,
We are writing you as members of the Oakland Heritage Alliance (OHA) and urge
the Council to approve the the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's
CED Committee that 25% of the 12th Street "remainder parcel" land sale proceeds
be devoted to a fund for needed maintenance of Measure DD improvements at
Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space
improvements around the city in decades, including accessible walking and bike
paths. However, Measure DD's capital funds cannot be used for maintenance and
protection of the lake improvements. With its greatly increased usage, the park
needs more care and maintenance than the current park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the realignment of roadway through
Measure DD's pedestrian, bicycle, and park visitor enhancements, now known as
Lake Merritt Boulevard. The CED Committee's recommendation deserves your
support. We urge you to include this recommendation in your action on the
remainder parcel.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Christopher Hadley
Helen Bersie

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Ralston, Henry
Kalb, Dan
drsamuelmerritt@gmail.com; Pattie E-Mail
Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt
Saturday, April 25, 2015 7:13:24 PM

Dear Dan,
My wife and I live at
and thus in your City Council District #1. We have
volunteered from time to time to help replant the tidal marsh along the outlet of Lake Merritt. It has
come to our attention that a portion of the funds from the sale of the parcel at the corner of East
12th St. and 2nd Ave have been voted by the City Council's Community and Economic Development
Committee to be set aside for the maintenance of the Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
We know that the budget of the Public Works Department has been reduced in order to help the
Citys budget deficit and that the allocation of funds for the maintenance of Lake Merritt are in
jeopardy.
The restoration of Lake Merritt is one of the major triumphs of Oakland urban planning. The Lake is
now a site of which we can all be proud. Whenever we have out-of-town visitors, a walk around
beautiful Lake Merritt is one of the FIRST activities that we engage in so that we can show off our
city. We strongly urge you to make funding of Measure DD project maintenance at Lake Merritt a
budget priority! It is very much in the interest of all of our fellow citizens of Oakland.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Henry (Peter) Ralston
Pattie Litton

May 5, 2015
Agenda Item 13: DDA for 12th Street Remainder Parcel

Esteemed Council Members:


BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Officers
Paul Vidican
President
John Bliss
Vice President
Detra Paige
Secretary
Ken Solomon
Treasurer
Board Members
Steve Birndorf
Michael Hammock
Judith Johnson
Karen Krolewski
Erik Ludwig
Ken Maxey
Lori McKee
Susan Montauk
Emily Rosenberg
Daniel Swafford
Barry Weiss
Liz Westbrook
Non-Voting Members
Audree Jones-Taylor
Director, Oakland Parks &
Recreation
Brooke Levin
Director, Oakland Public
Works Agency
Barry Miller
Chair, Parks & Recreation
Advisory Commission

STAFF
Ken Lupoff
Executive Director

PO Box 13267
Oakland, CA 94661
Tel 510.465.1850
Fax 510.465.1852
www.oaklandparks.org

We are writing to you today to express our support for the CED Committees
recommendation to set aside 50% of the proceeds from the sale of land located at the
12th Street Remainder parcel for the support of affordable housing and the
maintenance of the improvements made to the Lake Merritt area as a result of the
Measure DD Bond.
We are particularly concerned about the 25% portion of proceeds that the CED
Committee recommended for DD-related maintenance.
Lake Merritt and Lakeside Park are truly Oaklands Central Park, drawing visitors from
all neighborhoods in our great city, as well as surrounding communities in California,
other states, and even other countries. The DD-related improvements show Oakland
as the magnificent city it was meant to be. But these improvements need to be
maintained so that future generations can enjoy the fruit of our labors.
Research has shown that well maintained parks increase the viability of businesses,
help to attract new residents, improve the value of homes and other properties in
surrounding areas, and reduce crime, all of which lead to increased property tax and
sales tax revenues.
We hope that you will support the CED Committees recommendation at the City
Council meeting on Tuesday, May 5.

Sincerely,

-Ken Lupoff
Executive Director

Paul Vidican
President of the Board

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Helen Hutchison
Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid,
Larry; At Large
Measure DD maintennce
Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:16:35 AM

I strongly support the CED Committee recommendation to dedicate 25% of the


"remainder parcel" land sale proceeds to to a fund devoted to maintenance of
Measure DD improvements around Lake Merritt. Please vote to maintain that
allocation.
Helen Hutchison
-------------------------------------------------------

Helen Hutchison

510
- h 510
Skype: helen_hutchison

-c

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Chris Pattillo
Kalb, Dan
Money for Maintenance
Saturday, April 25, 2015 4:45:34 PM

Dear Council Member Kalb,


I write as a member of CALM (Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt). CALM is the
organization that envisioned Lake Merritt Boulevard and related improvements at the
south end of the Lake, and whose proposal was selected by the City Council in 2001,
leading to the $198 million Meas DD bond, and the 56 improvement projects around
the city that are now completed or nearing final stages of implementation
I urge the Council to approve the the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the
Council's CED Committee that 25% proceeds from sale of the 12th Street
"remainder parcel" be devoted to a fund for maintenance of Measure DD
improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space
improvements around the city in decades. However, Measure DD's capital funds
cannot be used for maintenance and protection of the various improvements.
With its greatly increased usage, Lake Merritt and its new parks need more care
and maintenance than the current one-&-one-half park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel," created by Measure DD, resulted from realignment of the
former confused roadway system into new pedestrian, bicycle, parks, and visitor
enhancements, now known as Lake Merritt Boulevard.
The CED Committee's recommendation deserves your support. We urge the
Council to give enthusiastic approval to CED's recommendation, thereby to protect
and safeguard the huge investment Oakland voters made to successfully transform
the Lake's traffic ways as well as beautifying the now popular Lake Merritt, its
environs and parks well into the future.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Chris Pattillo
Principal

PGAdesign

FASLA

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
444 17th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Direct | 510.550.8855
Main | 510.465.1284
PGAdesign.com

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

judythej@aol.com
Kalb, Dan
Oakland Budget and sale of the 12th Street remainder parcel
Monday, May 04, 2015 9:03:09 PM

Dear Councilmember Kalb: I am writing you as a member of the Measure DD Community Coalition,
Board Member of Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation, a volunteer with the Lake Merritt Weed
Warriors and Steward of Channel Park - I spend a lot of time in Oakland's very special parks.
I urge the Council to approve the April 14th, 2015 recommendation of the Council's CED Committee
that 25% of the 12th Street "remainder parcel" land sale proceeds be devoted to a fund for
maintenance of Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space improvements
around the city in decades. HoweverMeasure DD's capital funds cannot be used for maintenance and
protection of the Lake improvements. With its greatlyincreased usage, the park needs more care and
maintenance than the current park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the realignment of roadway through Measure DD's pedestrian,
bicycle, and park visitor enhancements, now known as Lake Merritt Boulevard. The CED Committee's
recommendation deserves your support. I urge you to include this recommendation in youraction on
the remainder parcel.
Thank you.
Judith Johnson

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

DRosario
Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid,
Larry; At Large; Office of the Mayor
Oakland DD Funds
Saturday, May 02, 2015 4:56:53 PM

Oakland, CA 94610
510
May 3, 2015
RE: Measure DD Funds
To: Mayor Libby Schaff and the members of the Oakland City Council
I am Dee Rosario, a Measure DD Community Coalition participant representing
Friends of Sausal Creek. I am writing to urge the Council to approve the April 14,
2015 recommendation of the Council's CED Committee that 25% of "remainder
parcel" land sale proceeds be devoted to a fund for maintenance of Measure
DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space
improvements around the city in decades. Nevertheless, as a capital bond, Measure
DD cannot provide funds for maintenance and protection of these widely-praised new
facilities. Urgent action is needed to give the Departments of Public Works and Parks
and Recreation the means to maintain the shine on our recently restored crown
jewel.
The "remainder parcel" is a product of Measure DD plans, construction, and road
realignment, which created the successful Lake Merritt Boulevard. Accordingly, one
appropriate and vastly needed special action is exactly that recommended by the
CED Committee. Please approve the above recommendation.
Sincerely,
Dionisio (Dee) Rosario
Board member Friends of Sausal Creek
P.S. A signed copy is attached.

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:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Ken Lupoff
Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid,
Larry; At Large
Paul Vidican
Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation Letter in Support of Agenda Item 13: DDA for 12th Street Remainder
Parcel
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:38:39 AM
Measure DD Maintenance Letter 050515.pdf

Dear City Council Members:


Please see the attached letter in support of tonight's City Council meeting agenda
item # 13.
Best regards,
Ken & Paul
-Ken Lupoff Paul Vidican
Executive Director President of the Board
Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation (Friends of Oakland Parks and Recreation)
p: 510.465.1850
www.oaklandparks.org

Providing Financial and Volunteer Resources and Advocacy for Recreation


Programs and Parks in Oakland.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Michael-David Sasson
Office of the Mayor; At Large; Kalb, Dan
Opposed to luxury apartment tower proposed for E 12th
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 10:00:57 AM

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:

Patricia Durham
Office of the Mayor; Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; imcelhaney@oaklandnet.com; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo,
Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid, Larry; At Large
Perpetual Funding for Maintenance of Lake Merritt DD Improvements
Tuesday, April 28, 2015 1:27:56 PM

Dear Mayor Schaaf and Councilmembers Kalb, Guillen, McElhaney, CampbellWashington,Gallo, Brooks, Reid, and Kaplan:
I write as a member of CALM (Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt). CALM is the
organization that envisioned Lake Merritt Boulevard and related improvements at the
south end of the Lake, and whose proposal was selected by the City Council in 2001,
leading to the $198 million Meas DD bond, and the 56 improvement projects around
the city that are now completed or nearing final stages of implementation. I also write
as a 30+year resident of Oakland, who weekly enjoys Lake Merritt up close and
personal on foot, and from my automobile most days.
I urge the Council to approve the the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the
Council's CED Committee that 25% proceeds from sale of the 12th Street
"remainder parcel" be devoted to a fund for maintenance of Measure DD
improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space
improvements around the city in decades. However, Measure DD's capital funds
cannot be used for maintenance and protection of the various improvements.
With its greatly increased usage, Lake Merritt and its new parks need more care
and maintenance than the current one-&-one-half park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel," created by Measure DD, resulted from realignment of the
former confused roadway system into new pedestrian, bicycle, parks, and visitor
enhancements, now known as Lake Merritt Boulevard.
The CED Committee's recommendation deserves your support. We urge the
Council to give enthusiastic approval to CED's recommendation, thereby to protect
and safeguard the huge investment Oakland voters made to successfully transform
the Lake's trafficways as well as beautifying the now popular Lake Merritt, its environs
and parks well into the future.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Patricia Durham
Oakland Community Advocate

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Aileen Frankel
Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid,
Larry; At Large
Naomi Schiff; Flores, John; Kate Dobbins
Please authorize at least 50% of property sale proceeds to maintain Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt
Thursday, April 30, 2015 12:13:44 PM

Dear Oakland City Council members,


As a member of CALM (Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt) and an Oakland native
who looks at an Oakland park every day, I invite you to pay attention to one at the heart of
Oakland. CALM is the organization that envisioned Lake Merritt Boulevard and related
improvements at the south end of the Lake, and whose proposal was selected by the City
Council in 2001, leading to the $198 million Measure DD bond program, and the 56
improvement projects around Oakland that are now completed or nearing final stages of
implementation. The foremost project was the expansion and enhancement of the greenbelt
around Lake Merritt, and the enchanting Lakeside Park.

I urge the Council to approve that at least 50% of the proceeds from sale of
the 12th Street "remainder parcel" be devoted to a fund for maintenance of
Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
Bond funds from the passage of Measure DD were approved to make the most significant
and broadly-recognized open space improvements around the city in decades. However,
Measure DD's capital funds cannot be used for maintenance. Care and protection of the
various improvements must be increased to match the greatly increased usage. Lake Merritt
and its adjacent parks need more service and maintenance than the current one-&-one-half
park employee positions can provide.
The "remainder parcel," created by Measure DD, resulted from realignment of the former
mini-freeway into attractive lanes, new pedestrian and bicycle paths, and landscaping and
visitor enhancements, now known as Lake Merritt Boulevard.
This recommendation deserves your support. Please take the long-term view of guardian of
these prominent Oakland assets. Please protect and safeguard the huge investment Oakland
voters made to successfully transform the Lake's environment for the 21 st century.
Thank you!
Aileen Frankel

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Laurie
Kalb, Dan
please help
Friday, April 24, 2015 10:52:44 AM

Dear Mr Kalb,
I am writing you as a member of Oakland Heritage Alliance. I urge the Council to
approve the the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's CED Committee
that 25% of the 12th Street "remainder parcel" land sale proceeds be devoted to a
fund for maintenance of Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space
improvements around the city in decades. However, Measure DD's capital funds
cannot be used for maintenance and protection of the lake improvements. With
its greatly increased usage, the park needs more care and maintenance than the
current park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the realignment of roadway through
Measure DD's pedestrian, bicycle, and park visitor enhancements, now known as
Lake Merritt Boulevard. The CED Committee's recommendation deserves your
support. We urge you to include this recommendation in your action on the
remainder parcel.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Laurie Chait
Oakland, CA 94609

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Oakland Heritage Alliance


Kalb, Dan
Please send Letter of Support - Maintenance Fund - Measure DD Lake Merritt Improvements
Friday, April 24, 2015 9:18:31 AM

Oakland Heritage Alliance


Table of Contents
Sample Letter to Oakland City Council - Support of Land Sales Proceeds - Devoted to Lake Merritt
Maintenance Fund

LOVE
OAKLAND
HISTORY?
WANT TO
SUPPORT
OHA'S PUBLIC
EDUCATION
MISSION?
PURCHASE
A COPY OF
OAKLAND,
THE STORY
OF A CITY
TODAY!

Please
Send your letter
by the end of next week,
May 1, 2015
Oakland City Council
Hearing is on May 5th!
Thank you!

Urge City Council


to set aside funds for maintenance!
The Community and Development Committee of the City Council
recommended that 25% of the proceeds from selling the
"remainder parcel" on 12th Street be devoted to maintenance of

the Measure DD improvements. OHA was a key participant in


bringing about the transformation of the Lake and its park. Now
we must urge the full city council to set aside funds for
maintenance, which is not covered by the bond measure. Here's
a sample letter:

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear Councilmember,
I am writing you as a member of Oakland Heritage Alliance. I urge the
Council to approve the the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's
CED Committee that 25% of the 12th Street "remainder parcel" land sale
proceeds be devoted to a fund for maintenance of Measure DD
improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open
space improvements around the city in decades. However, Measure DD's
capital funds cannot be used for maintenance and protection of the lake
improvements. With its greatly increased usage, the park needs more care
and maintenance than the current park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the realignment of roadway through
Measure DD's pedestrian, bicycle, and park visitor enhancements, now known
as Lake Merritt Boulevard. The CED Committee's recommendation deserves
your support. We urge you to include this recommendation in your action on
the remainder parcel.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
_________

Email Addresses for City Council:


Mayor Libby Schaaf
officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com
(510) 238-3141

District 1, Dan Kalb


(510) 238-7001
dkalb@oaklandnet.com
District 2, Councilmember Abel Guillen
(510)238-7002
aguillen@oaklandnet.com
District 3, City Council President Lynette McElhaney
(510) 238-7032
lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com
District 4, Ann Campbell-Washington
acampbell-washington@Oaklandnet.com
(510) 238-7042
District 5, Noel Gallo
ngallo@oaklandnet.com
510-238-7005
District 6, Desley Brooks
(510) 238-7006
dbrooks@oaklandnet.com

District 7, Larry Reid


(510) 238-7007
lreid@oaklandnet.com
Councilmember at-Large & Vice Mayor, Rebecca Kaplan
(510) 238-7008
atlarge@oaklandnet.com

Contact OHA
For information about Oakland Heritage Alliance events, please call the OHA office at 763-9218,
email info@oaklandheritage.org, or visit www.oaklandheritage.org
Sincerely,

Oakland Heritage Alliance


446 17th Street, Suite 301, Oakland, CA 94612

Forward email

This email was sent to dkalb@oaklandnet.com by info@oaklandheritage.org |


Update Profile/Email Address | Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe | Privacy Policy.

Oakland Heritage Alliance | 446 17th Street, Suite 301 | Oakland | CA | 94612

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Tamara Nicoloff
At Large; Reid, Larry; Gallo, Noel; Campbell Washington, Annie; McElhaney, Lynette; Guillen, Abel; Kalb, Dan;
Office of the Mayor
Please set aside funds for maintenance
Friday, April 24, 2015 2:52:17 PM

Dear Councilmember,
I am writing you as a member of Oakland Heritage Alliance. I urge the Council to approve the the April
14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's CED Committee that 25% of the 12th Street "remainder
parcel" land sale proceeds be devoted to a fund for maintenance of Measure DD improvements at Lake
Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open space improvements around
the city in decades. However, Measure DD's capital funds cannot be used for maintenance and
protection of the lake improvements. With its greatly increased usage, the park needs more care and
maintenance than the current park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the realignment of roadway through Measure DD's pedestrian,
bicycle, and park visitor enhancements, now known as Lake Merritt Boulevard. The CED Committee's
recommendation deserves your support. We urge you to include this recommendation in your action on
the remainder parcel.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Tamara Nicoloff

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Jeff Norman
Kalb, Dan
Please support the CED Committee"s recommendation
Friday, April 24, 2015 10:44:00 AM

Dear Councilmember Kalb,


As a 30-year resident of Temescal, I am writing you to urge the City Council to approve the April 14,
2015 recommendation of the CED Committee that 25% of the 12th Street "remainder parcel" land sale
proceeds be devoted to a fund for maintenance of Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant open space improvements around the city in decades.
However, as you know, Measure DD's capital funds cannot be used for maintenance and protection of
the lake improvements. With its greatly increased usage, the park needs more care and maintenance
than the current park staff can provide.
It was only through the Measure DD's pedestrian, bicycle, and park visitor enhancements, now known
as Lake Merritt Boulevard, that the "remainder parcel" was created. I urge you to include the CED
Committee's recommendation in your action on the remainder parcel.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Jeff Norman
Oakland, CA 94609
510/
jeffnorman@sharedground.org
www.sharedground.org

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
Tuesday, April 07, 2015 8:31:02 PM

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:
Subject:
Date:

L Mirella Rangel
Kalb, Dan
Proposed Project for E.12th
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 8:43:27 PM

Dear Representative Kalb,


I am concerned about the proposed project to construct high-cost
housing on E12th Street. Affordable housing is increasingly scarce in
Oakland. I believe that what makes Oakland so great is it's diversity in
race, ethnicity, language, class, perspectives, etc.
I am also concerned about the lack of transparency in the process.
I encourage you to stop this process and propose a process to build
affordable housing with some units reserved for teachers who commit to
work in Oakland schools for 5+ years.
Thank you,
--

Mirella Rangel

Call 510.

| Follow|Link Up

From: Michael Katz <1michaelkatz1@gmail.com>


Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:28 AM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
Re: Follow-up meeting with Eastlake United for Justice re: 12th St.
Remainder Development
my cell: 510On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Bolotina, Olga <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Any phone number.
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb, City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app:SeeClickFix
----- Reply message ----From: "Michael Katz" <1michaelkatz1@gmail.com>
To: "Bolotina, Olga" <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com>
Subject: Follow-up meeting with Eastlake United for Justice re: 12th St. Remainder
Development
Date: Tue, May 5, 2015 10:23 AM
May I inquire what for?
And personal or professional?
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Bolotina, Olga <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hello Michael,
Could you please send me your full contract information. Thank you.
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb, City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app:SeeClickFix
----- Reply message ----From: "Michael Katz" <1michaelkatz1@gmail.com>
To: "Bolotina, Olga" <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com>
Subject: Follow-up meeting with Eastlake United for Justice re: 12th St. Remainder
Development

file:///Z|/...llow-up%20meeting%20with%20Eastlake%20United%20for%20Justice%20re%2012th%20St.%20Remainder%20Development.txt[6/1/2015 9:58:26 PM]

Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 2:03 PM


Great!
Thanks for making this happen, Olga. Our group is called Eastlake United for Justice. As you
can imagine, it's not easy for working people to take time for meetings with council people.
When I have a better idea of who will attend I'll let you know but I expect a smaller group than
last time. Unfortunately, I can't make this meeting, either.
Thanks again!
Michael
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Bolotina, Olga <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hello Michael,
That time is still available. We can meet for a half an hour. Please come to the Council Lobby and Ill
meet you there. Please send me the list of attendees prior to the meeting. Thank you!
Warmly,
Olga
P.S. Please remind me the exact name of the coalition. Thank you!
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app: SeeClickFix
From: Michael Katz [mailto:1michaelkatz1@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:52 AM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject: Re: FW: Follow-up meeting with Eastlake United for Justice re: 12th St. Remainder
Development
Good morning, Olga,
Thanks for you patience. If Councilmember Kalb is still available on April 29th at 11:00 am, we
would like to meet then. Please let me know.
Thanks!
Michael
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Bolotina, Olga <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hello Michael,
I hope you received the email below. Please let me know if these times work. Dans schedule is filling up
very fast.
Thank you!

file:///Z|/...llow-up%20meeting%20with%20Eastlake%20United%20for%20Justice%20re%2012th%20St.%20Remainder%20Development.txt[6/1/2015 9:58:26 PM]

Olga
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app: SeeClickFix
From: Bolotina, Olga
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 7:02 PM
To: 'Michael Katz'
Subject: RE: Follow-up meeting with Eastlake United for Justice re: 12th St. Remainder Development
Hello Michael,
April 29th or May 1st around 11am could work. Please feel free to call me on Monday if these times dont
work. Thank you!
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app: SeeClickFix
From: Michael Katz [mailto:1michaelkatz1@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:23 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject: Follow-up meeting with Eastlake United for Justice re: 12th St. Remainder Development
Hi Olga,
I hope you are well. I'm sure you and your team have been following the 12th Street Remainder
development process.
We would like to meet with Council Member Kalb, again, before the item heads to Council on
May 5th. We have continued to meet with other Council Members and allies and plan to meet
with Council Member Guillen and the Developer next week.
Could Council Member Kalb be available to meet on May 1st or 4th? Please advise.
Thanks,
Michael
file:///Z|/...llow-up%20meeting%20with%20Eastlake%20United%20for%20Justice%20re%2012th%20St.%20Remainder%20Development.txt[6/1/2015 9:58:26 PM]

file:///Z|/...llow-up%20meeting%20with%20Eastlake%20United%20for%20Justice%20re%2012th%20St.%20Remainder%20Development.txt[6/1/2015 9:58:26 PM]

From: Christine Cherdboonmuang <christine.apocc@gmail.com>


Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 11:34 AM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject:
Re: Item#13- Letter re. E.12th St. Parcel from Eastlake United for
Justice
Hi Olga,
I am leaving you a voicemail right now. My cell is 510
We are meeting with
Councilmember Gallo at 12noon and can come by your office afterwards if you like. Will you
be there around 1pm? Christine
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Bolotina, Olga <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hello Christine,
Is there a phone number where I could reach you? Thank you.
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb, City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app:SeeClickFix
----- Reply message ----From: "Christine Cherdboonmuang" <christine.apocc@gmail.com>
To: "McElhaney, Lynette" <lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com>, "Kalb, Dan"
<DKalb@oaklandnet.com>, "Guillen, Abel" <AGuillen@oaklandnet.com>,
"Abelforoakland@gmail.com" <Abelforoakland@gmail.com>, "Campbell Washington, Annie"
<ACampbellWashington@oaklandnet.com>, "Gallo, Noel" <NGallo@oaklandnet.com>, "Brooks,
Desley" <DBrooks@oaklandnet.com>, "Reid, Larry" <LReid@oaklandnet.com>, "Kaplan,
Rebecca" <RKaplan@oaklandnet.com>
Cc: "DL - City Council" <council@oaklandnet.com>, "Wald, Zachary" <ZWald@oaklandnet.com>,
"Farmer, Casey" <CFarmer@oaklandnet.com>, "Bolotina, Olga" <OBolotina@oaklandnet.com>,
"Gerard, Jennie" <JGerard@oaklandnet.com>, "Kong, Heidi" <HKong@oaklandnet.com>,
"Simons, Adam J." <ASimons@oaklandnet.com>, "Garzon, Clara" <CGarzon@oaklandnet.com>,
"Winston, Ashley" <AWinston@oaklandnet.com>, "Merriouns, Iris"
<ILMerriouns@oaklandnet.com>, "Jones, Andre" <AJones@oaklandnet.com>,
"eastlakeunited@gmail.com" <eastlakeunited@gmail.com>
Subject: Item#13- Letter re. E.12th St. Parcel from Eastlake United for Justice
Date: Tue, May 5, 2015 11:21 AM
Dear Councilmembers,
Please find attached a letter from Eastlake United for Justice regarding the E. 12th St. Parcel,
outlining our concerns and proposals. Also attached is a previous letter sent to the Oakland
Planning Commission last month with more background information and analysis. Please let us
know if you request copies of any other letters from our ally organizations referenced in our
letter to the Council--some of which you have already received.
Thank you for your careful consideration and your commitment to Oakland. See you tonight,

file:///Z|/...+%205-8-15/Re%20Item13-%20Letter%20re.%20E.12th%20St.%20Parcel%20from%20Eastlake%20United%20for%20Justice.txt[6/1/2015 10:12:25 PM]

Eastlake United for Justice

file:///Z|/...+%205-8-15/Re%20Item13-%20Letter%20re.%20E.12th%20St.%20Parcel%20from%20Eastlake%20United%20for%20Justice.txt[6/1/2015 10:12:25 PM]

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Justin Rausa
McElhaney, Lynette
DL - City Council; Office of the Mayor
Re: Affordable Housing for E12th
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 1:10:11 AM
Levy.2010.EffectsFromLivingInMixedIncomeCommunitiesForLowIncomeFams.PDF
Tach.2014.IncomeMixingAcrossScales_UrbanInstitute.pdf

Good evening Councilmember McElhaney:


As an Oakland resident in your district, I believe our city should use public lands on
E 12th for affordable housing. There are multiple local groups, like Causa Justa::Just
Cause and Urban Habitat, who consistently put the issue of housing affordability
front and center, and I also wanted to highlight a recent paper from the Urban
Institute that stresses the need for mixed income housing to be considered a priority
at a district scale, not only at a building level.
E 12th could be the first step in a longer-term city-owned land strategy that would
give Oakland residents the opportunity to compete in a market driven by the
explosion of incomes in Silicon Valley. In addition, as a public health commissioner
participating in the Alameda County Public Health Department's accreditation
process, the issue of affordability has come up for Oakland's small businesses and
residents alike. Thus, I respectfully urge the City Council to:
1. Include affordable housing on the E 12th site and ensure that all public lands
be used for affordable housing in the future.
2. Set aside 50% of the E 12th sale proceeds for affordable housing.
3. Undergo an updated, more accurate appraisal of the land so the city doesn't
get shortchanged.
These requests are also personal. My wife and I had no choice but to leave our last
apartment, and now in our new complex that does not fall under rent control, our
rents were raised 16% last year. We both work in social justice nonprofits and are
committed to this city but intention in the face of this affordability crisis is wishful
thinking.
Folks with higher incomes have no trouble moving into the city at market rate -- it's
the people who are committed to the sustainable future of Oakland and its history
that are at risk and need your support.
Thank you,
Justin
-Justin Rausa
justin.rausa@gmail.com

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

kiernan
Kalb, Dan
Bolotina, Olga
Re: Eastlake United for Justice: E 12th St. Development follow up
Tuesday, April 07, 2015 10:48:26 AM
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:

V. Carpenter
Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid,
Larry; Kaplan, Rebecca
re: High-Rise at 12th and 2nd
Monday, May 04, 2015 3:54:18 PM

Dear Oakland City Council Members,


Its an absolute pleasure to drive the stretch of 12th Street next to Lake Merritt each morning on my
way to teach the Family Literacy Class at La Escuelita Elementary School. The street and landscape have
been beautifully redesigned in service to the neighborhood and our marvelous lake, which sparkles in
the sun. The great care and consideration that went into planning the restoration of this area is obvious
and now our Lake and its surroundings are places to show off and be proud of! The revamping of
International Blvd many years ago also had a similar effect.
All of these improvements have provided the Eastlake Neighborhood and Lake Merritt with a cohesive
design of integrity, beauty with careful consideration and respect for the environment.
So it is for just this reason that I entreat you to halt the plan to build a high-rise at 12th and 2nd. This
24-story monstrosity will be a waste of view, of environment, of an opportunity to continue the
excellent redesign of the area around the lake. The planned high-rise will stick out like a soviet style
block building, an ugly eyesore obvious from all the surrounding area. A building this size is not only out
of proportion to its surroundings but it will destroy the ambiance of the neighborhood, cast a huge dark
shadow and block views.
In addition, allowing this apartment building to be built will be turning a blind eye to the potential for
something extraordinary.
On the edge of Lake Merritt this corner is an absolutely stunning spot that begs to be honored if not
enhanced with a building of equal stature, elegant in design and purpose; a design in proportion with
the neighborhood that in turn reflects the dramatic, unique location, diversity and environment. Dont
waste this extraordinary opportunity to choose something marvelous to be built here, a building of
purpose and beauty deserving of such a spot, that we Oaklanders can be proud of.
Please consider the consequences of spoiling what took so long improve. Honor the work that has gone
into the beautification of this area by continuing the effort. Dont throw away this opportunity. There
isnt another spot like this around Lake Merritt. I entreat you to go and walk there. You cannot help but
be inspired to imagine, even perhaps beyond the idea of an apartment building.,, A museum? Build
something our wonderful Lake and its surroundings deserve, not this monstrous, inappropriate highrise.
Sincerely,
Victoria Carpenter
Oakland

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Kalb, Dan
ilene@ileneweinreb.net
RE: Maintenance funds for the Lake from the remainder parcel sale
Friday, May 01, 2015 2:09:00 PM

Thanks Ilene.
Hope you are well.
-Dan

--- ---

DAN KALB

Oakland City Councilmember, District One


One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 2 nd floor
Oakland, CA 94612

510-238-7001
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/CityCouncil/o/District1/index.htm

To sign up for my District One Community Newsletter, please click here.

From: ilene@ileneweinreb.net [mailto:ilene@ileneweinreb.net]


Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 4:18 PM
To: Kalb, Dan; At Large
Subject: Maintenance funds for the Lake from the remainder parcel sale

Dear Councilmembers Kalb and Kaplan,


As a concerned supporter of the 2002 DD bond measure, I urge the Council to approve the
the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's CED Committee that 25% of the 12th
Street "remainder parcel" land sale proceeds be devoted to a fund for maintenance of
Measure DD improvements at Lake Merritt .
Measure DD rovided a much-needed restoration of historic features, the new, heavily-used
bridge connection across the widened channel, and a welcome expansion of the usable areas
at Lakeside Park. Oakland's reputation has been burnished by these projects and if we can
keep it in good condition, it will serve as an attraction and a wonderful recreation area for
many decades.
However, Measure DD's capital funds cannot be used for maintenance and protection of the
lake improvements. With its more intense use and greater visibility, the park needs more care
and maintenance than the current park staff can provide.
The "remainder parcel" was created by the reconfiguration of a 12-lane roadway into a 6-lane
boulevard, now Lake Merritt Boulevard. The CED Committee's recommendation deserves
your support. We urge you to set aside some of the land sale proceeds toward funding
maintenance, as you act on the remainder parcel.
Thank you!

Sincerely,
Ilene Weinreb

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Jeffrey Levin
jamesevann@aol.com
karen@hesternet.net; McElhaney, Lynette; Wald, Zachary; Farmer, Casey; naomi@17th.com;
joanlichterman@gmail.com; Kalb, Dan
Re: new rfp for E 12th ST?
Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:44:06 AM

We have been told several timesby Citystaff that the RFP for 12th St was only sent
to developers that had previously contacted the City expressing interest in the site.
That is also what is described in the staff report for approvalof the ENA (6/25/13 at
CED and 7/1/13 at Council).
As far as we know, the RFP only went to 3 entities - Urban Core, Wood Partners,
and 1200 Lakeshore. It was not posted on the City's web site or otherwise
advertised.Only the first two submitted proposals. We know of at least one
affordable developer who inquired afterthey heard that anRFP had been sent out,
and was discouraged from submitting by staff, who told them the City only wanted
100% market rate on the site.

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015, <jamesevann@aol.com> wrote:


Lynette & Karen
The facts of the RFP for the E 12th Street "remainder parcel" are somewhat different and somewhat
complex. Several errors and violations of law were committed in the process. A 5 page EBHO letter
submitted in testimony to the Apr 14 meeting of the Community and Development Committee,
composed by Jeff Levin, former Housing Policy Director for the City, thoroughly details the lead-up
relating to this parcel and subsequent actions.
Contractually, it is very late in the process, but I feel a thorough review of actions around this
disposition is urgently warranted.
James E Vann

-----Original Message----From: Karen Hester <karen@hesternet.net>


To: LMcElhaney@oaklandnet.com <lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com>
Cc: Zac Wald <zwald@oaklandnet.com>; cfarmer <cfarmer@oaklandnet.com>; Naomi Schiff
<naomi@17th.com>; Joan Lichterman <joanlichterman@gmail.com>; dkalb
<dkalb@oaklandnet.com>; jamesevann <jamesevann@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Apr 29, 2015 9:22 am
Subject: new rfp for E 12th ST?
thanks for letting me knowI think its time to relook at the whole thingwould be difficult but this
City owned parcel should include affordable housingif not here and now, then when? I am sure if
the rfp were sent out again, it would produce vigorous and competitive bids like Parcel 4 did? Do
you think a new rfp could pass the council? We need to get this one right.
Karen Hester
karen@hesternet.net
510-654-6346
hesternet.net

Bites at the Lake: Mobile Food and Family Fun every Sunday
Bites Off Broadway: Fridays starting May 15

On Apr 29, 2015, at 7:32 AM, McElhaney, Lynette < lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com>


wrote:
Karen,
I don't think that the information contained in the report is accurate. My read of the
legislative history reveals that the staff did a RFP but that was during a very weak
market and only attracted a few proposals.
If you know more, please share. Happy to look into it further.
Best, Lynette

-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!

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Bolotina, Olga
joel peter ; Kalb, Dan
RE: Please support Lake Merritt funding from sale of "remainder parcel"
Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:42:56 PM

Hello Joel,
Thank you for providing this information and for reaching out. We also received a letter from Naomi
Schiff with similar information.
Councilmember Kalb will take this information in consideration.
Warmly,
Olga
Olga A. Bolotina, Chief of Staff
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Councilmember Kalb's newsletter.
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app: SeeClickFix

From: joel peter [mailto:joelpeter88@gmail.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:13 PM
To: Kalb, Dan
Cc: Bolotina, Olga
Subject: Please support Lake Merritt funding from sale of "remainder parcel"

Dear Councilmember Kalb,


Last week the CED Committee recommended allocating 25% of the proceeds from the 12th Street "remainder
parcel" sale to maintenance of Lake Merritt DD projects. I ask that you support this allocation when it comes to
Council on May 5. The landscaping is already falling apart from overuse and lack of maintenance. Measure DD
created the parcel, and it was always anticipated that Lake Merritt receive money from its sale. Thank you!
Joel Peter
www.facebook.com/LakeMerrittWeedWarriors

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Bob Archibald
Kalb, Dan; McElhaney, Lynette; Guillen, Abel; Gallo, Noel; Campbell Washington, Annie
Brooks, Desley; Reid, Larry; At Large; Office of the Mayor
Re: your decision...please make Lake Merritt Maintenance a Priority
Monday, April 27, 2015 9:51:50 PM

Dear Oakland City Council,


This week you have the opportunity to make a decision that will protect
the considerable investment already made via Measure DD and I urge
you to do so. My request relates to the $5.1 million money the City will
realize from the sale of the new parcel created by the road realignment
as a part of the 12th Street Project. I am in strong support of those who
are asking that 25% of that $5.1 million be set aside to maintain the
landscaping installed as part of Measure DD. Having spent many days
weeding and cleaning beds around the lake. I assure that such an
investment by the City is urgently needed to prevent the larger
investment from going to waste. No matter how dedicated the volunteer
group, we simply cant keep up with all that is needed to maintain what is
there now, let alone what is coming.
Again I ask that you vote in favor of allocating the desperately needed
$1,250,000 to the essential and critically needed maintenance of the
Measure DD landscaping . Please make certain you make Lake Merritt the
high priority it deserves. We volunteers are fighting a losing battle as we
try to keep up with the maintenance of a well loved and increasingly well
used new park. The dedicated labor needed to care for the entire Lake is
only one and a half FTEs, a small price for the immense return. As some
will recall, there were twelve FTEs, in just the recent past. The jewel of
Oakland really requires on-going labor to take care of the nicely designed
green spaces and gardens that adorn the lake.
Weed Warriors is a community volunteer organization dedicated to
address the needs around the lake. Another group headed by Joel Peters
(alias Sam Merritt) is aimed specifically at the tidal march between Lake
Merritt and the estuary. Neither of these groups can possibly do what
dedicated workers and equipment can do. Dedicated maintenance is
whats needed, and I believe what your constituents want you to
support. Lake Merritt serves to increase the value of real estate in in all
directions around Oakland and adds immeasurably to the quality of life
here in our City.
We volunteers will persist, but we need you, decisions makers for the
City to step up and make the investment to maintain what and protect
the asset that is our Lake Merritt.
Thank you,
Bob Archibald

Oakland, CA 94612
District 3
(510)

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Jeffrey
Kalb, Dan
Reject the East 12th Street Land Sale
Monday, May 04, 2015 11:08:42 PM

Dear Councilperson:
From my recent observations, I am sad to say that the current city council appears to be one of the
most ethically challenged in over fifteen years. This council could take strong steps to restore integrity
by rejecting the sale of land to UrbanCore for a market rate housing project on East 12th Street. The
process does not appear to have been transparent or fair. Additionally, the use and manipulation by the
Developer of elderly Asian Americans who did not speak English is unconscionable and repulsive. Is
manipulation, disrespect and abuse of an elderly minority community the way this council wants Oakland
to operate? I hope not please reject this project and focus on affordable housing and the need for
supermarkets in East and West Oakland.
Additionally, I would like to ask what the City Council has done with regard to the City Attorney and her
office in regard to gross incompetence and negligence in the handling of police arbitration hearings?
The people have not been well served and, in fact, may be at risk of abusive police who have been reinstated to their positions. I would think that there would be hearings or some type of disciplinary
proceeding brought against the City Attorney over this matter. Has anything been done?
The citizens of Oakland deserve more than a Council and mayor who only want to serve new residents
who fit a higher income and professional profile. The city needs more than just bars and fine
restaurants serving an elite segment of society. I do not see the effort being made to stand up for the
long term residents of Oakland but a capitulation to the highest bidder. More fitting of Potterville than
Oakland. Please begin to look at the bigger picture and restore a minimal amount of integrity and honor
to our City.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Gaddy
Oakland

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

April 22, 2015

Dan Kalb, Council Member District 1


250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4314
Oakland, CA 94612-2033
RE:

Support for the CED Committee recommendation to dedicate 25% of the "remainder
parcel" land sale proceeds to a fund devoted to maintenance of Measure DD
improvements around Lake Merritt.

Dear Council Member Kalb:


Waterfront Action is an Oakland-based volunteer non-profit whose mission is to promote public
access to the Oakland-Alameda Estuary and Lake Merritt through using public awareness,
education, and direct action. Our members place high value on the region's waterfront as a vibrant
economic, recreational, and natural resource.
I am writing to urge the Council to approve the DDA for the "remainder parcel" under terms
consistent with the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's CED Committee dedicating
25% of the "remainder parcel" land sale proceeds to a fund devoted to maintenance of
Measure DD improvements around Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized advances in Oakland's
waterfront in decades. Nevertheless, as a bond it is unable to fund the maintenance and protection
of these widely-praise new facilities, which will soon fall into shameful disrepair without special
action. The "remainder parcel" is a product of Measure DD plans, construction, and road
realignment. Accordingly, one appropriate special action is exactly that recommended by CED
Committee.
Please do not hesitate to contact our office at 510.336-1817 or info@waterfrontaction.org if you
have any questions concerning our position of support for this special allocation.
Sincerely,

Sandra Threlfall
Sandra Threlfall
Executive Director

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

jamesevann@aol.com
mmharris@aol.com
obolotino@oaklandnet.com; Kalb, Dan; Luby, Oliver
Request for Appointment re Land Sale and Maintenance Fund for Measure DD Improvements
Tuesday, April 28, 2015 1:04:49 AM

To: Monica Harris, Scheduling Officer


To: Olga Bolatino, Chief of Statt
cc: Councilmember Dan Kalb
Subject: Request of Measure DD Coalition Representatives for Appointment
in Advance of Issue Scheduled on May 5 City Council Agenda
This request follows up a telephone conversation yesterday with the CM's senior staff member
regarding the Coalition's request for a short meeting.
The request to meet with Ms Bolatino is due to the urgency of the issue coupled with respect for the
Councilmember's busy schedule as budget preparations may severely limit availability). However, we
would be more than delighted should Councilmember Kalb happen to be available and desirous of also
attending the requested meeting.
Today, we learned that Mayor Schaff may advance an alternative budget proposal in lieu of the CED
recommendation to allocate 25% of sale proceeds from disposition of the Measure DD "remainder
parcel" to a (dedicated) fund for maintenance and upkeep of Lake Merritt Area improvements.
(Important information on the need and justification for the request will be provided at the meeting.)
The Coalition is gratified by the mayor's suggested proposal. However, such proposal, even if it should
survive the budget process (certainly a significant risk) would (a) not be sufficient to fulfill the need, and
(b) under the best of outcomes would only be for a maximum of 2 years, if somehow could be assured
of not being modified or removed altogether. Even so, the Coalition encourages Mayor Schaaf to
proceed, and if successful, our recommendation is to combine such lesser funds with CED's 25%
allocation to better begin a fund with the goal of long term self-sufficiency.
Further, Mayor Schaaf's proposal, which we understand would seek a total of $800,000 over two years
is the equivalent of maybe 2-1/2 gardeners over the two-years of the budget cycle. Then what ?
Even so, 2-1/2 gardeners is woefully short of even the minimum immediate need. Before the Parks &
Recreation Agency's budget was cut, we are informed that 14 gardeners were assigned to the Lake
Merritt area. Today that number is 1-1/2 gardeners. Adding 2-1/2 gardeners would be a total of 4, but
only for 2 years -- still woefully inadequate. .
Alternately, the CED recommendation for 25% of proceeds of the current appraised value would yield
about $1.275 million. This amount would be a good starter, and together with any funds that may result
from the mayor's proposal could form the beginning of a fund that could grow. Such fund could
generate interest, and coupled with donations might become the basis for a self-financing fund into the
future.
Accordingly, the Measure DD Coalition strongly urges that City Council uphold the recommendation of
the CED Committee in addition to whatever proposal may be developed by Mayor Schaaf.
Sincerely
Naomi Schiff (
) & James E Vann (
on Behalf of the Measure DD Community Coalition

),

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

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Josh Healey
Office of the Mayor; Guillen, Abel; At Large; Kalb, Dan; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie;
Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid, Larry
Save East 12th St. for Affordable Housing. Don"t Privatize Lake Merritt!
Thursday, April 16, 2015 9:15:13 AM

Mayor Schaff and good members of the City Council My name's Josh Healey. I'm a writer and youth educator, having worked in our
Oakland schools for the last 7 years. I live on East 15th St and 3rd Ave...just three
blocks from the terrible, privatizing, gentrifying proposed project on East 12th Street.
And yes, I feel pretty strongly about this one!
I honestly can't believe that our smart, supposedly progressive leaders would
support the privatization and selling off of public land on East 12th street for a
luxury high-rise (which will eventually be a condo) with ZERO affordable housing.
I'm hoping you change your mind before the vote next week. I'll be there with a LOT
of people from Eastlake United for Justice and many organizations to make sure you
do the right thing. And the right thing is to say NO to this crazy, ass-backward
project...and instead put out a new RFP calling for majority affordable housing that
people in the neighborhood can actually live in.
Everything's bad about this one:
Selling off public land for totally unaffordable, luxury housing. Something no
one in the neighborhood can afford.
Land that was paid for and built BY taxpayers through Measure DD...now
being privatized rather than used for the public that paid for it.
The total lack of ANY community process on this. I live 3 blocks from the
project and got no notice for any public meetings. Nor did any of my
neighbors.
The fact that the developer bought off elder Asian residents who don't speak
English...and lied to them saying this was about "affordable senior housing" so
that they'd come to the Planning Commission. I was there and saw it with my
own eyes. It was outrageous..
Eastlake is the last semi-quasi-affordable neighborhood near the lake. Building
this luxury apartment (which will eventually be condos) will raise the rents
astronomically for all of us. Including me and my family. More displacement,
here we come.
This is LAKE MERRITT. The lake is the heart of Oakland. It's supposed to be
for everyone in Oakland. This is taking the soul of our city...and selling it to
the almighty devil (I mean, dollar.)
I could go on. But you get the point.
We want this project stopped. And we want to see affordable housing built there

instead.
No one-time budget fix is worth this. It's just not. There's other ways to get money.
But once you do this...it can't be undone.
I know you all love Oakland and love the lake and love all of this crazy fun process!
Hope you bring the love and do the right thing...
...and the community will be there on Tuesday to make sure you do.
- Josh Healey

-Josh Healey
Writer. Activist. Ninja.
joshhealey.org

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Irene Hughes
Kalb, Dan
Save the East 12th Street Parcel for the People!
Monday, May 04, 2015 5:07:10 PM

Dan,
I am writing to you as a constituent in District 1. As a resident of Temescal, I see on a
daily basis the impact that gentrification is having on our neighborhood and our city as
a whole. As a resident of Oakland, I am shocked and saddened that you are planning
to sell public lands to a private developer to build a 24 story luxury apartment building
in the midst of a serious housing affordability crisis. This is wrong at the deepest
ethical and moral level. Please, please use your position on the City Council for a
greater good than the private profit of a developer.
Sincerely,
Irene Hughes

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:

carli paine
Kalb, Dan; Kaplan, Rebecca
Support for E. 12th St. DDA
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 3:55:38 PM

Hello Council Members Kalb and Kaplan,


I am writing to encourage you to vote in support of the resolution authorizing the
City Attorney to execute the DDA for the 12th St. remainder parcel at this evening's
Council meeting.
While I strongly believe that the process to select this developer and settle on a
price fell short and was not transparent enough, I do think the City needs to move
forward on this project now. I encourage you each to play leadership roles to ensure
a more competitive, transparent process for future development opportunities.
I support moving forward with this project because Oakland desperately needs
additional housing--market rate as well as below market rate. The pressure on the
existing housing stock is immense and it is imperative to create new housing.
I further support the recommendation of the Community and Economic Development
Committee that 25% of the proceeds of the sale be put into affordable housing. I
also support a robust community benefits package to bring additional benefits to the
community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your service to our city.
Carli Paine
District 1

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Terry Boom
Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid,
Larry; At Large; Office of the Mayor
Support of Measure DD improvements and land sale to fund them
Thursday, April 30, 2015 6:36:22 PM

I strongly support the CED Committee recommendation to dedicate 25% of the "remainder
parcel" land sale proceeds to to a fund devoted to maintenance of Measure DD improvements
around Lake Merritt.
I have been volunteering with the Lake Merritt Weed Warriors for about three years now. We
are a stalwart group, but there is far too much for us to keep up with on a once-a-month basis.
This will be even more true when the remainder of the improvements near 12th Street will no
longer be under the care of the contractors who installed it.
The Lake is vital and beautiful and has become the focal point of recreation for many in the city.
To spend millions of dollars on bond improvements and provide scant funding for maintenance
is just wrong. If the Lake falls into disrepair and blight, voters will remember when you
propose another bond measure to fund similar projects. I know I will vote no on any future
bond improvements to the city if we cannot commit to ongoing maintenance of these
improvements.
As for the sale of land to fund these improvements, just vote yes. It's sound development that
met every criteria of the Planning Commission. Don't send the message to potential developers
that Oakland is unwelcoming to housing projects. Affordable housing is desirable, but ALL levels
of housing are in great demand at this time. Don't stifle it.
Thank you.
Terry Boom

(District 2)

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Karen Hester
DL - City Council; Office of the Mayor
Wald, Zachary; Farmer, Casey; Bolotina, Olga
supporting affordable housing at E 12th St parcel and maintenance fund for DD improvements at Lake
Friday, May 01, 2015 9:45:24 AM

Dear Members of the Council,


Please consider how important the issue of the E 12th St parcel is for the long term. All the studies show
that we are in a housing CRISIS and to have the council turn a deaf ear would not be wise. There are
major issues with Urban Core (like not paying back the City of SF) as exposed by the East Bay Express.
Why are we in the mess we are? Lackluster rfp process from the City in 2012-13. You have the power to
undo the damage and act responsibly but agreeing to a reasonable proposal:
1. Include affordable housing on the E 12th site and ensure that all public lands be used for affordable
housing in the future.
2. Set aside 50% of the E 12th sale proceeds for affordable housing.
3. Undergo an updated, more accurate appraisal of the land so the city doesn't get shortchanged.

I am writing you as a member of Oakland Heritage Alliance. I urge the


Council to approve the the April 14, 2015 recommendation of the Council's
CED Committee that25% of the 12th Street "remainder parcel" land sale
proceeds be devoted to a fund for maintenance of Measure DD improvements
at Lake Merritt.

Measure DD has created the most significant and broadly-recognized open


space improvements around the city in decades. However, Measure DD's
capital funds cannot be used for maintenance and protection of the lake
improvements. With its greatly increased usage, the park needs more care
and maintenance than the current park staff can provide.

The "remainder parcel" was created by the realignment of roadway through


Measure DD's pedestrian, bicycle, and park visitor enhancements, now known
as Lake Merritt Boulevard. The CED Committee's recommendation deserves
your support.We urge you to include this recommendation in your action on
the remainder parcel.

Thank you!

Karen Hester
karen@hesternet.net
510-654-6346
hesternet.net
Bites at the Lake: Mobile Food and Family Fun every Sunday
Bites Off Broadway: Fridays starting May 15

Income Mixing
across Scales

Rationale, Trends, Policies,


Practice, and Research for
More Inclusive
Neighborhoods and
Metropolitan Areas
Laura Tach, Rolf Pendall, and Alexandra Derian
January 2014

Abstract
Income mixing is strongly endorsed as a principle in housing and community development because it is
expected to provide social diversity, help low-income people get access to higher-quality goods and services, and achieve social and economic integration. Yet mixing may also pose challenges, and homogeneity may have benefits that should not be abandoned. This paper suggests that the potential benefits
of income mixing can be maximized by attending to geographic scale more carefully than has occurred
in the past. It reviews policies across multiple scales and proposes research to understand how income
mixing works at various scales.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the Ford Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Kresge Foundation, and the Surdna Foundation. G. Thomas Kingsley (The Urban Institute) and Karen Chapple (University of California at Berkeley) collaborated closely
with the authors throughout the development of the paper. The authors also thank Mark Joseph and
Xavier de Souza Briggs for their thoughtful reviews.

Copyright January 2014. The Urban Institute.


Permission is granted for reproduction of this file, with attribution to the Urban Institute.

The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization that
examines the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation. The views expressed are
those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Income Mixing across Scales

Rationale, Trends, Policies, Practice, and Research for More Inclusive


Neighborhoods and Metropolitan Areas
Laura Tach, Rolf Pendall, and Alexandra Derian

Introduction
Income mixing has become a popular policy and planning tool, inspired in part by concerns over rising
economic segregation and concentrated poverty. Income homogeneity is assumed to be a problem for
low-income adults and children because it weakens the prevalence of role models conducive to upward
mobility, reduces social capital and undermines social organization, and deprives low-income areas of
investments in public and private services. Income segregation may also have negative externalities for
broader geographic areas if it impedes economic growth, impairs housing market function, or reduces
civic cohesion and participation.
Income mixing can operate and be measured across multiple scales: developments, neighborhoods, districts, cities, and even among metropolitan areas. To date, mixed-income research and policy attention
has focused primarily on micro-level income-mixing at the level of the housing development or neighborhood. Income-mixing at larger geographic scales may have different relative costs and benefits than
income-mixing within neighborhoods and developments. For example, the effect of income homogeneity on interpersonal contact and social capital, which operate through micro-level face-to-face interaction, may not be as important at larger geographic scales as it is within neighborhoods. Thinking about
the contingent effects of income mixing at multiple scales can help us identify whether there is an optimal level of income mixing for a particular outcome that maximizes benefits while avoiding undue costs.
The first section of this report reviews the existing literature and theory on the effects of income mixing
at the neighborhood scale and then discusses possible effects at larger geographic scales. The second
section reviews the level and changes in income separation at the neighborhood scale over time and
introduces new ways to compare income mixing in metro areas at higher geographic levels. The third
section shows that despite the narrowness in measurement, policy and practices to mix incomes have
advanced at all geographic scales. Yet these policies are usually not coordinated across multiple scales,
meaning that practitioners and policymakers may miss opportunities or even work at cross-purposes
when we add up the impacts across scales. The final section of the report offers conclusions about research needed to advance understanding of the effects of income homogeneity and income mixing and
the effects of policies to increase mixing across scales.

What Problems Does Income Mixing Address?


Mixed-income has become a popular buzz word in policy and planning circles. Despite a lack of clarity
about the impact and even the meaning of mixed income, practitioners and policymakers are already
2

intervening in a variety of ways to reduce income segregation. When applied to places, mixed income
has been used to describe developments and neighborhoods that contain a combination of subsidized
and market rate housing, rental and owner-occupied housing, and different configurations of low-,
moderate-, and/or high-income households. When applied to policies, the term has been used to describe the provision of subsidized housing within middle class and affluent buildings and neighborhoods,
as well as incentives for higher-income residents to relocate to once-disinvested areas. The overarching
goal of mixed-income policy is to increase income diversity, but the means and ends of these policies
vary greatly in practice, as does the scale at which income mixing operates. The specific type of mix, and
the methods used to obtain it, matter not only for residents well-being but also for public perception
and political feasibility.
Policymakers could benefit from greater clarity about where, when, and how to create mixed-income
communities. In particular, it is helpful to begin by considering the problems income mixing is meant to
address. We see two main sets of concerns. First, living in high-poverty developments and neighborhoods may have harmful outcomes for low-income people. Second, income-based sorting among jurisdictions may create broader social, economic, and environmental harms. Strategies to build mixedincome communities aim at both of these concerns but operate at different scales: mixed-income developments and neighborhoods address problems of concentrated poverty, whereas regional fair-share
programs, dispersal programs, and inclusionary housing policies attempt to reduce income inequality
among jurisdictions. Considering both scales at once should help advance thinking about how policy interventions at one level can reinforce or contradict those at another. It also sheds light on opportunities
for new learning and policymaking to affect a spatial level between neighborhoods and jurisdictions,
which we call the district.

The Problem at the Micro Scale: Developments and Neighborhoods


The neighborhood effects literature is much longer than needs to be reviewed in full here. Most careful observers now confirm the conventional wisdom that living in an impoverished development or
neighborhood has a large number of ill effects, especially for children who grow up there. The effects
are especially pronounced when successive generations inhabit the same limited set of high-poverty
neighborhoods (Sharkey 2013).
At least three main mechanisms have been proposed for the transmission of these negative effects: interpersonal contact, social organization, and disinvestment. Concentrated poverty undermines residents
through at least three mechanisms having to do with interpersonal contact. First, inspired in part by William Julius Wilsons canonical account of social isolation in concentrated poverty communities (1987),
researchers have hypothesized that income segregation reduces the access of lower-income residents to
the resources contained within the information networks of higher-income residents (Joseph et al. 2007;
Jencks & Mayer 1990; Ellen & Turner 1997). Residents of high poverty neighborhoods report lacking access to social networks that promote social mobility (Briggs 1998; Elliott et al. 1996; Rankin and Quane
2000; Campbell and Lee 1992). Second, high-poverty neighborhoods expose young people to role models who are disproportionately poor (Joseph et al. 2007; Wilson 1987; Brower 2009). If children and
youth emulate those in their social environment, then such role models may reinforce negative behaviors that harm their life chances. Third, low-income people who live in high-poverty neighborhoods may
3

have lower levels of social trust, which undermines social organization (Allport 1954; Gaertner et al.
1996).
Social organization itself has been theorized as a second mechanism that impairs outcomes for residents
in high-poverty neighborhoods. Social organization has been operationalized as the prevalence and
strength of social networks, organizational participation, and the collective supervision and social control of local problems (Sampson and Groves 1989, p. 777). High poverty neighborhoods tend to have
lower levels of informal social control. Residents of these neighborhoods may be less likely to intervene
when conflicts occur in public, monitor the streets and neighborhood youth or trust that their neighbors
will do the same. Such behaviors have been linked to higher rates of crime and public disorder (Elliott et
al. 1996; Sampson and Raudenbush 1999; Sampson, Morenoff, and Earls 1999).
Concentrated poverty also impairs outcomes for low-income people due to a series of political and economic mechanisms that lead to disinvestment in high-poverty neighborhoods. This mechanism starts at
the level of individual housing units: dwellings in apartment buildings that are exclusively subsidized dissatisfy their tenants more than those in mixed-income developments (Popkin et al. 2004; Chaskin and
Joseph 2010; Brophy and Smith 1997; Buron and Khadduri 2005; Calavita and Grimes 1988; Doerr and
Siegal 1990; Joseph, Chaskin, and Webber 2008; Mulroy 1991; Popkin et al. 2000; Rosenbaum, Stroh,
and Flynn 1998; Ryan et al. 1974; Schwartz and Tajbakhsh 2001; Smith 2002). In mixed-income developments, by contrast, higher-income residents demand higher quality housing construction and amenities, with positive externalities for lower income residents (Duke 2009; see also Kleit 2001; Briggs 1997).
High-poverty neighborhoods also may simply not rate as high priorities for public-sector investments
and maintenance, leading to lower-quality schools, streets, sidewalks, and other important infrastructure; higher crime rates; as well as slower response times for police and firefighters (Curley 2005). Lacking market power, furthermore, high-poverty neighborhoods do not always look like good places for
private-sector firms to turn a profit or attract skilled workers. This has led to a concern over the spatial
mismatch between residents of poor neighborhoods and job opportunities (see Quigley and Raphael
2008; Briggs et al. 2010 for a discussion of the spatial mismatch literature). In fact, high-poverty neighborhoods sometimes attract the kinds of businesses and public-sector investmentsincinerators, liquor
stores, and freeways, for examplethat would provoke rebellion in other neighborhoods (Houston et al.
2004). The lack of high-quality public and private investment undermines residents health and wellbeing on a number of dimensions by harming mental health, increasing the risk of victimization from
crime and disease from environmental toxins, and reducing access to health-promoting amenities like
safe recreation areas and healthy food options (Krivo and Peterson 1996; Evans and Kantrowitz 2002;
Wen, Browning, and Cagney 2003; Larson, Story, and Nelson 2009).

The Metro Scale: Broader Negative Effects of Spatial Income Sorting


The structure, functions, and financing of local government in US metropolitan areas contribute another
important spatial layer to income sorting. Local governments have at least some ability to allocate and
redistribute goods and services and implement policy. If there is a broad range of household incomes,
local governments may make decisions about municipal services, infrastructure investments, land-use
regulations, and tax rates and expenditures in ways that support low-income people at levels they
4

would not otherwise be able to enjoy. In some cases jurisdictional boundaries correspond to school district boundaries as well, which influence the distribution of students and resources among schools within the district.
As middle- and upper-income households accumulate the income and wealth necessary to move to
higher-quality housing and neighborhoods, they often choose cities and school districts where residents
have similar income levels, similar willingness to pay for public services, and similar preferences for taxation. This processsometimes called Tiebout sorting after the author of a seminal article (Tiebout
1956)creates an intermediate level of spatial income inequality that is related, but not identical to
neighborhood-level income inequality. Stable Tiebout sorting can come about only in the presence of
restrictive land-use regulations or strong local organization that limit entry into jurisdictions by consumers with less ability to pay for the public services allowed there (Hamilton 1975, Levine 2006). Consistent
with Tiebouts and Hamiltons ideas, metropolitan areas with large numbers of small local governments
tend to have a high incidence of exclusionary regulations when their state laws do not preclude municipal use of such controls (Pendall, Puentes and Martin 2006).
At the extreme, this sorting process can lead to what Robert Reich (1991) has called the secession of
the successful. Citing income inequality that was already sharp at the time and has only increased since
then, Reich warned, The most skilled and insightful Americans, who are already positioned to thrive in
the world market, are now able to slip the bonds of national allegiance, and by so doing disengage
themselves from their less favored fellows. The stark political challenge in the decades ahead will be to
reaffirm that, even though America is no longer a separate and distinct economy, it is still a society
whose members have abiding obligations to one another. The creation of enclaves of the super-rich has
proceeded apace since then as the incomes and wealth of the richest 5 percent of households have decoupled from stagnant median incomes and falling incomes at the low end (Dwyer 2010). The broad and
long-term impacts of these enclaves have not been explored; our closing section recommends much
more attention to this important trend.
In response to these macro-level trends, scholars and policymakers have developed agendas for regional equity, driven by the conclusion that spatial income sorting has too many negative effects to ignore (Pastor et al. 2009, Bollens 2003). The negative outcomes are obvious for people living not just in
low-income neighborhoods but in entire jurisdictions dominated by low-income neighborhoods: weak
tax bases, struggling schools, high crime rates, and sometimes even municipal bankruptcy (see, for example, Orfield 1997, Dreier et al. 2004, Goldsmith and Blakely 2010).
Proponents of regional equity go further still, however, contending that high levels of inequality across
space are more broadly harmful from both a practical standpoint and an equity standpoint, reinforcing
high levels of racial segregation, impeding economic growth, harming environmental quality, and even
reducing civic engagement and participation (Oliver 1999, Dreier et al. 2004). These broader arguments
about regional and statewide public welfare have motivated the best-known campaigns to promote inclusionary housing, those in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Montgomery County, and California. (We discuss these fair share and anti-NIMBY programs at length below.) In all these cases, concerns about corollaries of income sortingincluding traffic congestion, availability of labor for growing suburban jobs,
5

and the negative effects of strict land-use regulations on housing marketsall contributed importantly
to the adoption and implementation of the policies.

Caveats: Homogeneity Has Benefits, and Mixing (Alone) Isnt Always Helpful or
Positive
Spatial sorting persists despite researchers agreement that concentrated poverty is harmful and a growing consensus among advocates and planners that class sorting into municipalities can be inequitable
and inefficient. This is in part because spatial sorting delivers important benefits, mainly but not only to
upper-income households. Furthermore, income mixing does not always deliver positive outcomes and
can even conceivably have negative effects.
Why We Sort: Consumer Sovereignty and the Benefits of Homogeneity
Income sorting is nearly universal, at least to some degree, and has been the subject of urban economics
theory for decades. For example, researchers have long been interested in the tendency for most lowincome Americans to live in central cities and older suburbs while upper-income Americans live farther
away from downtown. Early explanations (e.g., Alonso 1964, Muth 1969) understood income sorting as
the outcome of income-based differences in the marginal benefit to households of locations close to or
far from the central business district (CBD). Empirical tests of this hypothesis found no such systematic
income-based differences, however (Wheaton 1977), and international examples showed the opposite
pattern: high-income families often live in the central city in Latin America, Asia, and Europe (see for
example Brueckner et al. 1999). Differential ability and willingness to pay for amenities, public services,
and high-quality durable housing are all likely to play a stronger role in residential sorting than incomebased differences in preferences for the amount of land or housing consumed (Brueckner et al. 1999,
Glaeser et al. 2008). Schools are especially important in residential sorting, not only among school districts but also among the attendance areas for individual schools within school districts (Davidoff and
Lee 2008; Hayes and Taylor 1996).
Public policy is therefore deeply implicated in spatial sorting, but it interacts in important ways with
household preferences. Since housing and neighborhoods are produced in a decentralized, marketbased process in the United States, spatial sorting necessarily reflects at least some level of consumer
demand for separation. Part of the separation happens purely on the basis of income, though withinrace income separation appears to be attenuated by racial segregation. Racial segregation results in income mixing among Hispanics and blacks and allows greater income mixing even of whites than would
occur in the absence of racial segregation. Some income-based separation also occurs on the basis of life
cycle and household structure differences that correlate with income (Gans 1962). For example, single
college graduates may prefer neighborhood and housing characteristics that differ from those sought by
thirtysomething parents with two kids, and older households with mobility impairments may have yet
another set of preferences. Households have become more diverse over time in the US in many ways,
and part of the diversity of neighborhoods reflects this diversity of need and preference. In fact, under
certain conditions homogeneous enclaves can generate positive benefits for residents without large social costs (Marcuse 2005).

The most persistent arguments in favor of spatial sorting are those coming from the public choice school
of urban politics, researchers and theorists who follow Tiebout (1956) in their support for fragmented or
decentralized metropolitan governance. From this viewpoint, decentralized government offers more
choice to residents and fosters political participation (Ostrom, Bish, and Ostrom 1988, Schneider 1989,
Barber 1984). Heightened participation and homogeneity also create disciplinary incentives for government: if residents and businesses become dissatisfied with what they receive for their taxes, they may
very well move (Peterson 1981). They may also choose to stay but resist taxation or amenity provision,
exercising their voice rather than their exit option (Hirshman 1971). Tiebout sorting may even have allowed the emergence of progressive coalitions in some cities that have built broad support for redistribution (Clavel 1986, De Leon 1993). In the process, these cities (including, for example, small cities like
Berkeley, Burlington, and Santa Monica but alsoat least for a timeBoston and San Francisco) have
become places that attract and retain middle- and upper-income people and businesses whose support
for diversity extends to their willingness to pay higher taxes to provide services for low-income households.
Evaluating the impacts of local government structure on social, economic, and environmental outcomes
is notoriously difficult, however, because of the complexity of local government structure and variation
in the rules among states and over time (Kim and Jurey 2013). The size and number of local governments, and the extent to which development occurs in municipalities (as opposed to unincorporated
areas in townships or counties), varies greatly among metropolitan areas because of variance among
state laws on incorporation, annexation, and local government structure and functions (Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 1993; US Census Bureau 2012). Special districts and school districts, which often cut across municipal and county boundaries, further complicate the analysis of the
income profile of local governments; the specific package of taxes and service characteristics available
to residents of a city may depend on their address, potentially causing systematic differences in property values, rents, and therefore resident incomes among sub- or multi-city areas (Jonas 1991; Foster
1999; Clapp, Nanda, and Ross 2008).
The debate about forms of local government and regionalism persist because sorting offers important
benefits that, at least for some people, outweigh its costs. While they sometimes recognize that some
communities need more public services than their tax bases can support, adherents to the public choice
school favor redistribution from higher levels of government instead of income mixing or consolidated
government (Tiebout 1956).
Questioning the Benefits of Mixing
While homogeneity does offer some benefits, mixing does not always offer the benefits its proponents
expect. This is true at various levels. Efforts to improve the social mobility of low-income people by accommodating them in developments alongside higher-income people, for example, rarely result in the
development of cross-class social ties that are one hypothesized mechanism to promote social mobility
(Joseph et al. 2007; Rosenbaum et al. 1991, 1998; Brophy and Smith 1997; Kleit 2005; Buron et al. 2002;
Tach 2009; Graves 2010). The role model hypothesis (Joseph et al. 2007; Wilson 1987; Brower 2009),
too, has been questioned. Harding (2007), for example, found using nationally representative data that
lower-income youth are exposed to more models of behavior on average than higher income youth, re7

sulting in a wider array of competing and conflicting cultural models and weaker congruence between
youths stated ideals and their actual behavior. And although social ties are often a necessary precondition for strong neighborhood social control, they are not a sufficient condition because even if social ties
are strong they may only be weakly related to action (Sampson et al. 1999; Pattillo-McCoy 1999; Wilson
and Taub 2006).
Some observers even suggest that income mixing might not just fail to deliver the hoped-for benefits
but actually harm low-income people. Some of the most heated debates about income mixing today
revolve around potential negative impacts for incumbent low-income people when their long-poor
neighborhoods attract new middle- and upper-income residents. In New York, Washington DC, San
Francisco, Chicago, and many other big cities, upper-income households and young singles are transforming the character and complexion of well-situated neighborhoods whose low property values make
them ripe for redevelopment (Smith 1996, Newman and Wyly 2006, Betancur 2002; Hyra 2008). Reductions in urban crime, changes in household structure and demographics, and perhaps changes in attitudes about living in the city have all made older working class and even poor neighborhoods more attractive, and now the pioneering householdsattracting public and private investment in their wake
may help tip many neighborhoods from affordable and low-income areas to expensive ones.
Recent research underscores, however, that low-income renters move often even when their neighborhoods are not gentrifying (Coulton, Theodos, and Turner 2012). Under many circumstances, low-income
households move into and out of gentrifying neighborhoods with the same frequency as they do other
neighborhoods (Freeman and Braconi 2004, Ellen and ORegan 2011), whether gentrification is measured by rising property values or household incomes. Central cities in the US have lost so much population in the past 40 years that most of them can accommodate population growth without direct displacement of low-income households. And evidently, at least up until recently, low-income incumbents
have been willing to put up with higher housing costs in these neighborhoods. Whether this is because
they are willing to pay for better services (Vigdor 2010) or because they cannot afford to move is still
unknown.
Even if gentrification does not lead to displacement, the mix of incomes in cities and neighborhoods
might produce other negative effects for low-income people. Researchers have found that having a lower income than ones reference group increases stress and depression and undermines physical health
(Parducci 1995; Eibner 2000; Deaton 2001; Long, Lynch, Machiran, Thomas, & Malinow 1982). If ones
neighbors constitute a meaningful reference group, the experience of relative deprivation compared to
ones neighbors could undermine psychological well-being for lower-income residents. Researchers
have found partial support for the relative income hypothesis when applied to community context, finding that being comparatively affluent in ones state, PUMA, or county is positively related to happiness
and psychological well-being (Luttmer 2005; Blanchflower and Oswald 2004; Firebaugh and Schroeder
2009), but living in a census tract where ones neighbors are comparatively poorer reduces psychological
well-being; thus, as Firebaugh and Schroeder (2009) conclude, it appears that individuals are happier
when they live among the poor, as long as the poor do not live too close (p. 805).

Living too close may also undermine overall social cohesionor create the kind of toxic cohesion that
arises within a group when it comes into conflict with another group. Group threat theory posits that
close contact with other groups may lead to increased competition and reduced trust (Blumer 1958;
Blalock 1967), while group contact theory argues that close proximity may yield greater understanding, tolerance, and trust, particularly among those of equal status (Allport 1954; Gaertner et al. 1996;
Pettigrew and Tropp 2000; Gans 1961; Duke 2009). Evidence has been found to support both of these
theories in the context of racial out groups (Quillian 1995, 1996; Bobo 1999; Taylor 1998). Experimental settings have offered a possible reconciliation: greater tolerance and trust result when out-group
contact is meaningfulsuch as by working together toward a shared goalrather than superficial (Aronson et al. 1978; Cook 1990; Slavin and Cooper 1999). Whether such theories and results apply to economic out groups in addition to racial out groups, or extend beyond the laboratory, has not been investigated systematically. It does, however, suggest that propinquity alone is a poor predictor of meaningful social relations (Briggs 1997, 2007); benefits to mixing are most likely to occur when diversity is organized into collaborative structures, such as school organizations or civic associations, that work consciously to bridge differences.
Even if income mixing does not create overt conflict, it might undermine neighborhood social control
and organization through the erosion of social ties due to resident turnover, racial heterogeneity, and
mistrust (Shaw and McKay 1942; Sampson and Groves 1989). Indeed, researchers have found that property crime rates are higher in neighborhoods with greater income inequality (Hipp 2007). And although
social control is typically considered a positive community attribute that enhances safety and reduces
crime, it may also result in the increased surveillance, alienation, and harassment of lower-income residents (Pattillo 2007; Graves 2010; Tach 2011; McCormick, Joseph, and Chaskin 2012), particularly in circumstances when race and income differences overlap. In light of these potential negative and disruptive effects of income mixing, Vale (2006) argues that greater social control can be achieved in entirely
low-income communities through careful physical design, tenant leadership, and tenant selection; income-mixing is not required.

The Missing Middle? Districts as a Neglected Scale for Income Mixing Policy
and Research
The review above shows that current theory on the costs and benefits of income mixing has been focused at the micro and the macro scales but not between. At the neighborhood and development level,
advocates for income mixing hope it will bring stability, positive role models, and new investment to
low-income neighborhoods and long-term opportunity for low-income people in gentrifying or upperincome areas. At the level of metropolitan areas, advocates for regional equity hope that mixed-income
cities will deliver greater net social, economic, fiscal, and environmental benefits for everyone, especially redounding to the benefit of lower income people. The caveats and concerns about income mixing
and the benefits of homogeneity, however, suggest that an intermediate level, which we call the district,
may offer an important additional scale for intervention and measurement in efforts to create more equitable metropolitan areas. Concern with this intermediate spatial scale of income sorting has parallels
with earlier work on the dimensions of racial segregation (Massey and Denton 1988; Massey, White,
and Phua 1996).
9

What is a district, and how does it differ from a neighborhood? According to some definitions, neighborhoods are predominantly residential areas with some level of internal coherence (Tatian et al.
2012). Individual definitions of neighbors, research on residential preferences and tolerances for the
characteristics of neighbors (Farley et al. 1978, 1993), and research on neighbor networks (Grannis
2009) all suggest that neighborhoods stop at busy streets, large open spaces, rivers, industrial areas, and
other interruptions in the walkable street grid. Districts, as we see them, are one level beyond the
neighborhood. Their constituent neighborhoodswhich may be either similar to one another or quite
differentshare important civic and commercial spaces and transportation facilities: elementary
schools, small shopping districts, medium-sized parks, bus stops, and so on. Income mixing can arise
within districts even when their constituent neighborhoods or developments are internally homogeneous. For the purposes of this report, we outline the conceptual notion of the district and highlight its
potential utility to mixed-income theory and policy; there is a clear need for a research agenda that defines empirically the appropriate size and boundaries of districts, which we discuss in greater detail in
the conclusion.
Income-mixing at the district level may influence the type, quality, and diversity of institutions involved
in the provision of goods and services for routine daily activities. Because income mixing is not typically
measured at the district scale, its incidence and impacts have not been systematically studied to the extent that development- and neighborhood-scale mixing have. Theoretically, however, district-scale income mixing can benefit low-income peopleeven if their developments or neighborhoods are homogeneousby raising the quality of public and private goods and services to which they have access, from
public safety to shopping to education and transportation facilities.
Mixed-income districts may also attract amenities and increase interaction among people from a range
of incomes, especially at areas called social seams: points in the community where groups are sewn together through shared use of institutions and resources (Jacobs 1961, Nyden et al. 1998). 1 These common resources may include, for example, grocery and retail shops, schools, parks, community colleges,
non-profit organizations, recreation centers, child care centers, libraries, or other institutions.
The presence of higher-income residents within a district could generate market demand and political
pressure for higher quality goods and services. Higher income residents have strong voices and an ability
to pay for higher-quality amenities, to which the public and private sector may respond, creating positive externalities for lower-income residents who might benefit from these higher-quality institutions
and amenities. In addition, district-level actors, such as civic associations, small business owners, and
realtors, can organize on behalf of the district. Recent studies of low-income residents residential mobility decisions in the face of neighborhood upgrading (i.e., increases in income) affirm the correlation
among increased incomes and amenities (Ellen and ORegan 2011). They also suggest that as neighborhood incomes increase, established tenants are more likely to stay than those in neighborhoods with
more stable incomes. The authors presume that this reflects the value placed by low-income tenants on
the amenities, safety, or other characteristics of the upgraded neighborhood.
1

Such engagement is not always benign; often it entails conflict. We return below to the importance of policy for
brokering and resolving conflict in the process of increasing income mixing.

10

Income diversity within a district may also lead to conflict and contention over the types of goods and
services provided, however, and the mere presence of such amenities and institutions does not necessarily translate into equal utilization if lower-income residents are deliberately or inadvertently excluded
from them (Chapple and Jacobus 2009). Freeman (2006) found evidence for both of these outcomes in
his analysis of low-income residents views of their gentrifying neighborhoods in New York City. Many of
the residents Freeman interviewed appreciated the new retail investment that accompanied the influx
of affluent residents to their neighborhood, particularly new supermarkets and drug stores. However,
residents were also quick to point out that not all businesses catered to their tastes or price points, and
some residents even reported resentment of new businesses that they felt priced out of. Some goods
and services attracted by higher-income residents may offer new conveniences for all, but certain types
of businesses signal subtle (and even not so subtle) forms of exclusion as well.
Because proximity and contact are less intense in larger districts than in smaller neighborhoods, some
interpersonal tensions that may arise from extremely close contact within neighborhoods, developments, or even within buildings may be mitigated by income-mixing at the district level. In other words,
the net benefits of this close but not too close type of income-mixing may exceed those of right next
door income mixing in neighborhoods. For example, weak ties may be forged in the social seams within
a districtsuch through connections at a school or childcare center while some of the interpersonal
tensions related to neighbors lifestyles and behaviors may be mitigated (Chapple 2001; Small 2009). Of
course, some of the purported benefits of close proximity may be mitigated at the district level as well
and the benefits are contingent on residents ability to access (in both the physical and social sense) resources in different neighborhoods.
These questions are ripe areas for empirical research, leading us to suggest deeper assessment of income mixing. Here we simply point out that the issue of the appropriate scale of optimal income-mixing
still has a missing middlea level that could become an important meeting point for policies aimed at
the neighborhood and metropolitan scales.

Trends in Income Mixing and the Concentration of the Rich


In this section, we review literature about income homogeneity and mixing: how serious it is in relationship to racial segregation and how it has changed over recent decades. The section also provides new
results about income mixing with reference to indices at a variety of scales, from neighborhood (tract)
to district (adjacent tracts) to jurisdictions.

Recent Research about Levels of Income Segregation and Mixing


Despite the concern about concentrated poverty and income segregation, many neighborhoods have
residents with a wide array of incomes. In 2000, about 20% of census tractsor about one tract in five
were mixed-income, with a substantial representation of families with both very low incomes (< 50%
area median income) and high incomes (> 200% area median income) (Tach 2010). This makes mixedincome neighborhoods more common than high-poverty neighborhoods; they are also about as common as mixed-race neighborhoods, which Ingrid Ellen (2000) found constituted about one-fifth of census tracts in 1990.
11

Even so, many observers are concerned because the number of mixed-income neighborhoods has declined while income segregation has increased since the 1970s by virtually all indicators (Jargowsky
1996, 2003; Mayer 2001; Massey and Fischer 2003; Wheeler and La Jeunesse 2006; Watson 2009; Reardon and Bischoff 2011). 2 Income segregation grew sharply during the 1980s and more modestly during
the 1990s and 2000s (Jargowsky 2003; Massey and Fischer 2003; Yang and Jargowsky 2006; Reardon
and Bischoff 2011). The growth in income segregation was distributed unevenly among groups, however, increasing more among black and Hispanic families than it did among white families (Jargowsky 1996;
Massey and Fischer 2003; Watson 2009; Yang and Jargwosky 2006; Reardon and Bischoff 2012). At the
neighborhood level, this has translated into a declining number of middle- and mixed-income neighborhoods and a growing number of homogeneously poor and affluent neighborhoods (Reardon and Bischoff 2011b; Tach 2010; Galster et al. 2007, 2009; Brophy et al. 2008).
Concentrated poverty has increased over the past four decades. In metropolitan areas, the percent of
residents in high-poverty neighborhoods (census tracts with over 30 percent poor residents) increased
from 6.4 percent to 9.1 percent between 1970 and 1990 (Pendall et al. 2011). In the 1990s, the percentage of residents living in high-poverty neighborhoods declined to about 7.2 percent (Jargowsky 2003;
Kingsley and Pettit 2003). Since 2000, however, the percent and number of people living in high-poverty
neighborhoods increased again. By the second half of the decade, nearly 12 percent of metropolitanarea residentsnearly 30 million people in alllived in high-poverty neighborhoods. Among these, 9.2
million lived in tracts with extreme poverty rates of 40 percent or more (Pendall et al. 2011). Trends in
exposure to high poverty neighborhoods reflect not only patterns of residential mobility into and out of
high poverty neighborhoods, but also the changing incomes of neighbors among non-movers (Briggs and
Keys 2009).
Although policy and academic discourse has made much of the growing concentration of poverty and its
ills, the rich are considerably more segregated from the non-rich than the poor are from the non-poor
(Reardon and Bischoff 2011; Massey 1996). Concern over concentrated poverty is certainly warranted,
given that the segregation of poverty has increased since 1970growing rapidly in the 1970s, declining
in the 1990s, and increasing again slightly during the 2000s (Jargowsky 1997, 2003; Kneebone et al.
2011; Pendall et al. 2011). The segregation of affluence is considerably more extensive and grew much
more over this time period than the segregation of poverty (Reardon and Bischoff 2011). And while the
concentration of poverty declined during the 1990s, the concentration of affluence grew substantially.
The spatial structure of income segregation is also significant from a policy perspective: income segregation (and its growth) are primarily due to the large-scale segregation of the affluent, with the rich increasingly clustered in specific metropolitan areas and specific jurisdictions within those metropolitan
areas (Fischer et al. 2004; Reardon and Bischoff 2011; Dwyer 2010). Beyond reducing the odds of crossclass contact, the segregation of the affluent may reduce their support for investments in public goods
that benefit cities or support regional integration; it also may reduce the chances that less-affluent resi2

The exact timing and magnitude of the increase in income segregation varies across measures of segregation and
across metropolitan areas (Jargowsky 1996, 2003; Mayer 2001; Massey and Fischer 2003; Wheeler and La Jeunesse
2006; Watson 2009; Reardon and Bischoff 2011).

12

dents will benefit from the positive spillovers of public goods in affluent areas, like schools. Little of the
rise in income segregation was due to growth in smaller-scale income sorting of the rich and poor into
different neighborhoods within the same jurisdiction. As a result, poverty deconcentration during the
1990s brought the poor in closer proximity to middle-income and near-poor households without displacing large numbers of poor residents (Freeman 2005; Vigdor 2002; McKinnish et al. 2010; Ellen and
ORegan 2011), However, it did not bring the affluent into greater contact with either middle-income or
poor households (Dwyer 2012).
Although measures of income segregation reflect the large scale distribution of households across
neighborhoods at a point in time, they reveal little about the stability of particular neighborhoods over
time. This is an important consideration if one is concerned with stable income mixing. Analyses that
track mixed-income neighborhoods over time have found that they are less economically stable than
more economically homogenous neighborhoods, experiencing larger changes in average income, proportion poor, and proportion affluent (Tach 2010; Krupka 2008). Closer analysis of economic change in
mixed-income neighborhoods reveals that the instability results both from forces of economic improvement and decline. As a result, less than half of mixed-income neighborhoods remain stably mixed
over the course of a decade, and only 18% remained stably mixed from 1970 to 2000, whereas over half
of high poverty neighborhoods remained that way (Tach 2010). Trends in the stability of mixed-income
neighborhoods reflect growing income inequality in the US and differ in important ways from the growing prevalence and stability of racially diverse neighborhoods (Ellen 2001). A key policy challenge, then,
is to not just create mixed-income neighborhoods but to sustain them. We discuss the ways in which
policy has been able to do this in more detail below.

Economic Forces and Enabling Policies


The rise in income segregation since the 1970s resulted from a combination of broad economic and social forces and enabling policy environments. Since the 1970s, income inequality in the United States has
grown, with the upper tail of the income distribution pulling away from the rest (Piketty and Saez 2003;
Autor et al. 2006). More unequal places also tend to be more segregated (Mayer 2001; Watson 2009),
with some estimates suggesting that rising income inequality was responsible for 40-80% of the growth
in income segregation between 1970 and 2000 (Reardon and Bischoff 2011).
Wilsons account attributes the growth in poverty concentration to the macroeconomic forces of deindustrialization, which reduced the economic fortunes of low-skilled workers, combined with policies
that promoted middle class suburbanization and development, reduced aid to cities, and further concentrated housing for the poor in disadvantaged urban areas. The deconcentration of poverty during the
1990s has been attributed to a modest reversal of these trends, with a strong economy that boosted
incomes among disadvantaged populations as well as housing policies that promoted scattered-site and
mixed-income development (Ellen and ORegan 2011; Dwyer 2012). These trends were somewhat offset
by growing concentrations of poverty in some inner-ring suburbs, however (Kingsley et al. 2003; Kneebone and Berube 2013).
Likewise, the growth in large-scale income segregation of the rich was fueled by urban decline and infrastructure investment outside of cities, which promoted the development of suburban (and later exur13

ban) areas. Land use regulations adopted in these developing areas restricted residence to middle class
and affluent households by making housing more costly and by segregating different housing types (Nelson et al. 2004a). Residential zoning regulations promoted segregation by dictating that single-, multifamily, and apartment complexes be separated and raised the price of housing by setting minimum
standards for house size, lot size, and density (Pendall 2000a). The costs of housing construction were
further increased by impact fees that required new developments to pay the costs of providing public
services and by growth controls that instituted building permit caps and construction moratoria. These
regulations restricted the construction of higher-density, rental, and lower-cost housing that would be
accessible to lower-income households, thereby contributing to rising income segregation (Pendall
2000b).
Policy efforts have focused primarily on deconcentrating the poor through housing and income supports. These efforts have been more successful at integrating the poor with the near-poor than at integrating the rich with anyone else, and they have been more successful at creating mixed-income neighborhoods than at sustaining them. If one is concerned with potential negative externalities resulting
from the primary driver of rising income segregationthe concentration of affluencepolicy efforts
must attend to the fact that, in many metropolitan areas, this segregation occurs mainly across largescale jurisdictions rather than specific neighborhoods within jurisdictions, and must adopt income integration practices that span these large-scale jurisdictional boundaries.

New Measurement of Income Inequality in Tracts, Districts, and Jurisdictions


Past income mixing studies have relied on census tracts to stand in for neighborhoods. Tracts are US
Census administrative reporting zones that contain about 4,000 people (though the populations vary
widely around this target). In densely populated urban areas, this population-based definition yields
tracts that are relatively small geographically, while census tracts in less populated suburban and rural
areas are much larger geographically. Tracts are common units of analysis because of the large amount
of readily available data on them, but they have been criticized for being either too large or too small
(depending on population density) to adequately proxy neighborhoods and for having boundaries that
do not reflect residents lived experiences, daily routines, and resources available to them (see, for example, Grannis 2009). In this section, therefore, we explore two measures to bring other scales into the
picture and relate them with one another.
To understand inter-jurisdictional inequality in metropolitan areas and its relationship to tract-level sorting, our first measure identifies metropolitan areas where jurisdiction-scale inequality is particularly
pronounced, called the jurisdiction-tract Gini ratio. Here, jurisdictions are defined as incorporated local
governments primarily responsible for budgetary resourcesin some states, these are minor civil divisions (MCDs) and in others they are incorporated places. We situate jurisdictions within broader metropolitan areas to understand the extent of large-scale spatial soring by income. This ratio allows one to
distinguish metropolitan areas where income inequality is concentrated primarily among jurisdictions
(i.e., at a large spatial scale) from those whose income inequality is concentrated primarily among
neighborhoods (census tracts) within jurisdictions (i.e., at a small spatial scale).

14

We then demonstrate the utility of focusing on income mixing at the intermediate spatial scale of the
district. Our second measure, the ordinal entropy index, has been used in past research (Tach 2010;
Galster and Booza 2007) to explore income mixing within census tracts, but we take it to a geographic
scale one step above the census tract in the Washington and Baltimore metropolitan areas to see
whether income mixing is more pronounced in districts than in tracts. Unlike the Gini index used above,
which measures the inequality, or concentration, of income in certain areas, the entropy index
measures the diversity, or equal spread, of income.
The Jurisdiction-Tract Gini Ratio: Measuring the Spatial Scale of Income Inequality
Just as it is used to study inequality among individuals within certain geographic units, the Gini coefficient can be used to study inequality among neighborhoods or among jurisdictions in a given geographic
area. We construct Gini coefficients of inequality in average household income among census tracts
within each Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) in the US (which includes both metropolitan and micropolitan areas), which measure how unequal average incomes are among tracts. We also construct
Gini coefficients of inequality in per-household income across the jurisdictions within CBSAs, which
measure how unequal average incomes are among jurisdictions. We use these among-tract Gini coefficients (that measure inequality among neighborhoods) and among-jurisdiction Gini coefficients (that
measure inequality among jurisdictions) to construct a jurisdiction-tract Gini ratio, which is the ratio of
income inequality among jurisdictions to income inequality among tracts.

Scenario A: High Jurisdiction-Tract Gini Ratio


To understand the intuition behind this measure, consider a hypothetical metropolitan area with two
jurisdictions, each containing four neighborhoods. The blue neighborhoods have average household incomes of $100 each, while the white neighborhoods have average household incomes of $0 each. In
Scenario A, this hypothetical metropolitan area is characterized by a high level of inequality among jurisdictions, but a high level of equality among tracts within those jurisdictions. Jurisdiction 1 has an average household income of $100 and Jurisdiction 2 has an average household income of $0, yielding a Gini
coefficient of 1, or maximum inequality where all the income is concentrated in one jurisdiction. But
within each jurisdiction, the Gini coefficient is 0, or maximum equality where incomes are the same
among all neighborhoods. In this case, the jurisdiction-tract Gini ratio would be maximized because inequality among jurisdictions is high relative to income inequality among tracts.

Scenario B: Low Jurisdiction-Tract Gini Ratio

15

In Scenario B, the hypothetical metropolitan area is characterized by a high level of inequality within
each of the two jurisdictions. In both jurisdictions, one neighborhood has an average household income
of $100 and the other three neighborhoods have average households incomes of $0, yielding Gini coefficients among tracts of 1, or maximum inequality. Despite this high level of inequality among neighborhoods within a jurisdiction, the jurisdictions themselves are very equal: both have mean household incomes of $25, yielding a Gini coefficient of 0 or complete equality of income. In this scenario, the jurisdiction-tract Gini ratio would be minimized because inequality among jurisdictions is low relative to income inequality among tracts.
As these hypothetical examples suggest, the jurisdiction-tract Gini ratio can be used to identify areas
where income inequality occurs on a large geographic scaleamong jurisdictionsand areas where income inequality occurs on a smaller geographic scalewithin jurisdictions. In the former case, income
segregation results because the rich and poor are sorting into different jurisdictions, suggesting that efforts to reduce income segregation will require movement of rich and poor into different jurisdictions
(or redistributive policies to that effect). In the latter case, income segregation results because the rich
and poor are sorting into the same jurisdictions but different neighborhoods within those jurisdictions,
suggesting that efforts to reduce income segregation will require the movement of rich and poor into
different neighborhoods but not necessarily across jurisdictional boundaries.
We calculated the jurisdiction-tract Gini ratios for the 50 largest metropolitan areas in 1990, 2000, and
2005-2009, shown in tables 1 through 3. Starting with the most recent 2005-2009 results, we rank the
metropolitan areas from highest to lowest on their Gini ratios. With one of the highest ratios, at 1.223 in
2005-2009, the Louisville-Jefferson County CBSA has more income inequality among different jurisdictions than it does among different neighborhoods. (Louisville is also an interesting case because it
merged with Jefferson County in the early 2000s.)
The spatial patterning of income inequality in the Louisville metro area, as seen in figure 1, shows that
there is one jurisdiction in particular (located in Oldham County) with a very high average household
income of over $100,000, while the rest of the jurisdictions have moderate household incomes in the
$50,000 range. Within each jurisdiction, however, household incomes tend to be relatively homogeneous (with the exception of the city of Louisville, which has a disproportionate share of low-income
households relative to the rest of the MSA). Outside Louisville and Oldham County, the rest of the jurisdictions in the MSA have median household incomes in the $50-$60,000 range.

16

Figure 1. Mean household income by tract, Louisville CBSA, 2007-11

On the other hand, with one of the lowest ratios, at 0.456, the New Orleans CBSA has considerably more
inequality among its neighborhoods than it does among its jurisdictions.

17

Figure 2. Mean household income by tract, New Orleans CBSA, 2007-11

This spatial patterning of income inequality reflects a mosaic pattern with census tracts of high and
low average incomes in close proximity to each other within the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, St. John,
and St. Bernard. This is shown in figure 2. The parishes themselves have very similar mean incomes, in
the $50-$60,000 range, but these averages conceal a great amount of heterogeneity (or inequality) in
incomes within the parishes.
One potential contribution of the jurisdiction-tract Gini ratio is that it can be can be used to identify geographic areas, like the Louisville metropolitan area, where there is a great deal of inequality among
jurisdictions, but not among neighborhoods (resulting in a very high Gini ratio), pointing to the need for
policy strategies to reduce income inequality among jurisdictions rather than inequality among neighborhoodsthis is the case for Louisville. It can also be used to identify geographic areas where most
income inequality is among neighborhoods rather than among jurisdictions (resulting in a very low Gini
ratio), pointing to the need for policy strategies to reduce income inequality at the neighborhood scale
within jurisdictions; this is the case for parishes in the New Orleans metropolitan area.
The Gini ratio can also track changes over time. Tables 2 and 3 show the Gini ratios for the 50 largest
CBSAs based on tract data from the 2000 and 1990 decennial Censuses, and figure 3 shows a scatterplot
18

of Gini ratios in 1990 and 2005-09 for the 50 largest CBSAs. Overall, Gini ratios declined slightly between
1990 and 2000, driven by small increases in inequality among neighborhoods and small decreases in inequality among jurisdictions, and then held steady between 2000 and 2005-09. There was also a great
deal of stability among the rank order of metropolitan areas over time. Seattle, Louisville, and Indianapolis, for example, maintained high Gini ratios in each decade, while New Orleans, Las Vegas, and Virginia
Beach maintained low Gini ratios in each decade.

CBSA Jurisdiction-Tract Gini Ratio,


2005-2009

Figure 3. Jurisdiction-Tract Gini Ratios for 50 Largest CBSAs in 1990 and 2005-2009
1.400
1.200
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

CBSA Jurisdiction-Tract Gini Ratio, 1990

The Gini ratio can also be used to identify metropolitan areas that have experienced changes in their
Gini ratios over time. For example, the largest increase in the Gini ratio occurred for the Oklahoma City
metropolitan area. This occurred because the counties, and their constituent tracts, surrounding Oklahoma City became considerably more affluent over this time period. There was a modest amount of
heterogeneity in low-to-moderate incomes in the surrounding counties in 1990, reflected in the 1990among-tract Gini of 0.237. The average incomes in these tracts increased in the ensuing decades, while
the incomes in neighborhoods within Oklahoma City itself did not rise. This resulted little change in the
within-jurisdiction Ginis (which increased slightly to 0.256 in 20052009an increase of 8%), but growing inequality among jurisdictions, with the among-jurisdiction Gini rising 21%, from 0.237 to 0.287 in
2005-2009, particularly between Oklahoma City and its surrounding suburbs. This resulted in a growth in
the Gini ratio from 1 to 1.123, a growth of 12%.
In contrast, the largest decrease in the jurisdiction-tract Gini ratio occurred for the San Jose-Sunnyvale
metropolitan area, which saw its Gini ratio fall from 1.325 in 1990 to 1.076 in 2005-2009. This decline of
19% was driven by a slight increase in inequality among neighborhoods (from 0.188 to 0.207) and a
comparatively large decrease in inequality among jurisdictions (from 0.245 to 0.223, a decline of about
10%). This decline was primarily driven by large increases in household income in San Jose over the time
period, which reduced inequality between San Jose and other wealthier surrounding areas.

19

In sum, the Gini ratio can be used for several purposes relevant for policy:

Identifying areas with exceptionally high inequality among jurisdictions relative to neighborhoods. These areas are places where efforts to increase income mixing and reduce income segregation will require redistributing the balance of rich and poor across jurisdictional bounds.
This calls for a distinct set of large scale, regional housing policies (or other economic development policies).
Identifying areas with exceptionally high inequality among neighborhoods relative to jurisdictions. These areas are places where efforts to increase income mixing and reduce income segregation will require redistributing the balance of rich and poor within jurisdictional boundaries.
This calls for a more neighborhood-based set of policies to incorporate low-income households
in high income neighborhoods and vice versa (or other local economic development policies, like
job creation) that can be accomplished within certain jurisdictions in the metro area.
Identifying areas with balanced levels of inequality among and within jurisdictions, particularly
when Gini coefficients among neighborhoods and jurisdictions are both low. These areas might
serve as case studies for best practices to interrogate what combination of housing and labor
market policies has produced a balanced mix of rich and poor across neighborhoods and across
jurisdictions. It is also possible for a Gini ratio to be balanced (i.e., near 1) because Gini ratios
among neighborhoods and tracts are both high. In these cases, policy efforts would have the
dual challenges of regional and local redistribution of the rich and poor.
The Gini ratio could also be used to track the progress over time of particular policy interventions aimed at reducing inter-jurisdictional or within-jurisdictional inequality.
On a broader scale, the Gini ratio can be used to identify the historical and contemporary demographic, economic, land use, and governance features of metropolitan areas that produce low or
high income segregation at large geographic scales.

20

Income Mixing at Medium Geographic Scales: Within Districts


The census produces pre-tabulated income information at the census tract and metropolitan level, and
these geographic units are utilized often. However, as described above, people often make choices
about whether to move to a particular neighborhood based on the quality of surrounding neighborhoods and the services they offer. If a family cannot afford to live in neighborhood A, they may instead
choose to move to neighborhood B if it is very close or adjacent to neighborhood A. In this case, the
family is hoping to get some of the benefits of living in neighborhood A, such as good schools or transit
access, while actually living in neighborhood B.
As we noted above, the boundaries of districts are difficult to define and there is little precedent in existing literature. We outline a research plan to fully explore various ways to define districts at the end of
this report, but to illustrate the potential benefits of measuring geographic units at this scale, we create
measures of districts as the half-mile radius around the centroid of each census tract within a given
CBSA. We selected the half-mile radius based on the convention in land-use planning that neighborhoods ought to have a radius of about a quarter mile, placing all residents within a five- to 10-minute
walk of an elementary school (Perry 1929) or a transit stop (Calthorpe 1989). By extending this radius
from a quarter-mile to a half-mile, we select census tracts that might share the social seams (Nyden
1998) located between neighborhoods. We use the population of households within the half-mile radius
to construct measures of district-level income mixing for each tract. Each tract has its own district-level
measure of income mixing because there are seldom situations in which two tracts share all the same
neighbors. 3
We measure income mixing using the ordinal entropy index (Reardon et al. 2006; Galster and Booza
2007):

Ei =

M
m =1

[c im *log 2(c im) + (1 c im) *log 2(1 c im)]


M 1

where im is the cumulative proportion of individuals in income groups 1 (lowest) through m (highest) in
district i. The minimum value is 0, which occurs when the income distribution is as homogenous as possible (when all residents in the district fall in a single income group). To demonstrate this, we have created four scenarios represented by figures 4 through 7. It is important to note that two areas could have
the same average income but two very different entropy scores based on the amount of income dispersion. Conversely, two areas could have very different average incomes but the same amount of income
dispersion, as is the case in Scenario One (with all households in the lowest income bracket) and Scenario Two (with all households in the highest income bracket) shown below. In both cases, the entropy index would be 0, despite very different average incomes.

It is theoretically possible for this to occur in boundary situations when tracts are very large. This measurement
convention, where each tract has its own district-level measure, means that, unlike tracts, districts are not mutually exclusive geographies.

21

Figure 4. Scenario One: All Households within the Lowest Income Bracket

All HH in Lowest Income Bracket


Entropy = 0

# HH

1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

Figure 5. Scenario Two: All Households within the Highest Income Bracket

All HH in Highest Income Bracket


Entropy = 0
1600
1400
1200
1000

# HH 800
600
400
200
0

At the other extreme, the maximum value of the entropy index is 1, which occurs when the income distribution is as bimodal as possible (when the lowest and highest income groups each contain 50% of the
district). This income distribution is displayed in Scenario Three. 4

The entropy index is distinct from the Gini measure of inequality, which is maximized when a single entity holds
all the wealth and everyone else has none; this case would have a low entropy score since there is little income
mixing.

22

Figure 6. Scenario Three: Equal Distribution of Households within the Highest and Lowest Income Brackets

Equal Distribution of HH in Highest and Lowest


Income Brackets
Entropy = 1

# HH

1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

When households are spread evenly across all income brackets, the entropy index is about 0.86. This
income distribution, shown in Scenario Four below, represents a truly income diverse area, with equal
representations from all parts of the income distribution. This is reflected in an entropy index value that
is high, but not quite as high as in the bipolar Scenario Three above.
Figure 7. Scenario Four: Equal Distribution of Households across All Income Brackets

Equal Distribution of HH Across All Income Brackets


Entropy = 0.86

# HH

1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

23

Comparing district entropy indices to tract entropy indices provides information about areas in metros
where income mixing is low within tracts but higher within districts, indicating areas with homogenous
neighborhoods but diverse districts. Conversely, it can also identify areas where mixing is high within
districts and tracts, indicating areas where mixing is prevalent at both small and medium geographic
scales. Finally, it can identify areas where there is little mixing at either the tract or district level.
We illustrate the utility of this approach using the Baltimore and Washington DC CBSAs, using income
data from the 2007-2011 American Community Survey. Within tracts in the dense central city area of
Baltimore, two clusters of somewhat homogenous tracts are surrounded by a ring of more diverse tracts
(figure 8). Many diverse or bimodal tracts are located farther from the CBD. When measured at the district level (figure 9), the pattern becomes more pronounced: the central city contains a well-defined
cluster of more diverse tracts, with a large group of diverse districts radiating from the center into the
northwestern part of the metro area. Along Chesapeake Bay and on the western outskirts of the CBSA,
the districts are more homogeneous.
The most diverse tracts in Washington, DC (figure 10), too, are concentrated in the central city area.
Washington contrasts with Baltimore, however, in that it also has a ring of diverse tracts on the outskirts
of the CBSA. Tracts are more homogenous in between. Again, a few homogenous tracts are ringed by
more diverse tracts. Diverse districts again concentrate in the central city, with a ring of more homogeneous tracts surrounding them. Outside the central city, the most diverse districts are clustered on the
western outskirts of the CBSA on the Virginia side.
Anticipating the discussion about districts in the next section of this paper, we zero in on two suburban
developments in the Baltimore and Washington CBSA whose designers aimed to create diversity
through land-use planning. Clarence Stein and James Rouse planned Greenbelt and Columbia, respectively, as mosaics of small residential areas, each one internally homogeneous but differing from nearby
neighborhoods. Each of these developments used social seams (schools, shopping centers, and civic
buildings) and open space as elements to allow for encounters between people of different income levels (and in Rouses case, different races). Columbia, in Howard County south of Baltimore, stands out
from other new suburbs south of Baltimore for having three diverse tracts and five other tracts in the
middle of diverse districts (see figures 8 and 9). Greenbelt does not attain as high a level of income diversity at either the tract or the district level according to these statistics (see figures 10 and 11).

24

Figure 8. Tract entropy index, Baltimore CBSA, 2007-11

25

Figure 9. District entropy index, Baltimore CBSA, 2007-11

26

Figure 10. Tract entropy index, Washington, DC CBSA, 2007-11

27

Figure 11. District entropy index, Washington CBSA, 2007-11

28

Residential density has a significant impact on these statistics when measured at the district level. Figure
12 shows that the half-mile radius used to identify districts creates much larger population bases in central-city locationswhere housing is built at highest densities and tracts are accordingly smallerthan
in suburbs and exurbs. Interestingly, the Presidents census tract is at the center of one of the metropolitan areas most income-diverse districts; within a half-mile of the center of the tract, there are over
12,000 households who earned less than $30,000 on average between 2007 and 2011 and over 9,000
who earned over $200,000, plus even more who earned between $75,000 and $125,000. Central-city
districts are more diverse than suburban ones, at least as we have defined them, because even if each
central-city neighborhood were as homogeneous as a suburban neighborhood (which is rarely the case),
central-city neighborhoods could have a larger number of differently homogeneous neighborhoods in
their districts than suburban neighborhoods could.
Figure 12. Income diversity in central districts is partly a product of density, Washington, DC

Implications
In summary, our review has shown that while concentrated poverty is a serious and growing problem,
income homogeneity per se is not a problem of the same magnitude. To the extent that it has been
growing, it is a consequence of rising incomes at the top of the income distribution rather than increasing isolation at the bottom of the distribution. Moreover, low-income neighborhoods are still located
29

mainly in the central city and not in the suburbs, meaning that they are built at higher densities and
therefore closer to middle- and even upper-income neighborhoods than suburban and exurban neighborhoods are. Meanwhile, wide swaths of suburbia are dominated by low-density, homogeneous tracts.
Some of these are affluent areas not only at the neighborhood scale but are surrounded by huge contiguous areas of similarly affluent neighborhoods spanning multiple jurisdictions. Indeed, Washington,
DCone of our two case-study areaswas recently identified as the metropolitan area with the largest
number of people living in contiguous zip codes in which educational levels and incomes are close to the
top of the national distribution (Morello and Mellnik 2013).
Concentrated poverty is a problem that should be named directly and addressed in full, not just with
development- or neighborhood-level income mixing strategies that fail to account for the broader urban context. Some approaches may be appropriate in dense high-poverty enclaves surrounded by
mixed-income neighborhoodsespecially when the regional housing market is strongthat would not
work well in low-income neighborhoods within extensive low-income districts. For example, market
demand in areas surrounding high-poverty enclaves may be strong enough that simply constructing
high-quality market rate units will attract higher income residents, while high-poverty neighborhoods in
lower-income areas may require additional incentives (e.g., tax abatements) or broader economic development plans to attract more affluent residents.
Exactly how to address income homogeneity in mostly wealthy areaswhether enclaves or broader geographic areasis at least as big a challenge as improving conditions for people living in high-poverty
neighborhoods. There is a distinct lack of consensus that the secession of the successful (Reich 1991)
is even a problem. Ironically, many of the counties in the Washington and Baltimore areas with such
broad and homogeneous areas of affluence have adopted policies of inclusionary zoning, which encourages income mixing and is a sign that some residents do consider homogeneously rich neighborhoods
problematic. These counties also, however, have open-space protection measures that create expanses
with large minimum lot sizes, which in turn attract developers of homes for the wealthy and welleducated households who can afford to live there. The regional economy ultimately creates this pressure by producing large numbers of jobs for people employed as defense contractors, lawyers, lobbyists,
and other components of the upper echelon of work for the national government.
Finally, these issues of income mixing require examining the overlay of race. The homogeneously lowincome parts of both Baltimore and Washington, central-city and suburban alike, are predominantly
black. Both regions are divided by race at the metropolitan scale, not just in central cities versus suburbs, and this racial division creates and reinforces income sorting at geographic scales well beyond the
neighborhood or the district. For example, in Washington, a north-south dividing line extends deep into
the suburbs. Prince Georges County, Maryland, east of the District, is a majority-black county whose
income rose even as it transitioned from being mostly white (Lacy 2009). While Prince Georges income
distinguishes it from other black suburbs, it is closer to that of the District of Columbia than of neighboring Montgomery County: Prince Georges median was $73,447 in 2007-11, compared with $61,835 for
the District and $95,660 for Montgomery County. Income sorting in suburban America happens not only
at the scale of individual neighborhoods but at the metropolitan scale, perhaps more so in areas like
Washington and Atlanta that are dominated by county-level governments and school districts. Many
30

actors in the process that creates suburbiafrom parents, to homebuilders, to office park developers,
to infrastructure buildersrespond to the presumed quality of whiter suburban school districts by
directing more wealth and investment to those districts. Meanwhile, even wealthy black areas like
Prince Georges County struggle for investment. These observations of Washington and Baltimore suggest a need for continued attention to the role of race in income mixing at all scales.

Policy Strategies to Promote Income Mixing


In this section, we review the effectiveness of housing policies at creating sustainable income mixing at
different geographic scalesdevelopments, neighborhoods, districts, and jurisdictions. The policy levers
best suited for promoting income mix differ depending on whether the goal is to create a new community, attract more affluent residents to existing lower-income areas, bring low-income households into
more affluent areas, or to preserve existing income mixing in the face of gentrification or neighborhood
decline. The effects of income mixing on individual- and community- level outcomes is highly contingent
on other, non-income, factors, which means that mixed-income policy requires a tailored, rather than a
formulaic one-size-fits-all, approach.

Mixed-Income Developments
Mixed-income developments can range from very small (10 or 20 dwellings) to very large (hundreds of
units). They almost always include multifamily units in one or more buildings; they often feature townhouses and duplexes, and some even have detached homes. Depending on the site plan and the mixing
of affordable and market-rate units, residents of such developments can live in very close proximity to
one another, experience a common property management, and share private amenities and spaces.
Some, but not all, mixed-income developments include market-rate units. Even when they do, their
market-rate rental units may be occupied by tenants with Housing Choice Vouchers or residents with
incomes only marginally higher than their neighbors receiving shallow subsidies. Consequently, a mixedincome development may not always be occupied by households with a very wide mix of incomes; it
may be a mix of low and middle incomes rather than a mix of low, middle, and high or low and high incomes. Sometimes it can even end up as an entirely low-income development (see National Initiative on
Mixed Income Communities 2013 for a more comprehensive description of mixed-income developments).
Mixed-income developments and neighborhoods put residents of different incomes in close physical
proximity to one another, creating opportunities for interpersonal observation and interaction. In the
process, they provide the basis for the micro- and small-group processespeer effects, social cohesion,
and social capital development, for exampledescribed above. They also make it more likely that lowincome people will enjoy the public services and amenities usually available to non-poor neighborhoods
and developments. Levy, McDade, and Dumlao (2013) provide an extensive review of the mixed-income
literature and factors for success at the level of developments and neighborhoods.
Numerous subsidies and tax incentives exist for the construction of housing developments that contain
a mix of market rate and subsidized units, which typically (though not always) creates a mix of resident
incomes. The federal HOPE VI program, one of the more visible and controversial policies to create
31

mixed-income developments, was enacted during the 1990s to demolish distressed public housing projects and replace them with mixed-income, mixed-finance developments. (It has now transitioned into
HUDs Choice Neighborhoods program.) Local housing authorities, developers, and other stakeholders
partnered to finance, construct, and manage the developments with HOPE VI grants used to leverage
additional financing. The resulting developments vary widely in the relative proportions of subsidized
and market rate units, the depth of the subsidies provided, and the mix of rental and home ownership
units. 5 Figure 13 below offers a sampling of unit and income mix in five HOPE VI communities.
Figure 13. Unit and Income Mix in 5 HOPE VI Developments as of 2002-03

Source: Polikoff 2009; Adapted from HUD 2003


Although HOPE VI developments are considered mixed income, and they are indeed more mixed than
incomes in distressed public housing were (Cisneros and Engdahl 2009; HUD 2003), this figure highlights
the great deal of variation in household income mixes as of 2002-03. For example, Mission Main in Boston includes over 80% public housing units with a median income of $12,190, and the remainder is market rate units with a median income of $63,488; this represents a high concentration of poverty and a
small fraction of comparatively affluent residents. In contrast, Centennial Place in Atlanta has just over
one third of its units reserved for public housing residents whose median income was $10,477 in 200203, another 20% of its units reserved for moderate income households (median income of $26,118), and
the remainder for market rate residents (income of $35,565); this represents a more shallow income mix
with each income group and housing type more equally represented in the development.
What is the Right Income Mix?
These differences in income mix have implications for residents and surrounding neighborhoods. An example of a HOPE VI development in Boston illustrates this point. The 330-unit Orchard Gardens development in Boston, MA (figure 14), like the Mission Main Boston development described above, contains
over 80% subsidized units and fewer than 20% market rate units (see figure 13). This income mix was
5

One controversial aspect of HOPE VI was the displacement of residents at some sites through a reduction in the
number of on-site subsidized units available. In these cases, residents who relocated with a HCV also experienced a
net decline in neighborhood poverty rates relative to the poverty rate they experienced in public housing; residents who relocated to other public housing, however, experienced little change in neighborhood conditions
(Kingsley et al. 2003; Goetz 2010; Popkin et al. 2002).

32

adopted in most Boston HOPE VI developments in order to preserve as much affordable housing as possible in the high-cost housing market. As a result, these developments experienced less displacement of
public housing residents than many other HOPE VI developments around the country.
Figure 14. The Border of the Orchard Gardens HOPE VI Site with Downtown Boston in the Background

Residents of Orchard Gardens nearly universally appreciated the higher quality construction and amenities that resulted from redevelopment, and they reported feeling less stigma and more pride in their
community as a result (Tach 2009; see also Bartz et at. 2012; Popkin et al. 2004; Chaskin and Joseph
2010; Brophy and Smith 1997; Buron and Khadduri 2005 for similar findings in other developments).
Because the high fraction of subsidized units allowed many long-term residents who lived in the project
before redevelopment to return, these residents described social networks with other public housing
residents that remained intact in the new development (see Tach 2009 for a more detailed description).
In the new HOPE VI development, these longer-term residents reported using their neighborhood networks for in-kind support, to keep an eye on their homes while they were away, and to notify each other
if criminal activity was going to take place.
In contrast, the (slightly) higher income newcomers who moved into the market rate units in the new
development were a relatively small group, scattered around the development intermixed with subsidized renters (Tach 2009). These residents did not know one another, did not participate in formal or
informal neighborhood activities, and had very little contact with their neighbors, whether subsidized or
market rate. As a result, they did not feel comfortable in the development, did not have neighborhood
networks to draw upon, and expressed little interest in developing such networks, preferring to isolate
themselves in their homes and restricting their childrens contact with neighbors and neighborhood institutions. Because of their small presence in the neighborhood, market rate residents lacked sufficient
numbers, confidence, or desire to organize and represent their interests in the development. Their
moderate incomes made it difficult to find high quality housing on the expensive private housing market

33

in Boston, so they described sacrificing neighborhood quality in order to have a higher quality housing
unit.
Orchard Gardens differs in interesting ways from other HOPE VI developments that created more market rate units and had a wider income mix (e.g. Joseph and Chaskin 2010; Chaskin et al. 2012). In developments with more market rate units, higher income residents made more demands on property managers and neighborhood and city officials than did the market rate residents of Orchard Gardens. However, there was also greater displacement of original public housing residents in these developments,
more widespread destruction of existing social networks from the old housing project, and more open
conflict between market rate and public housing residents. Consequently, former public housing residents had more difficulty preserving their power and voice than did the assisted tenants of Orchard
Gardens.
The Orchard Gardens case illustrates several tradeoffs inherent in the decision about the right income
mix in planned mixed-income developments. In both cases, many of the purported benefits associated
with increased proximity to higher-income residents have not materialized; there is little evidence of
cross-class contact or interaction, benefits from role modeling, or improvements in economic or educational outcomes (Joseph et al. 2007; Chaskin and Joseph 2010; Buron et al. 2002; Tach 2009; Graves
2010; Fraser et al. 2013). But there are also important differences resulting from the deceptively simple
logic that the more units reserved for market rate residents in the development, the more the development changesfor better and for worse. For example, more market rate residents may mean more demand for high quality amenities on or nearby the development with positive externalities for all; but it
also may mean the destruction of neighborhood networks that provide social and instrumental support.
As a result, the right income mix depends on the particular outcome(s) one wishes to prioritize.
Non-income Factors for Success
Analysis of completed mixed-income development shows that non-income features matter a great deal
for the functioning of mixed-income developments and neighborhoods. In particular, the degree of
physical integration of subsidized housing units into the surrounding area, quality and distinguishability
of units, management policies, and tenure length and housing type may moderate the effects of income-mixing (Briggs 1997, 2005; Brophy and Smith 1997; Schubert and Thresher 1996; Graves 2010;
Schwartz and Tajbakhsh 1997). Property managers play very important roles in fostering or restricting
resident satisfaction and interaction (see, for example, Graves 2010; Brophy and Smith 1997; Fraser et
al. 2013; Vale 2006). In many instances, the ideal of inclusive, cross-class interaction in these communities has been undermined by the enforcement of social order. For example, management actions in
some HOPE VI developments have dissuaded resident interaction. Social gatherings in public spaces
have been prohibited as loitering, housekeeping checks have been applied to subsidized but not market rate tenants, and rules requiring quietness and orderliness have restricted bike-riding or music in
common spaces. Managers reported instituting these rules and policies to appease market rate residents, and subsidized residents feel constrained by these rules and policies (see Tach 2013 for a review).
Tach (2009) observed similar dynamics in Orchard Gardens, where management enacted policies for
what were deemed safety purposes that prohibited residents from sitting on their front stoops; resi34

dents were encouraged instead to socialize in their back yards or inside. The police were called routinely
by management if groups of residents congregated on front stoops or in the streets. Lower-income residents reported feeling constrained by, and resentful of, these policies while market rate residents did
not. (Ethnographies of larger mixed-income neighborhoods have also identified policies and ordinances
enacted that restrict activities in public spaces for reasons of safety and quality of life, which disproportionately constrained lower-income residents. See, for example, Pattillo 2007.)
Given the potentially important role of management policies in promoting formal and informal social
interaction and social control, there is a need to develop best practices for property managers in
mixed-income developments. While some challenges are common to all managers regardless of income
mix, those in mixed-income developments face the difficult task of accommodating the needs of all
types of residents, even when those needs conflict, and they must balance accommodating subsidized
residents while being responsive to the fact that these developments must continue to attract market
rate residents to remain financially viable.
In all, about $6.7 billion in federal spending was devoted to HOPE VI between 2003 and 2010, with 262
grants awarded for redevelopment of projects operated by 133 public housing agencies and another 287
for demolition only. Some of the later HOPE VI sites are still under construction. The programs replacement, Choice Neighborhoods, aims to expand beyond distressed public housing developments to intervene at the neighborhood and district level to improve services and build institutional and organizational capacity in addition to constructing mixed-income housing. We discuss this new policy and some of
the early results in greater detail in the section below on income mixing within districts.
Other Project-Based Development Subsidies
Other project-based development funding in the form of subsidies to for- and non-profit housing developers give incentives to incorporate subsidized housing units in market rate developments and neighborhoods. The project-based Section 8 new construction/substantial rehabilitation (NC/SR) program
allowed housing authorities to use a fraction of their vouchers to subsidize developments rather than
individuals. This program was discontinued during the Reagan administration and no longer funds new
developments, but existing developments continue to receive operating subsidies. The primary policy
challenge for existing Section 8 developments is preservation; many developments converted to marketrate occupancy after their contracts expired, and those with renewed contracts periodically have the
opportunity to do so creating ongoing preservation challenges for these subsidized units. The federal
government has pursued both Mark to Market and Mark Up to Market mortgage refinancing and rentadjustment strategies to preserve existing Section 8 contracts (for more details, see Schwartz 2010;
Smith 1999; Finkel et al. 2006; Achtenberg 2002, 2006).
The newer, and much larger, Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program also offers financing incentives for developers who construct affordable housing, either as a 100% subsidized building or as a
mix of market rate and subsidized units. The LIHTC program is the single largest subsidy for low-income
rental housing, funding the development of over 1.6 million units. Rental developments are eligible if at
least 20% of units are affordable to households earning up to 50% of AMI, or if at least 40% of units are
affordable to households earning up to 60% of AMI; developers also receive larger incentives to develop
35

in qualified census tracts where a majority of households have incomes less than 60% of median family income or poverty rates of at least 25%. Despite the minimum thresholds for affordability set at 20%
or 40% of units, the vast majority of LIHTC developments (80%) are 100% subsidized, and only 3% of
LIHTC developments as of 2008 had 50% or more of their units allocated to market rate renters. As a
result, the LIHTC program has created little income-mixing at the development level (but has at times
been effective at the neighborhood level, as discussed in greater detail in the following section), with
the exception of HOPE VI developments that have received LIHTC funding (for more details, see
Schwartz 2010; Climaco et al. 2009; Buron et al. 2000).
Some municipalities have implemented Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) policies that either promote or require
subsidized housing within new housing development. Other variations of IZ policies allow developers to
construct subsidized housing units off site or to pay in lieu fees instead of constructing subsidized units,
so not all municipalities with IZ policies on the books have incentivized or produced mixed-income developments (Pendall 2008). For example, IZ policies in the San Francisco Bay area have resulted in affordable housing production that constitutes 2.3% of all housing produced since 1980; Bay Area policies
apply broadly across many structure types, but also allow many options for developers to construct developments off site, pay in lieu fees or donate land rather than construct subsidized units in their developments (Schuetz et al. 2007). This reduces the income-mixing potential of the policy at the scale of the
development but may result in higher overall numbers of affordable housing units or deeper affordability levels than would occur if all the units had been built on site. Because of the vast heterogeneity in IZ
adoption and format across localities, and the fact that places that are more amenable to mixed-income
development are likely to adopt IZ policies to promote it, it is difficult to assess the causal impact of IZ
policies on creating mixed-income developments (Pendall 2008). It clearly has the potential to do so, but
requires the political will as well as a strong housing market.
Some cities have no formal inclusionary zoning requirements but do have rent control policies that promote income diversity within apartment buildings and developments by preserving affordable rent ceilings for residents in the face of rising housing prices. Other areas have specialized affordable housing
incentives that are similar to inclusionary zoning, such as Chapter 40B in Massachusetts, which (as discussed in greater detail in the section below on interjurisdictional income mixing) provides more flexible
zoning regulations for housing developments that make at least 20-25% of their units affordable to low
income households. In local communities with limited affordable housing, developers may bypass more
restrictive local zoning regulations for these more flexible regulations with the inclusion of affordable
housing in their plans; Chapter 40B has been credited with a substantial amount of affordable housing
construction in the metropolitan Boston area through the provision of these mixed-income developments (Koshgarian et al. 2010).
Concerns over expiring Section 8 and tax credit properties also highlight the challenges of sustaining income mix over the long term on a voluntary basis; explicit incentives are required. The extent to which
these programs and regulations have produced mixed-income developments and the type of mix they
produce are quite sensitive to the incentive structure of the program. For example, the incentive structure of LIHTC favors the construction of mostly subsidized buildings, while IZ and Chapter 40B policies
offer no strong incentives to construct more than the minimum number of subsidized units required.
36

Mixed-Income Neighborhoods
A host of policy efforts have targeted income mixing within housing developments, but this is neither
necessary nor sufficient for creating a mixed-income neighborhood. Most developments top out at several hundred units, while most metropolitan neighborhoods (at least when defined as census tracts) typically contain several thousand, and a mixed-income development may be located in an otherwise homogenous neighborhood context.
As a result, policymakers and practitioners have been concerned about whether the development-level
policies described above have succeeded in integrating poor residents in non-poor neighborhoods or
whether they perpetuate poverty concentration by locating in areas that are already predominantly
poor. By and large, developments created through the Section 8 NC/SR and LIHTC project-based programs are sited in areas with lower average poverty rates than public housing developments, and slightly lower poverty rates than those with housing vouchers. However, they also tend to attract less disadvantaged tenants and to be located in areas that already contain surpluses of affordable housing, making their net impact on income diversity at the neighborhood scale small (McClure 2010, 2012). There is
some limited evidence that certain HOPE VI redevelopment projects have raised property values and
lowered poverty rates in the areas surrounding the developments (HUD 2003). And while research on
the neighborhood-level impacts of IZ regulations are limited, in some places researchers have found that
the adoption of IZ has reduced overall housing production and raised prices (McFarlane 2009; Glaeser
and Gyourko 2002; Glaeser and Ward 2009), which may limit housing affordability and have the unintended consequence of reducing income mixing. In sum, the evidence thus far does not support the idea
that policies to promote mixed-income developments translate into the creation of mixed-income
neighborhoods.
A mixed-income development is not a necessary component of a mixed-income neighborhood, however; other policiesincluding economic development policies to raise incomescan promote incomemixing at the neighborhood scale even if particular housing developments in the neighborhood are homogenous with respect to income. More broadly, land use policies that encourage a mix of single and
multifamily housing and permit moderate density can also encourage income mixing at the neighborhood scale. Because these policies are implemented on a municipal level and likely have jurisdictionwide impacts, we review evidence of their effects on income segregation in more detail below.
Other federal policies provide block grant funds that allow cities to invest in subsidized housing and
neighborhood revitalization, which may indirectly promote neighborhood income diversity. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program was designed to promote stable urban communities
and expand opportunity for low- to moderate-income households (Connerly and Liou 1998). Although
the program funds may be used for a wider range of activities related to service provision and economic
development, about a quarter of CDBG funds have historically been allocated to housing rehabilitation,
with a smaller portion of funds used for new construction (Walker et al. 1994), and researchers have
found that CDBG funds have indeed increased property values in the targeted communities (Walker et
al. 2002).

37

Similarly, the HOME Investment Partnership program is a federal block grant program that focuses on
affordable housing, with about half of the funds being devoted to the development of subsidized rental
housing and another quarter devoted to homebuyer assistance (HUD 2009), and the latter allowed
homebuyers to move to lower poverty neighborhoods than those in which they resided previously
(Turnham et al. 2004). Although CDBG and HOME target low-income communities, they rarely provide
deep enough subsidies to house the very low income families serviced by the public housing and voucher programs, and there is little evidence available on the impact of the CDBG and HOME programs on
neighborhood income mix.
Using Place-Based Housing Subsidies to Sustain Neighborhood Income Mix
The district of the South End in Boston illustrates the importance of different types of place-based housing subsidies in securing a stable income mix in the face of rising property values. Located close to
downtown Boston and the central business district, the South End was initially built to attract upper
class families, with large English-style town homes surrounding oval parks. Following the depression of
1873 and the development of the posh Back Bay neighborhood, the South End lost its appeal to the
wealthy. Property values dropped, and speculators bought up the homes, turning many of them into
rooming houses. The South End became a destination for new immigrants and it was an economically
poor, but culturally vibrant, community. The area eventually gained a negative reputation as a skid row
and the quality of the housing stock declined, driven by absentee slum landlords and impoverished tenants (see Small 2004; King 1981; Keyes 1969; Mollenkopf 1983; and Lukas 1985 for detailed historical
accounts of the South End).
By the time urban renewal came to Boston in the 1950s, the South End was a prime target. The renewal
program aimed to redevelop the area so that it would attract higher income residents, widening the
citys tax base and promoting private investment. When planning began, social service organizations,
low income residents, and housing advocates mobilized to demand that more affordable housing be
constructed. Many of these efforts were ultimately successful, resulting in the construction of a range of
affordable housing options in the district.
As figure 15 shows, the South End is a large area, more akin to a district, which comprises about ten
distinct neighborhoods with well-institutionalized names, boundaries, and identities. The map shows the
block groups contained within the South End and their median household incomes from the 2005-2009
American Community Survey, reveals the great deal of income diversity that occurs within the distinct
neighborhoods of the South End, with some neighborhoods having very low median household incomes
under $20,000, and others with very high median household incomes of over $100,000.

38

Figure 15. Median Household Incomes of Block Groups within the South End, 2005-2009 ACS

The variation in income mix in the neighborhoods of the South End is directly related to the presence
and type of subsidized housing (Tach 2010). Starting in the 1980s, the South End experienced widespread gentrification and skyrocketing real estate prices that have continued until the present, only
slightly stymied by the recession. Despite the increasing presence of affluent residents and rising property values overall, certain neighborhoods have maintained an economically diverse resident population
through the integration of scattered site affordable units and non-profit owned affordable developments that were constructed during urban renewal, with project-based Section 8 subsidies, and LIHTC,
CDBG, and HOME funds. (Most of these developments have faced, or will face, expiration of their affordability requirements. This prompts debate periodically in the neighborhood over the preservation of
the affordable units; to date, virtually all affordable units either have been renewed or have continued
under a different program.) Other neighborhoods remained homogenously low-income due to the siting
of large public housing projects, and some neighborhoods that lacked any subsidized housing have become completely affluent.
Three neighborhoods in the South End illustrate the importance of permanent housing subsidies for
preserving stable income mix in the face of rising property values. First, the income distribution of the
Cathedral neighborhood reflects the presence of a large public housing development, with a median
household income of $14,719 in 2005-2009, and over 60% of the households earning less than $20,000
per year (table 4).

39

Table 4. Income Profiles of 3 South End Neighborhoods

Cathedral
537
$14,719

Total Households
Median Household Income
Income Distribution
Less than $20,000
60.5
$20,000 to $39,999
12.7
$40,000 to $59,999
9.9
$60,000 to $99,999
4.1
$100,000 to $199,999
10.3
$200,000 or More
2.6
Source: ACS 2005-2009 5-Year Estimates

Union Park
858
$108,333

Chester
Square
1,203
$59,646

16.5
7.0
8.6
17.3
21.0
29.6

32.6
7.9
10.1
9.7
31.0
8.8

Because of the housing project, there was little growth in income over time for Cathedral, despite large
changes in surrounding neighborhoods. It was once similar to other neighborhoods surrounding it, but
many of those neighborhoods have experienced pronounced gentrification and appreciation of property
values over time. Since then, Cathedral has been plagued by the same problems as many high-rise public
housing developments, including problems with gangs and criminal activity. These problems, combined
with the majority non-White population and the stark physical distinctness of the public housing high
rises (figure 16), has caused Cathedral to be stigmatized in the South End, with neighboring residents
attributing a host of ills (correctly or incorrectly) to the neighborhood and deliberately avoiding the area
(Tach 2010).
Figure 16. Aerial image of the Cathedral Neighborhood, dominated by the physically distinct Cathedral Housing
Project

40

A second neighborhood within the South End represents the opposite extreme of what can happen in
the face of gentrification and rising property values. The Union Park neighborhood, located immediately
adjacent to Cathedral, contained a very affluent population in 2005-2009, with almost a third of households having incomes over $200,000 and half having incomes over $100,000. The Union Park neighborhood, comprised of the grand Victorian homes characteristic of much of the South End, suffered some
of the same disrepair during the late 1800s and early 1900s, when the homes were subdivided into
rooming houses (figure 17). Largely untouched by the development projects of urban renewal, Union
Park homes started to be bought and rehabilitated, converted from one room apartments or rooming
houses back to their original grandeur as high end condos and single family homes during the 1960s and
70s as major commercial enterprises, such as Copley Place and the Prudential Center, were constructed
not far away and the area became convenient for professionals working there. These trends continued
throughout the latter part of the 1900s and into the 2000s, and because little subsidized housing was
constructed there, the neighborhood became ever more homogenously affluent over time (Tach 2010).
Figure 17. Aerial Image of Union Park and its Boundaries, Located Adjacent to Cathedral

A third neighborhood, Chester Square, illustrates how housing subsidy programs can provide a middle
ground between the extremes of Cathedral, which changed hardly at all due to the large public housing
development, and Union Park, which became completely affluent due to the absence of housing subsidies to preserve affordability. Chester Square, a neighborhood located in the southern part of the South
End, followed a similar trajectory to Union Park in the early part of the 1900s. The urban architecture
was also grand old English style homes centered on oval parks, and it was largely unrazed during urban
renewal (figure 18).
Unlike Union Park, as gentrification began to occur in the wake of urban renewal, non-profit organizations mobilized in Chester Square to create affordable housing for residents. For example, South End
Cooperative Housing owns and operates a 75-unit building of subsidized units in Chester Square; Langham Court was developed as a mixed-income building with the cooperation of a neighborhood organization and the Community Builders, and now operates as an 84-unit development with 34 of the units reserved for low-income residents. In addition, the Pine Street Inn contains 31 subsidized units, Project
41

HOME contains several dozen more, and Concord Street Elder Housing contains 40 subsidized units for
low-income seniors. These developments were constructed and financed through a combination of state
and local funds at first, and more recently developments have received CDBG, HOME, and LIHTC funding
(Tach 2010).
Due in large part to the efforts to create and maintain low-income units in this neighborhood, the income distribution of Chester Square is very diverse; a third of the residents earn less than $20,000 per
year, while almost 40% earn over $100,000 per year.
Figure 18. Aerial Image of Chester Square and its Scattered-Site Subsidized Developments

Person-Based Subsidies and Neighborhood Income Mix


The Section 8 tenant-based assistance program, now the Housing Choice Voucher program, offers the
potential to promote income diversity at the neighborhood scale by allowing subsidized tenants to rent
housing in the private rental market. Despite its potential to integrate low-income tenants into non-poor
areas, and although voucher holders live in neighborhoods with lower average poverty rates than their
public housing counterparts, most still live in moderate-poverty neighborhoods and very few have located in low-poverty or opportunity neighborhoods (McClure 2012). As a result, the mixed-income
potential of individual rental vouchers has largely been unrealized, and has increased exposure to income diversity by only a small amount over project-based developments (ibid).
Researchers and policymakers examining the HCV program have identified both supply and demand side
factors that may prevent greater income integration. On the supply side, there is a dearth of available
qualified HCV housing units located in low-poverty areas because there are few housing units that meet
the fair market rent requirements and low landlord take-up of the program in areas with tight housing
markets and higher rents (Pendall 2000b, Galvez 2010). On the demand side, voucher holders neighborhood trajectories are diverse, constrained searches for housing during involuntary moves with timerestricted vouchers often left them with few feasible options and they end up staying within communities that are familiar and located near higher poverty neighborhoods (Briggs et al. 2010).
Efforts to overcome such barriers have included more intensive mobility counseling, relaxing FMR
standards for housing units, and restrictions on locations in which vouchers can be used to opportuni42

ty areas with low poverty rates (McClure 2010; Galster et al. 2003; Goering et al. 1995; Orr et al. 2003).
While some of these interventions have had some limited success, it is clear that one of the biggest challenges of the voucher program is not just moving to, but staying in, lower-poverty neighborhoods, as
multiple moves and neighborhood decline tend to push voucher holders into higher poverty neighborhoods over time (Comey et al. 2008).
Taken together, the evidence reviewed above suggests that policy strategies to promote income mix at
the neighborhood scale have had some modest ability to integrate the poor with near-poor or moderate-income households, but these efforts prove difficult to sustain over time because of the forces of
residential mobility and neighborhood change. Few project-based or voucher-based efforts have succeeded in integrating lower-income residents into affluent neighborhoods, but Chester Square in the
South End offers an example of how such project-based subsidies can be used when there are motivated
neighborhood actors who mobilize to preserve affordability in the face of rising property values.
Few policies at the neighborhood scale have adopted the explicit goal of moving more affluent residents
into closer proximity with the poor. Such efforts to promote income mix between the affluent and nonaffluent require larger-scale policy approaches that account for the fact that the affluent tend to segregate across jurisdictional boundaries, suggesting the need for policies that promote income mixing at
geographic scales larger than the neighborhood.

Mixed-Income Districts and Communities


Above the level of neighborhoods but (generally) below that of the city, the district and community occupy a less well defined scale for housing policy making. Like the scales of development and neighborhood, district-level examples of and policies for income mixing differ depending on whether the goal is
to build them from scratch, attract higher-income households to predominantly low-income districts,
safeguard affordability in gentrifying districts, or introduce opportunities for low-income households in
established upper-income districts.
Mixed-Income Districts Built From Scratch: Greenbelt and Columbia
Districts have been a key unit of intervention for city planners and designers since the early 1900s. In
Garden Cities of To-Morrow (1898), Ebenezer Howards landmark treatise on the physical and institutional arrangement of an urban form to replace the industrial city, metropolitan regions would develop
out of networks of small cities. The residential areas of each of these cities would be densely developed
and always within a few blocks of workplaces, parks, and public buildings. In his effort to chart a third
path between capitalism and communism, Howard embraced cooperatives and community ownership
of land as mechanisms to reduce poverty and increase social cohesion.
Two planned communities, both in Maryland, provide concrete examples at the district level that suggest ways in which policy can create and sustain income mixing beyond individual developments and
neighborhoods. Inspired by Howard, Clarence Stein designed Greenbelt, MD, as one of the New Deal
era Resettlement Administrations three planned towns (Arnold 1971, Parsons 1990). (The other two
completed developments are Greendale, WI and Greenhills, OH.) Spurred by the growth of Washington,
DC, Greenbelt grew rapidly from its construction in 1937 to robust occupancy during World War II. The
43

heart of Greenbelt has a mix of apartments, townhouses, and single-family dwellings connected by pedestrian paths to the town center, where a community center and a food coop persist as thriving social
seams (figure 19). Recent housing sale prices in old Greenbelt have ranged from the low $100s for the
townhomes to the mid-$300s for larger single-family houses (figure 20). The central part of Greenbelt is
about evenly split between homeowners and renters.
Figure 19. Central Greenbelt, Maryland. Apartments, elementary school, and shopping area at the center; attached dwellings (owner-occupied and rented townhouses) in the near foreground; single-family houses to the
west.

44

Figure 20. Prices of homes sold in late 2012 and early 2013 (yellow), with asking prices of dwellings for sale in
August 2013 (red), Old Greenbelt

While residents might perceive Greenbelt as a collection of neighborhoods supported by a town center,
all of them live in a single large census tract bounded by Interstate 95 and the Baltimore-Washington
Parkway (figure 21). In effect, the tract is itself a district with several neighborhoods and a social seam at
its center. Part of old Greenbelt, however, also lies just north of the tract boundary, drawn into another tract to satisfy Census criteria for tract size. The Greenbelt residents in that area share a tract that
encompasses a sprawling expanse in which neighborhoods are separated from one another by US Department of Agriculture research fields; clearly they share more with the other residents of Greenbelt
than with the distant neighborhoods at the northern extreme of their tract. But the two Greenbelt tracts
are divided by a dense growth of woods and relatively busy Crescent Street, which provides the main
entry to Greenbelt from the west. The parts of old Greenbelt north of Crescent Street are thus separate
enough to be distinct neighborhoods from those closer to the community center, but close enough to
the community center to make shopping at the coop and stopping at the post office routine.

45

Figure 21. Greenbelt, MD, with its tract boundary in blue.

In the early 1960s, Baltimore shopping-center developer James Rouse bought over 15,000 acres of land
in Howard County for the development of Columbia, Maryland as a new city roughly midway between
Baltimore and Washington. By 2010, Columbias population had reached about 100,000 residents.
Rouse strove to achieve racial and economic integration in part by integrating garden apartment sites
into mainly single-family neighborhoods anchored by elementary school sites (figure 22). Blocks and
neighborhoods were planned to be somewhat homogeneous but aggregated into villages to give the
community the small town feel in which people got to know each other, people going to the supermarket and recognizing each other, knowing the person that bagged the groceries and meeting your
rabbi or minister at the supermarket That was his ideal (Forsyth 2008, 120-21, quoting Robert Tennenbaum, a member of Rouses advisory team). The mix of unit types translates into a mix of rental and
owner-occupied housing, and (like in Greenbelt) some of the attached units are owner-occupied, meaning a wide range of housing prices and rents in the central part of Columbia (figure 23). Some recently
sold condominiums went for as little as $58,000, and one of the communitys earliest single-family
homesa five-bedroom, 3,800 square foot house with backyard access to Wilde Lakesold for
$650,000.

46

Figure 22. Central Columbia, Maryland, showing apartments close to the center of Wilde Lake village and singlefamily neighborhoods beyond, all planned around elementary schools.

Middle
school

Attached &
multifamily
housing

Elementary
schools

Shopping
center

Figure 23. Prices of units sold in 2012-13 and for sale as of August 2013, Columbia, MD (Zillow.com)

Columbias planners also created social seams in the siting of shopping centers, a community college
campus, a park with multiple baseball (later soccer) fields, and other open space, all identified on the
map in figure 24. Like in Greenbelt, the census tracts of Columbia embrace more than one neighborhoodwith two elementary schools, a middle school, the Mall in Columbia, Wilde Lake Village Green

47

Shopping Center, and significant amounts of open space all within its central census tract (figures 24 and
25).
Figure 24. Community-level map of central Columbia, MD, 2013; area included in figure 4 is indicated with the
inset box

Figure 25. Columbia, MD: Aerial view with census tract boundaries

48

In the tract embracing Old Greenbelt, the estimated poverty rate in 2007-11 (average) was 15.8 percent
(with a margin of error of 12.8 percentage points), higher than the average for the State of Maryland.
When we examine the tract and district ordinal entropy indices, we find that both show moderate income diversity. Income diversity is slightly higher at the district level (0.64) than at the tract level (0.62).
In central Columbia, the tract poverty rate was only 7.0 percent, lower than Marylands statewide average but above the median neighborhood poverty rate in Howard County. Only four of Howard Countys
55 tracts had poverty rates above 10 percent, the highest being 16 percent in another Columbia tract
between the Columbia Pike (US 29, at the right side of figure 25) and I-95. Looking at the entropy indices
at both the district and tract level, we see that central Columbia shows more income diversity than Old
Greenbelt. Income mixing is relatively high at both levels, with the tract (0.71) showing slightly more
diversity than the district (0.69).
What makes these developments work as mixed-income communities? They have a mix of housing
types, just as in most mixed-income neighborhoods, but their larger scale allows more homogeneity
within neighborhoods than would be possible if the aim were to build income diversity at a very fine
grained level of geography. This strategy may have helped maintain the desirability of the higher-priced
neighborhoods to households looking for owner-occupied homes. Buyers often prefer to buy houses
surrounded by other houses of equal or greater value, concerned about a host of factors including the
resale value of their home (a major investment). They cannot always tell a houses sale price just by
looking at it, but they can tell the difference between the value of a detached house versus that of a
townhouse or a condominium. The greater homogeneity within residential neighborhoods may also
have reduced upward pressure on the prices and rents of lower-cost housing compared with what may
have occurred if the attached units were more finely integrated into single-family blocks.
A second critical factor in the stability of income mixing in both cases may be the availability of civic
space and shopping. Both developments have village centers featuring places to shop conveniently and
to interact with neighbors. These centers allow access both on foot and by car, making it easy for residents at the fringes of the villages to stop into the center on their way home from work or on the weekend. But parking doesnt so dominate the landscape that the shopping areas become regional destinations and pedestrians feel separated from it by seas of asphalt. Both districts also have large amounts of
open space. Walking paths, parks, and lakes provide options for walking dogs and enjoying holidays with
other members of the community. The open space also likely enhances property values.
The strength of local and regional housing markets also probably contributes to stable diversity in these
two communities. The suburban areas between Washington and Baltimore occupied by Greenbelt and
Columbia have had consistently strong demand for housing. This is especially true of Howard County,
whose housing market is dominated by Columbia. Prince Georges County, however, is a majority African American suburban area64 percent of its residents are black/African Americanthat many whites
and Asians avoid when deciding where to live. Its job growth has also not kept up with that in Montgomery County or in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington. About two-thirds of the nearly
125,000 children in the Prince Georges County schools are African American and almost a quarter are
Hispanic. In 2010, Old Greenbeltwhere African Americans were not allowed to live when the Resettlement Administration built the communitywas about 55 percent white (alone), 26 percent black or
49

African American (alone), and 19 percent other, including mixed race, according to the Decennial Census. Greenbelt also is a naturally occurring retirement community (Hunt and Gunter-Hunt 1986) in
which one-fifth of residents are over 60; most of the older residents are white, whereas those under 50
are evenly split between white, black and other self-classifications.
What do these cases tell us about policies to build diversity in new and existing districts? While it is
straightforward to discern their lessons about which district features build and reinforce income mixing,
it is more difficult to draw lessons about how to ensure that those features are provided in the first
place because local-government policy had little influence on the developments. The landowners of
Greenbelt and Columbia led the effort to build mixed-income communities. Prince Georges County did
not have authority over the federally sponsored Greenbelt. Rouse did all the planning for Columbia and
then presented his plan to Howard County with a request for a rezoning of the entire community area as
a planned community district (Forsyth 2008, 133). The County approved the new town zone with surprisingly little controversy. Further review occurred when the company submitted proposed subdivision
plats and site plans for residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. The other key precondition for
developmenta large-scale investment in infrastructurealso was covered by the property owners.
The federal government paid up-front costs for roads, water, sewer, and schools in Greenbelt, and
Rouses team arranged private financing for Columbias infrastructure, creating a large homeowner association that collects levies for community services. The financing challenges Greenbelt and Columbia
both faced would be even more serious today, considering rising land costs, higher standards for community services, and higher regulatory barriers to housing.
Another gap in the lessons from Greenbelt and Columbia is the incompleteness of their designers vision
for transportation, which may reduce their accessibility and increase costs for their low-income residents. Far from established job centers, both communities are well connected to highway networks but
more distant from fixed-route transit. Their internal circulation networks separate pedestrian activity
from streets, especially the high-speed streets that connected villages to highways, and even the smaller
shopping centers featured large surface parking lots.
Despite these gaps, it is possible to draw some lessons from Greenbelt and Columbia about policies that
encourage development of new mixed-income districts:

Local planning and land regulation must at least accommodate the development of mixedincome districts. Comprehensive plans can clarify that the city or county seeks the mix of uses,
civic space, facilities, and open space necessary to attract households of many income levels.
Zoning ordinances and maps can set standards for residential development that allow a range of
housing types in close proximity to one another. Some zoning ordinances establish not just maximum but minimum residential density so as to ensure that areas set aside for multifamily housing or townhouses do not shift to single-family homes when markets or politics swing against attached housing. Plans can also be implemented through planned-unit development (PUD) provisions (Burchell and Hughes 1973) that permit property owners more flexibility than allowed by
conventional zoning in the precise arrangement of uses and public facilities.

50

Infrastructure capacity needs to be sufficient to accommodate growth or else provisions need


to be in place so that roads, sewers, water, stormwater facilities, and schools can expand as development occurs. In the 50 years since planning for Columbia began, citizens have grown more
demanding about infrastructure and less willing to pay for it. When Columbia was built, too,
federal assistance for highway, water, and sewer infrastructure construction was much stronger
than it is today. Most states have responded by making development pay its own way through
special assessment districts or development impact fees, raising the cost of housing either via
property taxes or amortized costs of fees (Altshuler and Gmez-Ibez 1993).
Transit-oriented development (TOD) principles provide opportunities to ensure that a broad
range of residents can live affordably and conveniently in communities built from scratch as
well as amid established neighborhoods. Metropolitan Portland (OR), for example, developed its
2040 development plan based on the expansion of its light-rail system. Established autodependent neighborhoods and business areas would become more densely developed and
mixed by income and land use, and new neighborhoods of varying densities, housing unit types,
and land use mixes would grow in previously undeveloped areas. In Denver, the Regional Transportation District (RTD) has been building a 122-mile expansion of fixed rail and bus rapid transit
with 57 new stations, 11 of which opened earlier in 2013 along the West line connecting downtown Denver through Lakewood to Golden. The City and County of Denver and the City of Lakewood have developed area plans for many of the existing stations, and public agencies throughout the region have begun work on corridor plans that identify complementary land uses for stations sharing the same transit line (Pendall et al. 2012, 2013a). Most of the stations are in already-developed areas, and several are adjacent to subsidized housing developments already
slated for reconstruction as higher-density, mixed-income neighborhoods. With property values
rapidly on the rise, government and philanthropy have developed at least two major approaches
to secure affordability in new and established multifamily housing near the stations. First, the
Colorado Housing Finance Agency and a half-dozen cities agreed about 10 years ago to set aside
up to half their private activity bond cap to finance low-income multifamily development in
TODs. Second, philanthropy has invested in the Urban Land Conservancy (ULC) to secure sites
near stations for housing and public facilities (in particular, a charter school).
Supportive policies at broader geographic levels also help balance development supply and
demand. Policies that sharply restrict growth below market demand can drive up housing and
land costs, making it difficult to build and sustain new housing for low- and moderate-income
households. Policies that accommodate much more growth than the market demands, conversely, can encourage households and businesses to choose locations other than the mixedincome district, thereby imperiling the needed uptake of land for repayment of up-front infrastructure costs.

California and Oregon have important examples of how planning, regulation, infrastructure finance, and
broader land-use policy can work together to foster income mixing. In California, a combination of pressures and constraintsproperty tax limitations imposed by Proposition 13, continuous population
growth, limited infrastructure capacity, and regulatory complexityhave given rise to the use of specific plans that combine planning, regulation, and infrastructure finance for areas with multiple property
51

owners (Curtin and Barclay 2010). Property owners benefit from specific plans because they reduce subsequent requirements for environmental review for projects consistent with the plans and provide assurances about infrastructure finance. In exchange for these benefits, local governments can impose
greater demands on property owners so that, for example, a mix of housing types is built and even that
attached housing be built in early phases of the development to avoid changes to plans and implementing regulations in response to early residents opposition to income mixing.
Oregons state growth management system links long-term planning and monitoring of land supply for
housing and business use with infrastructure policy (Nelson and Moore 1993, Nelson 1999). State law
requires cities and counties to plan for a 20-year development horizon, identifying land beyond that
needed for 20 years of growth as being beyond an urban growth boundary (UGB). Local governments
and regional special districts prepare and adopt long-term capital facilities plans to provide certainty for
major infrastructure investments.
Income Mixing in Already-Developed Districts and Communities
What about income mixing in already developed areas? This, too, depends on the goal. Some circumstances call for attracting upper-income households to struggling districts, while others demand the introduction of new opportunities for low-income people to live in upper-income districts. Even when income-mixing is established, it is not always stable, making it necessary to develop mechanisms to maintain income mixing over the longer run.
The federal Choice Neighborhoods Program (Choice) offers interesting examples of all three of these
goals in its first round of implementation grants. As described in the Urban Institutes recently released
interim report for its study of early Choice implementation efforts (Pendall et al. 2013b), two of the
neighborhoodsSan Franciscos Eastern Bayview and Seattles Yeslerare poised for rapid increases in
property values in the next two decades because of their locations and their very strong regional housing markets. Most of the Yesler neighborhood is occupied by the Yesler Terrace public housing development, a low-rise project with 561 units. Seattle seeks to transform Yesler over the next 25 years into a
mid-rise district with up to 6,000 housing units, more than replacing the very low income units on or
near the current development footprint. The developments location near the CBD and Seattle University, accessible via a recently opened streetcar and other prospective amenity improvements, will make it
a natural destination for homeseekers. Eastern Bayview, home to two public housing projects (Alice Griffith, which Choice will help rebuild) and Hunters View (whose replacement is being developed now under the HOPE SF program), also has several other HUD-assisted properties and large numbers of voucher
users. Like Yesler, however, the neighborhood also has capacity to add substantial amounts of new
housing, most of which will be located on Candlestick Point, and its single-family homesthough among
the least expensive in San Franciscostill cost enough to require incomes well above the median. In
both districts, the policy necessary for income mixing involves securing affordability amid property value
increase, which they do with a mix of subsidies and captured land value: either from the land they own
(the Yesler Terrace site will be leased or sold to market-rate developers) or from permission to develop
(inclusionary zoning fees in San Francisco).

52

New Orleanss Choice Neighborhood, Iberville-Trem, is another district containing multiple neighborhoods. The metropolitan housing market is not as strong as those in Seattle and San Francisco, but the
1.7-square mile Iberville-Trem area sits on high ground adjacent to the French Quarter, making it a
prime location for the development that does occur as New Orleans continues to recover from Hurricane Katrina. About two-fifths of the districts housing stock was vacant in 2010, and much of the land
was vacant or underused, offering significant potential for income mixing via new development rather
than displacement of established residents. The Choice transformation plan has a more even balance in
its planned income ranges than any of the other four first-round implementation plans, with about
equal numbers of very low income, low-income, and market-rate units. Mixed-income housing will be
built both on the footprint of the historic Iberville public housing project, which is separated from the
rest of the district by Interstate 10, and scattered through the rest of the district in small to mediumsized new development. (The Iberville-Trem boundary also encompasses the HOPE VI-financed redevelopment of the Lafitte public housing development.)
Woodlawn, in Chicago, is another early Choice implementation site whose size qualifies it as a district:
two square miles, nearly 12,000 housing units, and a population of nearly 24,000. Like much of Chicagos
south side, Woodlawn is predominantly black and very poor. Significant investments have occurred
there in the past 50 years to provide housing and economic opportunities specifically for low-income
people. This focus on providing housing and commercial development mainly for the incumbent population and other low-income people has not reduced and may have exacerbated its concentrated, racially
segregated poverty. Violent crime is high in the neighborhood, and tensions between residents of subsidized and market-rate housing further undermine cohesion. On the other hand, the University of Chicago has planned over $2 billion in investments at the northern edge of the neighborhood, which may help
turn the neighborhood around or even lead, eventually, to gentrification. The plan for Woodlawn will
raze and replace the Grove Parc apartment complex, mixing low- and very lowincome housing on the
footprint of the development and building moderate-income housing elsewhere in the neighborhood.
While the plan does not seek to build much market-rate or moderate-income housing, the grantees
hope the redesign will result in greater integration between the residents of the rebuilt Grove Parc and
those in surrounding blocks. The plan for Woodlawn, then, partly seeks to attract low- to moderateincome residents to the district and partly aims at better mixing of established very low-income and lowincome residents.
All four of these implementation plans 6 also include a mix of actions to encourage long-term income
mixing. In the two strongest housing markets, the reconstruction of assisted housing with long-term affordability provisions will make a place for very low income people, and local programs for workforce
housing and shallow subsidies will round out the income mix. In New Orleans, too, the reconstruction of
the Iberville and Lafitte projects should reinforce long-term affordability. And in all four sites, investments in infrastructure and encouragement for non-residential development and civic spaces are meant
to make the neighborhoods more attractive for everyone. In all four cases, public decisions and invest-

A fifth implementation site from the first round, Bostons Quincy Corridor, is not discussed here because of space
constraints.

53

ments are sowing the seeds for future income mixing, but as the neighborhoods, districts, cities, and
regions change, the districts will need ongoing management to preserve income mixing.

Income Mixing among Jurisdictions


As policymakers seek to encourage income mixing at the scales of developments, neighborhoods, and
districts, they may be stymied by larger residential mobility patterns in which many middle- and upperincome households choose to live in homogeneously well-off cities, towns, and exurban enclaves. Their
motivations for doing so can include both a host of factors pushing them away from low-income cities
(e.g., high property taxes, low school quality, high rates of crime, avoidance of predominantly African
American or Latino populations) and factors attracting them to upper-income cities (e.g., newer housing,
income homogeneity, convenience for drivers) (South and Crowder 1997, Boustan and Shertzer 2012).
The dearth of housing for low-income people in these upper-income communities, too, can proceed
from a range of often interconnected factors, including exclusionary zoning practices, inadequate infrastructure to accommodate higher-density development, discrimination, and developers decisionmaking about the mix of units and amenities that will attract residents to growing suburbs and exurbs
(Danielson 1976, Rothwell 2011). These forces result in the interjurisdictional income inequality trends
(i.e., inter-jurisdiction Gini indices) we reviewed earlier in this review.
In general, rising household income inequality contributes to rising jurisdictional inequality. A review of
the 50 largest metro areas in our analysis shows that all but one of the 28 metros where interjurisdictional income inequality grew between 1990 and 2010 also had rising income inequality. (The sole exception is Nashville.) But there are buffers that reduce the income segregation among the jurisdictions
within metropolitan areas. Indeed, the two metropolitan areas with the fastest increases in their interhousehold Gini indices between 1990 and 2010San Francisco and Miamihad decreases in the Gini
indices among their jurisdictions. Both of these cities grew fast and at relatively high population densities (Fulton et al., 2002), with immigrants accounting for a large share of their new residents. Additionally, both the Bay Area and South Florida have a combination of strong land-use regulations and geographic constraints that may reduce the ability of middle- and upper-income households to avoid cities
with large numbers of low-income residents (Pendall, Puentes and Martin 2006); Californias general
plan housing element law also encourages the development and preservation of low-income housing in
upper-income jurisdictions, as described below (Calavita, Mallach, and Grimes 1997).
It might seem that the most straightforward way to increase income mixing would be to reduce the
number of jurisdictions in a metropolitan area; Honolulu and Anchorage, each of which has only one
local government, have by definition no interjurisdictional income inequality. If this were so, then the
logical policy strategy to increase income mixing in jurisdictions would be to encourage or require consolidation of local governments and to shift annexation and incorporation laws so that annexation is
simpler and incorporation more difficult. 7 The review of the top 50 metro areas in 2010, however,
shows no significant relationship between the number of jurisdictions and the interjurisdictional Gini
index. And the one metro area with an appreciable consolidation since 2000Louisville, where the city
7

That is, established cities would find it easy to grow while property owners or residents in small settlements
would have a difficult time establishing new small cities.

54

and county consolidated (Kelly 2012)had an increase, not a decrease, in its index. Considering the very
significant political capital necessary to carry out consolidation or change state laws on incorporation
and annexation, then, more evidence is needed about how and when consolidation can produce income
mixing if consolidation is proposed as a way to achieve it.
Most of the policies currently in use to encourage income mixing among jurisdictions fall into one of five
categories. They can require jurisdictions to plan, zone, and develop programs to encourage the construction of a fair share of housing for low-income people. They can limit the ability of jurisdictions to
deny permits for multifamily and affordable housing. They can encourage or even require development
of low-income housing alongside market-rate units. They can create incentives or reduce disincentives
for middle- and upper-income cities to accommodate low-income housing growth. Finally, they can improve amenities and public services in low-income jurisdictions so that upper-income households are
less likely to flee.
Fair Share Programs
California and New Jersey both have programs requiring local governments to plan and zone for affordable housing (Calavita, Mallach, and Grimes 1997, Basolo and Scally 2008). (Californias statute also accounts for market-rate housing needs.) Local governments in both states adopt housing elements in
their comprehensive plans that demonstrate how their land-use policies and local housing programs will
help move them toward meeting state-determined affordable housing needs. State agencies review
these elements and certify their compliance with state law. Californias housing element review appears
not to have resulted in an increase in total housing production, but local governments with stateapproved housing elements did have faster growth in multifamily housing in the 1990s than those without approval (Lewis 2005). New Jerseys statute is stronger than Californias because of its strong connection with the Mount Laurel rulings and the builders remedy described below. Oregons state
growth management law and associated rules for its implementation in metropolitan Portland do not
allocate housing among jurisdictions in the same way as California and New Jersey statutes do (Pendall,
Fulton, and Martin 2002). Even so, these ruleswhich (a) establish goals for housing at all income levels
and (b) establish strong rules requiring Portland-area municipalities to zone for multifamily housing
probably enhance the mix of incomes among jurisdictions in the core of metropolitan Portland.
Limits on Local Rights to Deny Affordable Housing
Another set of state laws acts less to encourage local governments to plan, zone, and develop programs
to encourage affordable housing and more to stay out of the way of builders who want to provide it. The
prime example of these laws is Massachusetts Chapter 40B, sometimes called the anti-snob zoning
rule (Cowan 2006). In towns where fewer than 10 percent of units have long-term affordability restrictions, applicants to build affordable housing can submit a challenge to a state housing appeals board
if a local board denies their proposed project. Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Illinois have similar laws.
New Jersey and California both have similar provisions, but local governments are protected from challenges by developers when their general plans housing chapters comply with state fair-share laws. Of
course, all these states have in common the ability of local governments to exert strong regulatory control over development in the first place. Pennsylvanias case law limits the ability of municipalities to
practice exclusionary zoning; in Texas and Alabama, county governments lack the power to zone at all
55

(Pendall 2008). Though city governments can zone in both states, their negotiating position with developers can be weakened because of the lack of zoning in unincorporated areas.
Incentives for Builders to Provide Mixed-Income Housing
Inclusionary zoning and density bonus programs, described in the section above on development-level
income mixing, are governed by state laws. Californias density bonus law is probably the most aggressive in the country, requiring local governments to provide a density bonus of 35 percent plus other regulatory concessions (e.g., parking, height, lot coverage) if a builder proposes a project in which at least
20 percent of units will be affordable. (See Ryan and Enderle 2012.) While concessions to developers
appear to be generally acceptable, affordable housing mandates are becoming less so. State courts in
Colorado and California have recently overturned inclusionary zoning for rental housing based on arguments that it amounts to rent control (prohibited in both states), for example, and the Oregon legislature preempted any local use of inclusionary zoning in 1999 (Pendall 2008). Many other states do not
permit inclusionary zoning.
Measures to Blunt the Fiscal Motivations for Exclusionary Zoning
As discussed in an earlier section, fiscal concerns about free riders motivate much exclusionary zoning
(Levine 2006). States seldom change their fiscal rules to help overcome fiscally motivated exclusionary
zoning; fiscal reform is more often prompted by legal action on the inequality of educational opportunity. In California, for example, the landmark Serrano v. Priest case (20 Cal.3d 25 (1977)) revolutionized
school finance, ultimately resulting in the allocation of resources to school districts on a per-capita basis.
Even so, Californias fiscal regime still rewards jurisdictions for excluding low-income people by allocating sales-tax revenues to jurisdictions based on the point of sale rather than redistributing sales taxes
based on population or need.
At least a few cases of state fiscal changes have occurred, however, with encouragement of local inclusion at least partly in mind. Minnesotas state legislature, for example, created in the 1960s a tax-base
sharing system for the Twin Cities metropolitan area that redistributes a portion of the new industrial
and commercial tax base to communities based on a formula partly accounting for low-income households needs for public services (Orfield 1997). And in 2004, Massachusetts adopted Chapter 40R, in
which towns receive revenues from the state if they zone for and approve affordable housing. Towns
receive between $10,000 and $600,000 to create zoning overlay districts for higher-density housing with
at least 20 percent affordable units (Verrilli and Raitt 2009). Chapter 40R sweetens the deal by allocating
$3,000 per unit when building permits are issued. The locations of the overlay districts must be near
transit or commercial centers, in areas with existing infrastructure, or otherwise highly suitable for
smart growth. Jurisdictions can count the units expected in their overlay zones toward the 10 percent
threshold for exemption from the Chapter 40B override system. By 2009, 27 districts had been approved, with 1,100 units already built or under construction (Verrilli and Raitt 2009). A companion law,
Chapter 40S, was enacted in 2005 making communities eligible to receive partial state reimbursement
for any extraordinary increase in the cost of public education associated with development in 40R districts.

56

Keeping Low-Income and Mixed-Income Jurisdictions Healthy and Desirable


Just as cities can invest in low- or mixed-income districts to make them more desirable for households
and businesses that might otherwise opt out, states can invest in their cities in ways that improve local
amenities and public services. States and regions can take a myriad of actions that could have these enriching effectsmore than space permits herebut one interesting set of policies has to do with controlling sprawl. Nelson et al. (2004b) find that central cities of metropolitan areas with strong urban
containment policies experienced more development of single-family housing, multifamily housing,
offices, and commercial additions after adopting anti-sprawl policies than those accommodating more
growth at the fringe. It is unclear, however, whether this tendency for central cities in contained metro
areas to capture more development translated into greater income mixing even among jurisdictions, not
to mention within central cities and suburbs.
Containment policies are often opposed for their expected impact on housing affordability; if they reduce land availability and densities on land where development is permitted cannot increase, then the
housing supply can be restricted. But containment can be accompanied by measures facilitating development in areas slated for growth (e.g., infrastructure investment and favorable zoning and permitting
processes). Even if housing prices rise, however, this is an indication of the citys desirability, a sign that
income mixing at the jurisdictional level has taken root. It does not, however, guarantee income mixing
in districts or neighborhoods and might even exacerbate processes of gentrification and displacement
within and from central cities. If the benefits of income mixing warrant higher housing costs, then the
logical policy approach would be to use subsidies, (de)regulatory approaches, and infrastructure investments that help consolidate and maintain the ability of low-income people to live there without overpaying and overcrowding. Over the long term, measures to preserve affordability for low-income people
will be necessary to preserve income mixing, because rising housing costs will sooner or later reduce the
probability that low-income people move into or stay in a city.
An additional risk, however, is that very high housing demand in the central city will produce a bipolar
income distribution as middle-income households move to suburbs. This risk may be less pronounced in
the next 20 years than it was in the 1970s and 1980s because of changing household structure. In 1975,
about 51 percent of households had one or two members; in 2012, the share of one or two-person
households had climbed to 61 percent. This growth helps sustain demand for housing in central cities,
since small households are more likely than large ones to live in central cities (Clark and Dieleman 1996).
Since small households have lower incomes than large ones, the resurgence of central cities based on
small households might promise to exacerbate interjurisdictional inequality and reinforce central-city
poverty instead of reducing it. But the median incomes of small households have also grown more rapidly in real terms since 1975 than those of three- and four-person households: 41 percent and 31 percent
for one- and two-person households, respectively, compared with just 18 and 27 percent for three- and
four-person households (US Census 2013). Rising middle-income households also are more likely to be
first- or second-generation immigrants whose desire to leave the central city may not be as strong as
was the case of white Baby Boomers in the 1970s (Myers and Gearin 2001). All this underscores the potential demand for middle-income housing in central cities that, if met, can both help maintain income
mixing and reduce the pressure on scarce housing for low-income residents. Market-rate components of
57

transit-oriented and downtown development can at least theoretically serve these purposes of income
mixing at the city level.
Mitigating the Impacts of Income Segregation
Even when policymakers try to increase income mixing among jurisdictions, cities will differ in their income composition. Additional policies can aim to mitigate some of the impacts of inequality even if they
do not attempt to reverse it. These include, for example, state or federal revenue redistribution to local
governments in low-income areas and targeted programs for community development, alleviating the
impact of poverty in low-income cities and neighborhoods. Other policies might target schools by increasing resources, changing assignment rules, creating new opportunities for school choice, and allowing inter-district transfers. Such policies may not directly attract new middle-income people, but they
could provide enough choices to satisfy some of the more upwardly mobile established low-income families and thereby reduce the probability that they leave for other cities.

Building Knowledge about Income Mixing Across Scales


Although income-mixing practice and policies have been in force at various scales for decades, we still
have a lot to learn about what works to bring it about and what impacts it might have. Important questions also remain about the impacts of income homogeneity, especially those of upper-income enclaves.
Based on our review, a number of issues should be given high priority. In this last section, we propose
approaches to further research about three: income mixing at the district scale; the incidence and impacts of wealthy enclaves; and analysis of how federal and state income supports and benefit policies
affect local income mixing.

Income Mixing in Districts


Proponents of income mixing expect it to solve a wide array of problems via a wide variety of mechanisms, including both the construction of place-based social ties and greater access to services and
amenities for low-income people than they would have in homogeneous areas. Some of these processes
occur at fairly intimate scales where face-to-face interactions help build social ties: within developments, along a block front or at the intersection of two residential streets, or in an uninterrupted network of low-volume pedestrian-friendly streets. Others occur at the wider scale of the city or school district, where low-income people who share cities with middle and upper income people enjoy the benefits of greater investment by both the public sector and the private sector in services and amenities.
An intermediate scale to consider is the district, an area larger than a single neighborhood but smaller
than a city. While significant research has been conducted on the social consequences of income mixing
at intimate scales (developments, block fronts, and micro-neighborhoods), we know less about the incidence, function, impact, and sustainability of groups of neighborhoods that may be somewhat internally
homogeneous but that differ from one another. Suburbia, where the majority of Americans live, is dominated by such internally homogeneous neighborhoods. Households preferences, infrastructure investment patterns, engineering standards, local land-use regulations, decisions by financial institutions, and
developer decision-making have led to the construction of these uniform neighborhoods that occupy
the majority of developed land in most metropolitan areas. Some developments feature both small
58

groups of single-family houses and small to medium-sized apartment developments, resulting in greater
homogeneity at the micro-neighborhood scale but more diversity at the district level. As shown in our
review, this kind of mixed homogeneity has been a building block for communities planned to encourage diversity throughout the twentieth century.
Districts also often have commercial areas, community centers, and other gathering spaces: social
seams (Nyden et al. 1998). These places provide opportunities for people living nearby to see one another regularly, to interact if they wish, and to meet intentionally when they want to. They thereby provide opportunities for face-to-face contact and the formation of social connection among people who
may live in homogeneous neighborhoods that differ from one another. Even if interpersonal interactions
at social seams produce few benefits, residents may benefit from proximity to the businesses and organizations located there.
This research project would seek to uncover in greater detail than has been attempted previously the
origin, character, stability, and impact of mixed-income districts. It would have a series of phases, first
exploratory and then explanatory.
1. What is a district, and what makes it a mixed-income district?
To answer this first question, two metropolitan areas would be selected to test methods for identifying
districts using nationally available data. Researchers would use a variety of data sources to distinguish
three ingredients of districts: neighborhoods, boundaries, and social seams. They would also draw on
prior research on the spatial dimensions of racial segregation (e.g., Massey and Denton 1988).

Many past studies have used census tracts to represent neighborhoods. Closer investigation and
consideration, however, has shown that tracts do not align closely with the neighborhoods people experience. Tract boundaries are set to comprise an average of 4,000 people, and some have
more than 10,000. Most people would be daunted to think they have thousands of neighbors.
Also, population densities vary widely across metropolitan areas, meaning that most metro areas have at least someand often manytracts where some clusters of residents live fairly far
apart from other clusters within the same tract. Tracts also sometimes cross the boundaries of
school attendance areas, jurisdictions, and school districts. Some observers therefore consider
census block groupswhose population generally ranges from 600 to 3000 peoplebetter representations of neighborhoods as residents experience them (Sperling 2012). Measuring income
in block groups has become extremely imprecise, however, because of the American Community Surveys low sample size. Even so, the decennial census still includes 100 percent count data
on population, household structure, age, race, Hispanic origin, and tenure at the block group
level; these data could be used in conjunction with microdata and small-area data from the
American Community Survey to estimate income distributions and average household income at
the block group level. 8

For example, households could be allocated to block groups within their census tracts using just three categories
of incomeslow, medium, and highbut estimating each group based on the proxy decennial census data.

59

Boundaries that hinder connections between block groups, including highways, rivers, and industrial areas, can be estimated using a combination of Census data and remotely sensed data.
Physical boundaries can also be inferred based on termination points of residential streets and
intersections between residential streets and highways or busy arterials and by large areas
where census block geography indicates absent or very low density development. Boundaries
would also be characterized according to their width and permeability. (For example, a steep
cliff or an Interstate highway could be characterized as a more significant boundary than a sixlane suburban arterial street or a park running along a stream.) We will also consider the potential relevance of administratively-defined boundaries.
Social seams also appear to be important components of successful mixed-income districts; it is
not established, however, whether they are necessary components for thriving districts. Smallarea data on commercial establishments (e.g., restaurants and grocery stores), government facilities (e.g., libraries and schools), and parks and playgroundsall places that have the potential
to function as social seamsare increasingly available. The Censuss Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics (LEHD) program provides data on employment by industry for geographies
as small as blocks, and data on local land uses are increasingly available at low or no cost for users of standard GIS packages. The National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), which provides data on registered tax-exempt organizations, is another potentially useful data source.
(The identification of social seams and how they work is also an important research topic of its
own. Large traffic generators are usually served with roads and highways that separate neighborhoods. But some of these major facilitiesshopping malls, big-box stores, downtown entertainment complexes, high schools, and so onalso serve as social seams not only for their
neighborhoods but for people in a wide radius. While unlikely to serve as mixing places for
young children, such areas are very important zones for interaction among adolescents and
young adults.)

Income mixing within districts would be measured using a combination of the entropy index, the average income of the entire district, and the differences among the incomes of constituent block groups
within the district. Districts would be sorted into types based on the uniformity of their block groups,
their overall average income, and the income distribution of households within them. Tentatively, districts could be classified as homogeneous upper, middle, or lower income, fully mixed, or mosaic, (i.e.,
mixed at the district scale but homogeneous at the block group scale).
Measurement of changes in districts over time will be possible at least in part between 2000 and 2010
thanks to the existence of Census TIGER files for both years. LEHD data are sparser before 2010, however, especially for government employment. Estimation of the stability of districts over time is important.
Considering the role of long-lasting investments and hard geographic features in shaping boundaries
and constituting social seams, we hypothesize that districts will prove more stable through time than
neighborhoods within them and that using fixed boundaries from 2010 will also provide reasonable estimates of district boundaries for 2000.
Identification of the correspondence between district boundaries and other important boundaries would
also facilitate more complete characterization of districts; for example, a district separated by a munici60

pal boundary or an elementary-school attendance district line might be encoded according to such important defining geographies.
After testing methods for distinguishing districts, the method would be validated in those metropolitan
areas via close observation, interviews, focus groups, and surveys. The method would then be extended
to other large metropolitan areas and made public for use by other researchers, local planners, and the
broader public. Estimated district boundaries and statistical estimates of the characteristics of districts
over time could also be assembled and made available for policymakers and researchers.
2. What policies and decisions lead to the development and maintenance of mixed-income districts, and to their erosion or destruction?
Our review suggests that, at least when measured at the census-tract level, income mixing has become
more rather than less pronounced between low- and middle-income households. Even so, many districts
are uniformly low-income. As well, some well-situated mixed-income districts have recently become
attractive to upper-income households, and other more poorly situated mixed districts have been hard
hit by the economic and housing crisis, reducing their households income.
To understand why districts have the income mixes that we observe and why these mixes changed in
the 2000s, researchers would use income mixing data gathered for 2000 and 2010 in answering the first
question. Two parallel research projects would be undertaken to provide lessons for policy and practice:

A national study of all large metropolitan areas using national data to identify factors contributing to district-scale levels of and changes in income distribution (e.g., housing characteristics,
racial composition, housing market strength, land use policies, geography, infrastructure, and
characteristics of boundaries and social seams). Special attention would be given to factors that
can be influenced by federal, state, and local policymakers.
Case studies of metropolitan areas where certain district types and trajectories prevail. Qualitative research (interviews) and document analysis would reveal the answers to a series of questions in these case-study metro areas:
o What practices and policies at the local, state and federal levels, in combination with local demographic, economic, and housing-market conditions, appear to contribute to the
dominant pattern of income mixing in the metropolitan area?
o In a metropolitan area with mostly uniform districts, what can we learn from the emergence or persistence of mixed-income districts? What are the diverse contributions of
housing-market, demographic, and economic trends and local policies/ practices?
o In a metropolitan area dominated by mixed-income districts but in which many mixed
districts are deteriorating, what warning signs can be distinguished from 2000 or earlier
of the pending deterioration? Are there important differences between deteriorating
and stable neighborhoods and in the nature of local practices and policies in either
maintaining or hastening deterioration?
o In a metropolitan area with many mixed-income districts that are gentrifying, has this
gentrification process led to displacement or simply intensification of development?
61

Under what conditions are gentrifying districts mosaic districts, containing affluent
neighborhoods side by side with middle- or low-income neighborhoods, and when are
they even more mixed than this? What conditions and practices contribute to the persistence of low- and middle-income households even in the face of growth in the affluent population?
3. What are the impacts of mixed-income districts of various kinds for residents and metropolitan
areas?
Much research on income mixing asks the impacts of income mixing on residents, especially low-income
residents. Extending this research to districts will shed light on whether and when mixed-income districts of various kinds work better for their residents than homogeneous ones. This question will be answered with two strains of research. First, residential satisfaction and well-being will be measured using
georeferenced American Housing Survey data, assuming researchers can obtain special sworn status to
use georeferenced AHS data or otherwise collaborate with researchers at HUD or the US Census Bureau.
If permission were given by HUD, exploration of neighborhood satisfaction and resident well-being could
also be undertaken using other surveys of HUD-assisted households, including MTO and the Welfare to
Work Voucher experiment; the Making Connections survey could also be exploited for these purposes.
Second, hedonic housing price analysis will be conducted in a limited number of metropolitan areas using residential sales data purchased from commercial sources. For both satisfaction and house price, the
significance and sign of measures relating to the districts income distribution developed to answer the
first research question will be used to predict the relevant outcome variables. Many other strains of research could be conducted on how living in mixed-income districts affects outcomes for residents of various ages, extending work done on neighborhood effects to a new level.
One novel line of research that would require new interviews, surveys, and in-person observation concerns how social seams affect attitudes and satisfaction. There is widespread growth of the construction
of transit-oriented development, which promises to yield a proliferation of social seams. Downtowns
and other mixed-use districts are also on the rise, while enclosed shopping malls are losing some of their
appeal. Qualitative and quantitative (survey-based) exploration of whether, how, and for whom new
and traditional gathering spaces help overcome class division and increase understanding would bring
important new information to planning and community development approaches for income mixing
that have traditionally relied mainly on residential neighborhoods.
Mixed-income districts of various kinds also have other potential performance dimensions that should
be tested. The candidate list is quite large but includes, for example:

Economic development and fiscal impacts


o How does the character of income mixing affect the creation and success rate of small
businesses in social seams?
o What are the net fiscal impacts for local governments of mixed-income districts? Are the
long-term fiscal costs of a city or metro area with more mixed-income districts lower,
higher, or the same as a city/metro area composed of many homogeneous districts?
62

Political and civic impacts


o Do representatives of mixed-income districts on city councils and state legislatures campaign and vote differently than those of homogeneous districts?
o Do residents of mixed-income districts register and vote more predictably than those in
homogeneous districts?
Crime and public safety
o Are crime rates lower in mixed-income districts than in homogeneous districts? What
are the correlations between changing income distributions and changes in crime, both
violent and property-related?
Schools
o Is there a relationship between living in mixed-income districts and educational outcomes?
o Is teacher satisfaction higher in school districts and schools where more students live in
mixed-income districts?
Transportation
o Does income mixing at the district scale increase the viability of mass transit? If so, how?

Impacts and Implications of Wealthy Enclaves


A key finding of our review is that increased inequality among communities has been driven not by the
isolation of very poor neighborhoods and cities from middle- and upper-income places but by the secession of the successful into homogeneously high-income neighborhoods and communities. The impact of these upper-income enclaves needs to be studied. The following research questions represent
interesting starting points:

What are rich enclaves like?


o What features distinguish their social composition (e.g., residents race, age, family
structure, occupation), built environments (residential density, street layout, open
space), and spatial location and scale (e.g., are they located mainly in exurban areas?
How large are they and what defines their boundaries)?
o Are these characteristics shared by enclaves in most metro areas, or are there differences among metros?
Where have they grown most rapidly?
o Which metro areas have the largest number of rich enclaves, and what distinguishes
them from others? Are they more fragmented into multiple jurisdictions than metros
with fewer enclaves?
o Where are enclaves located in regions with many of them, and how do they relate to
the locations of other neighborhoods?
o What were these enclaves like before they became exclusively rich enclaves?
How does the presence of rich enclaves associate with other regional outcomes?
o What are the housing-market implications of rich enclaves? Do they increase market
segmentation and raise prices more generally? Or do they soak up demand for high-cost

63

housing and thereby reduce pressure on prices in lower-cost jurisdictions and neighborhoods?
o To what extent are enclaves an unavoidable outcome of growing income inequality?
o Is there a correlation between the presence of rich enclaves and levels of concentrated
poverty?
o Do rich enclaves associate with different overall (metropolitan) levels of public investment, political participation, and neighborhood satisfaction? What about each of these
within rich enclaves and among other neighborhoods?
o Do metro areas with more rich enclaves experience different levels of urban sprawl than
those with fewer enclaves?
o Does the scale and pattern of rich enclaves make a difference in any correlations with
other regional outcomes? For example, do outcomes in metro areas where rich enclaves
are nested within mixed jurisdictions differ from those in metros where enclaves are
separate, homogenous jurisdictions?
What is the probable future of rich enclaves?
o To the extent these enclaves are primarily the home of Baby Boomers (at the peak of
their earning potential), will the extremity of their difference from other neighborhoods
change once the boomers start retiring?
o Since Gen-X is smaller than the Baby Boom and has different social characteristics, will
the market for housing in rich enclaves decline?
What policies are most effective for increasing income diversity in rich enclaves?
o What barriers are posed by fiscal considerations, zoning, housing finance, and infrastructure, and how can they be addressed?
o Are race-conscious strategies important for integrating rich enclaves, and if so, what do
these consist of?

To answer these questions, we propose a four-part, mixed-methods research project.


After a preparatory literature review, the first part of the research would use historic data from the US
Census at the block-group, census-tract, and jurisdiction level to identify the current incidence and the
historic trajectory of rich enclaves in the 100 largest metropolitan areas. Metro-wide statistics will be
generated to indicate the level and change in the concentration of the very rich (e.g., areas with average
incomes at least N times the metropolitan average) between 1980 and 2010, identifying metro areas
with high levels of concentration of the rich across scales ranging from neighborhood to jurisdiction to
multiple counties. A typology of metropolitan areas will be developed based on the extent of income
separation and the ways in which it varies across geographic scales. Since the formation of enclaves presupposes the presence of rich households, this part of the research would also track the relationship
between overall income inequality at the metro level and enclave formation.
The second part of the research is explanatory, looking for factors that associate with the extent of highincome segregation at each scale. This part would begin with an explanation of factors associated with
the dominance and growth of income segregation as measured by the metropolitan-level indicators (i.e.,
the unit of analysis will be the metropolitan area). Industrial structure, income distribution, race, topog64

raphy, regulatory regime, growth rate, and land development patterns will all be considered as potential
contributing factors, with conceptual models developed to understand the way in which policy has contributed to income segregation. Since these analyses would be models of change over the decades between 1980 and 2010, they could be adapted to project future changes in the extent of the segregation
of the rich and to simulate the potential impact of changes in the economy, public policy, or demographics.
This part would also include modeling of the genesis and evolution of rich enclaves below the metropolitan scale (tracts and multi-tract districts), developing multivariate models to identify the drivers and
corollaries of enclave formation including built environment, location within the region, and social and
economic characteristics of residents in the area. Models will be developed for both the entire set of
100 metropolitan areas to allow identification of the average impact of each factor and then for groups
of metro areas with similar patterns of segregation of the rich to see whether some characteristics have
markedly different impacts in some metros than in others. Like the metro-level work, this part would be
well-suited to identify tracts, jurisdictions, or other parts of metro areas that are especially at risk of future enclave formation, allowing the development of policies to counteract income segregation if such is
deemed an appropriate approach.
The third part of the research also is explanatory but shifts from explaining income segregation to understanding its impacts. This part would require its own process of conceptual development and could
involve mixed methods. The goal would be to understand outcomes for enclaves and the people who
live in them, impacts on nearby places, and impacts at the metropolitan scale of income segregation.
Some of the impacts might include, for example:

Housing market impacts: Data from the Census, HMDA, and proprietary sources can be used to
understand how enclaves affect housing prices in surrounding areas and to model the impacts
of the extent of enclave formation on regional housing markets.
Racial segregation impacts: Data from the Census can be used to understand whether and how
income segregation affects racial segregation over time.
Fiscal impacts: Data from the Census of Governments, Census, and original data collection can
be used to understand the distribution of fiscal health across jurisdictions in metropolitan areas
with higher and lower levels of enclave formation, and to understand the relationship between
metropolitan levels of segregation of the rich and overall public spending. Where regional data
are available, the research could also explore whether bond issues are more likely to pass (or
fail) in areas with high concentrations of the rich, including analysis of interaction between income and other factors. The study of fiscal impacts could also involve mixed-methods mini-case
studies of jurisdictions classified as rich enclaves to understand the ways in which state law and
local policies combine to affect their fiscal health.
Civic participation and social cohesion impacts: Social surveys may be used to determine whether there are significant relationships between the dominance of rich enclaves and levels of civic
participation and voting by various groups as well as social attitudes. Given enough budget, new

65

surveys could be designed to measure civic participation and social cohesion in metro areas with
very high and very low levels of enclave formation.
The fourth part of the research involves in-depth mixed-methods case study of one or two metropolitan
areas in each of the major metro types identified in the first part of the research. The purpose of this
part of the research is to understand how federal, state, and local policies interact with demographic,
built-environment, and natural-environment features to create or prevent the creation of upper-income
enclaves. It is also intended to enrich the findings on impacts on the housing market, racial segregation,
local fiscal structure, and civic participation with qualitative data.

Federal and State Policy and Local Income Mixing


Our review shows that metropolitan areas with higher levels of income inequality also have greater income inequality among places. The review also shows that income mixing among low- and middleincome families and enclave formation among the wealthy have both increased in the past 25 years. Yet
income inequality does not explain the entire variation among metro areas in their levels of income separation among tracts and places. We propose further research that would begin with updated analysis
of income separation (or mixing) as a multi-level phenomenon, explaining variation in place-based
sorting based on metro levels of income inequality, then proceeding to understand district- and tractlevel sorting based on inequality and separation at higher geographic levels as well as inter-household
variation. This initial analysis would be followed by a series of investigations meant to reveal the role of
federal and state in improving income mixing in established neighborhoods and newly growing areas.
The focus on federal and state policy is justified because local policies have been the subject of significant research and experimentation, but the role of policy and practices at higher levels is more poorly
understood. Local actions are also often dictated or circumscribed by state or federal rules and laws,
making it necessary to identify ways in which local governments could be allowed or encouraged to create and sustain mixed-income communities.
1. The impacts of federal income and benefit programs on local income mixing
Census reports on local income and poverty levels fail to account for taxes and many transfers, meaning
that we have an incomplete picture of income mixing. Income supports for low-income people, including housing vouchers, SNAP, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, among others, should allow them to live
among middle-income families if they wish to. Other supports, including the tax deductibility of property
taxes and mortgage interest, also may encourage the formation and maintenance of rich enclaves because they are used mainly by high-income households. Since use of these benefits and deductions varies across the United States, investigation of state and metropolitan differences in levels of income mixing and enclave formation could help reveal the role, if any, of these federal policies in reinforcing patterns of residential income mixing. Since both taxation and spending are under intense scrutiny, research would help policymakers and researchers understand the potential local effects of changes in
federal tax and benefit structures.
2. The impacts of state policies on local income mixing

66

Systems of taxes and benefits also differ among states, potentially magnifying the impact of federal policy in some states and metropolitan areas on the composition of household incomes in tracts and jurisdictions. Many other state laws, policies, and practices also affect the composition of the local housing
stock and the creation of housing submarkets. These include, for example, boundary-setting for local
governments and school districts; funding decisions for infrastructure; affordable housing policy, including mechanisms for allocating low-income tax credits; and land-use statutes and case law. Our review
suggests that this complex array of state policies may have important effects on income-based sorting
and mixing at the level of jurisdictions and neighborhoods.
This research project would build on the Urban Institutes suite of microsimulation tools to model the
local income-mixing impacts of federal and state policies in two metropolitan areas, Houston and Los
Angeles. Both areas have large Latino and immigrant populations and have grown rapidly in the past 20
years, giving rise to new forms of spatial income inequality. With high housing prices, Los Angeles is
home to a disproportionate number of tax filers who take advantage of the mortgage interest deduction; Houstons sprawling urban form and low prices reduce the appeal of the MID, but it has high local
property taxes that are used for the construction of peripheral infrastructure, potentially increasing the
value of the deductibility of property taxes. At the low-income end of the scale, California has a more
generous benefit system than Texas does, potentially offering low-income people greater opportunities
to live among middle income residents. But housing prices also affect income mixing in California, encouraging middle-income people to seek housing opportunities in low-income neighborhoods.

67

References
Aaronson, Elliot, Diane L. Bridgeman, and Robert Geffner. 1978. "The Effects of a Cooperative Classroom
Structure on Students' Behavior and Attitudes." in Social Psychology of Education: Theory and Research, edited by D. Bar-Tal and L. Saxe. New York: Halstead Press.
Achtenberg, E. P. 2002. Stemming the tide: A handbook on preserving subsidized multifamily housing.
New York: Local Initiatives Support Corporation.
Achtenberg, E.P. 2006. Federally assisted housing in conflict: Privatization or preservation? In R. Bratt,
M. Stone, and C. Hartman (Eds.) A right to housing: Foundation for a new Social Agenda (pp. 163
170). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) 1993. State laws governing local government structure and administration. Washington: ACIR publication M-186, March.
Allport, Gordon. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Basic Books.
Alonso, William. 1964. Location and Land Use. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Altshuler, Alan A. & Jose A. Gmez-Ibez with Arnold M. Howitt. 1993. Regulation for Revenue: The
Political Economy of Land Use Exactions. Brookings Institution Press.
Arnold, Joseph L. 1971.The new deal in the suburbs: a history of the greenbelt town program, 19351954. The Ohio State University Press.
Autor, David H., Lawrence F. Katz, & Melissa S. Kearney. 2006. "The Polarization of the U.S. Labor Market," American Economic Review, 96(2), 189194.
Basolo, Victoria, and Corianne P. Scally. 2008. "State innovations in affordable housing policy: Lessons
from California and New Jersey." Housing Policy Debate 19.4: 741774.
Betancur, John J. 2002. "The Politics of Gentrification: The Case of West Town in Chicago." Urban Affairs
Review 37.6: 780814.
Blalock, H. M. 1967. Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Blanchflower, David and Andrew Oswald. 2004. Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. Journal of
Public Economics 88: 13591386.
Blumer, H. 1958. Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position. Pacific Sociological Review 1: 37.
Bobo, L. D. 1999. Prejudice as Group Position: Microfoundations of a Sociological Approach to Racism
and Race Relations. Journal of Social Issues 55: 445472.
Bollens, Scott A. 2003. In through the back door: Social equity and regional governance. Housing Policy
Debate 13(4): 631657.
Boustan, Leah, and Allison Shertzer. 2013. "Population Trends as a Counterweight to Central City Decline, 19502000." Demography 50.1: 125147.
Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 1997. Moving Up Versus Moving Out: Neighborhood Effects on Housing Mobility
Programs. Housing Policy Debate 8 (1): 195234.
Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 1998. "Brown Kids in White Suburbs: Housing Mobility and the Many Faces of
Social Capital." Housing Policy Debate 9:177221.
Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 2005. Social Mixing and the Geography of Opportunity: Lessons for Policy and
Unanswered Questions. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
68

Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 2007. Some of My Best Friends Are...: Interracial Friendships, Class, and Segregation in America. City & Community 6(4): 263290.
Briggs, Xavier de Souza and Benjamin J. Keys. 2009. Has Exposure to Poor Neighborhoods Changed in
America? Race, Risk and Housing Locations in Two Decades. Urban Studies 48(2): 429458.
Briggs, Xavier de Souza, Susan J. Popkin, and John Goering. 2010. Moving to Opportunity: The Story of an
American Experiment to Fight Ghetto Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brophy, Paul C. and Rhonda Smith. 1997. Mixed Income Housing: Factors for Success. Cityscape 3(2):
331.
Brophy, Paul C., Miguel Garcia, and Karen Pooley. 2008. Mixed-Income Housing: A Promising Approach
to Improved Housing and Neighborhoods. Unpublished manuscript.
Brower, Sidney. 2009. The Feasibility of Mixed-Income Communities. University of Maryland. Presented
at the international symposium jointly organized by the IAPS-CSBE Network and the IAPS Housing
Network, Istanbul, Turkey, October.
Brueckner, Jan K., Jacques-Franois Thisse, and Yves Zenou. "Why is central Paris rich and downtown
Detroit poor?: An amenity-based theory." European Economic Review 43.1 (1999): 91107.
Burchell, Robert W., and James W. Hughes. 1973. Planned unit development: new communities American Style. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
Buron, L, Levy D. and M. Gallagher. 2007. "Housing Choice Vouchers How Hope Vi Families Fared in the
Private Market." Urban Institute Metropolitan Housing and Communities.
Buron, L, S. Nolden, K. Heintz, and J. Stewart. 2000. Assessment of the economic and social characteristics of LIHTC residents and neighborhoods. Final Report. Washington DC: Abt Associates for the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Buron, Larry E., Susan J. Popkin, Diane K. Levy, Laura E. Harris, and Jill Khadduri. 2002. The HOPE VI Resident Tracking Study: A Snapshot of the Current Living Situation of Original Residents from Eight Sites.
Washington DC: Urban Institute.
Buron, Larry, Jill Khadduri, Judy Weber, Frances Ferguson. 2005. Strategies for Successfully Marketing
and Stabilizing the Occupancy of Mixed-Income/Mixed-Race Properties. Summary Report commissioned by the Ford Foundation.
Calavita, Nico and Kenneth Grimes. 1998. Inclusionary Housing in California: The Experience of Two Decades. Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (2): 150169.
Calavita, Nico, Kenneth Grimes, and Alan Mallach. 1997. "Inclusionary housing in California and New Jersey: A comparative analysis." Housing Policy Debate 8.1: 109142.
Calthorpe, Peter. 1989. The Pedestrian pocket, in Doug, Kelbaugh (ed.) Pedestrian Pocket Book.
Campbell, K.E. and Barrett A. Lee. 1992. "Sources of Personal Neighbor Networks: Social Integration,
Need, or Time?" Social Forces 70.
Chapple, Karen and Rick Jacobus. 2009. Retail Trade as a Route to Neighborhood Revitalization. In Urban and Regional Policy and its Effects, Nancy Pindus, Howard Wial, and Harold Wolman (Eds.).
Chapple, Karen. 2001. Out of Touch, Out of Bounds: How Social Networks Shape the Labor Market Radii
of Women on Welfare in San Francisco. Urban Geography 22(7): 617640.

69

Chaskin, Robert J., and Mark L. Joseph. 2010. Building Community in Mixed-Income Developments: Assumptions, Approaches, and Early Experiences. Urban Affairs Review 45(3): 299335.
Chaskin, Robert, Amy Khare, and Mark Joseph. 2012. Participation, Deliberation, and Exclusion: The
Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Mixed-Income Developments. Urban Affairs Review p. 144.
Cisneros, Henry and Lora Engdahl. 2009. From Despair to Hope. Washington DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
Cisneros, Henry and Lora Engdahl. 2009. From Despair to Hope: Hope VI and the New Promise of Public
Housing in Americas Cities. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Clapp, John M., Anupam Nanda, and Stephen L. Ross. 2008. "Which school attributes matter? The influence of school district performance and demographic composition on property values." Journal of
Urban Economics 63.2: 451466.
Clavel, Pierre. 1986. The Progressive City. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Clark, WA William AV, and Frans M. Dieleman. 1996. Households and housing: Choice and outcomes in
the housing market. Transaction Publishers.
Climaco, C., M. Finkel, B. Kaul, K. Lam, and C. Rodger. 2009. Updating the low income housing tax credit
database: Projects placed in service through 2006. Washington DC: Abt Associates for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Comey, Jennifer, Xavier de Souza Briggs, and Gretchen Weismann. 2008. Struggling to Stay Out of High
Poverty Neighborhoods: Lessons from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment. Washington DC: The
Urban Institute.
Connerly, C.E. and Y.T. Liou. 1998. Community Development block grant. In W. van Vliet (Ed) The Encyclopedia of Housing (pp. 6466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cook, Stuart W. 1990. "Toward a Psychology of Improving Justice." Journal of Social Issues 46:147161.
Cowan, Spencer M. 2006. "Anti-Snob Land Use Laws, Suburban Exclusion, and Housing Opportunity."
Journal of Urban Affairs 28.3: 295313.
Costa, Dora L. and Matthew E. Kahn. 2003. "Understanding the decline in social capital, 1952-1998." in
NBER Working Paper Series. Cambridge, MA.
Curley, Alexandra. 2005. "Theories of urban poverty and implications for public housing policy." J. Soc. &
Soc.Welfare 32: 97.
Curtin, Daniel J., and Cecily Talbert Barclay. 2010. California land-use and planning law. Solano Press.
Danielson, Michael N. 1976. The politics of exclusion. New York: Columbia University Press.
Davidoff, Ian, and Andrew Leigh. 2008. "How Much do Public Schools Really Cost? Estimating the Relationship between House Prices and School Quality." Economic Record 84.265: 193206.
De Leon, Richard. 1992. Left Coast City: Progressive Politics in San Francisco. Lawrence: University Press
of Kansas.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2003. Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program:
Cross Site Report. US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2009. HOME Program national production report.
Washington DC
70

Doerr, Tom, and Joy Siegal. 1990. Mixing Incomes at Timberlawn Crescent. Urban Land 49(4): 811.
Dreier, Peter, J. H. Mollenkopf, and Todd Swanstrom. 2004. Place matters: Metropolitics for the twentyfirst century. Studies in government and public policy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Duke, Joanna. 2009. Mixed Income Housing Policy and Public Housing Residents Right to the City. Critical Social Policy 29 (100): 100120.
Dwyer, Rachel. 2012. Contained Dispersal: The Deconcentration of Poverty in US Metropolitan Areas in
the 1990s. City & Community 11(3): 309331.
Dwyer, Rachel. 2010. Poverty, Prosperity, and Place: The Shape of Class Segregation in the Age of Extremes. Social Problems 57(1): 114.
Ellen, Ingrid Gould and Katherine M. ORegan. 2011. How Low Income Neighborhoods Change: Entry,
Exit, and Enhancement. Regional Science and Urban Economics 41: 8997.
Ellen, Ingrid Gould and Margery Turner. 1997. "Does Neighborhood Matter? Assessing Recent Evidence." Housing Policy Debate 8(4): 833866.
Elliott, Delbert S., William J. Wilson, David Huizinga, Robert J. Sampson, Amanda Elliott, and Bruce Rankin. 1996. The Effects of Neighborhood Disadvantage on Adolescent Development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 33:389426.
Evans, Gary W. and Elyse Kantrowitz. 2002. Socioeconomic Status and Health: The Potential Role of
Environmental Risk Exposure. Annual Review of Public Health 23: 303331.
Farley, Reynolds, Charlotte Steeh, Tara Jackson, Maria Krysan, and Keith Reeves. "Continued racial residential segregation in Detroit: 'chocolate city, vanilla suburbs' revisited." Journal of Housing Research 4, no. 1 (1993): 138.
Finkel, M.D., C. Hanson, R. Hilton, K. Lam, and M. Vandawalker. 2006. Multifamily Properties: Opting in,
Opting Out, and Remaining Affordable. Washington DC: Econometrica, Inc. and Abt Associates for
the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Farley, Reynolds, Howard Schuman, Suzanne Bianchi, Diane Colasanto, and Shirley Hatchett. "Chocolate city, vanilla suburbs: Will the trend toward racially separate communities continue?" Social Science Research 7, no. 4 (1978): 319344.
Firebaugh, Glenn and Matthew Schroeder. 2009. Does your Neighbors Income Affect Your Happiness?
American Journal of Sociology 115(3): 805831.
Fischer, Claude, Gretchen Stockmayer, Jon Stiles, and Michael Hout. 2004. Distinguishing Geographic
Levels and Social Dimensions of U.S. Metropolitan Segregation, 1960-2000. Demography 41(1): 37
59.
Foster, Kathryn A. 1999. The political economy of special-purpose government. Georgetown University
Press.
Fraser, James, Robert Chaskin, and Joshua Bazuin. 2013. Making Mixed-Income Neighborhoods Work
for Low-Income Households. Cityscape 15(2): 83100.
Freeman, L., 2005. Displacement or succession? Residential mobility in gentrifying neighborhoods. Urban Aff. Rev. 40 (4), 463491.
Freeman, Lance. 2006. There Goes the Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
71

Freeman, Lance, and Frank Braconi. 2004. "Gentrification and displacement New York City in the 1990s."
Journal of the American Planning Association 70.1: 3952.
Gaertner, S. L., J.F. Dovidio, P.A. Anastasio, B.A. Bachman, and M.C. Rust. 1993. The Common In-group
Identity Model: Recategorization and the Reduction of Intergroup Bias. European Review of Social
Psychology 4: 126.
Galster, George and Jason Booza. 2007. The Rise of the Bipolar Neighborhood. Journal of the American
Planning Association 73(4): 421435.
Galster, George C., Roberto G. Quercia, Alvaro Cortes, and Ron Malega. 2003. The Fortunes of Poor
Neighborhoods, Urban Affairs Review 39: 205227.
Galster, George, Roger Andersson, Sako Musterd, and Timo M. Kauppinen. 2008. Does Neighborhood
Income Mix Affect Earnings of Adults? New Evidence from Sweden. Journal of Urban Economics
63:85870
Galster, George. 2007. Neighborhood Social Mix as a Goal of Housing Policy: A Theoretical Analysis. European Journal of Housing Policy 7(1): 1943.
Galvez, Martha. 2010. What do we know about Housing Choice Voucher program location outcomes?
What Works Collaborative, available: http://www.urban.org/publications/412218.html as of November 15, 2013.
Gans, Herbert. 1961b. The Balanced Community: Homogeneity or Heterogeneity in Residential Areas.
Journal of the American Planning Association 27(3): 17684.
Gans, Herbert. 1962. Urbanism and Suburbanism as Ways of Life: A Reevaluation of Definitions. Pp.
628648 in A.M. Rose (Ed.) Human Behavior and Social Processes: An Interactionist Approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Glaeser, Edward and Bryce Ward. 2009. The causes and consequences of land use regulation: Evidence
from Greater Boston. Journal of Urban Economics 65: 265278.
Glaeser, Edward and Joseph Gyourko. 2002. The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Paper.
Glaeser, Edward L., Matthew E. Kahn, and Jordan Rappaport. 2008. "Why do the poor live in cities? The
role of public transportation." Journal of Urban Economics 63.1: 124.
Goering, John M., Abdollah Haghighi, Helene Stebbins, and Michael Siewert. 1995. Promoting Housing
Choice in HUDs Rental Assistance Programs: A Report to Congress. Washington, DC: US Department
of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
Goetz, Edward and Karen Chapple. 2010. You Gotta Move: Advancing the Debate on the Record of Dispersal. Housing Policy Debate 20(2): 209236.
Goetz, Edward G. 2010. Better Neighborhoods, Better Outcomes? Explaining Relocation Outcomes in
HOPE VI. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 12(1): 532.
Goldsmith, William, and Edward Blakely. 2010. Separate societies: Poverty and inequality in US cities.
Temple University Press.
Grannis, Rick. 2005. T-Communities: Pedestrian Street Networks and Residential Segregation in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. City & Community 4(3): 295321.

72

Graves, Erin. 2010. The Structuring of Urban Life in a Mixed-Income Housing Community. City & Community 9(1): 109131.
Hamilton, Bruce W. 1975. Zoning and property taxation in a system of local governments. Urban Studies
12: 20411.
Harding, David. 2007. Cultural Context, Sexual Behavior, and Romantic Relationships in Disadvantaged
Neighborhoods. American Sociological Review 72(3): 341364.
Hayes, Kathy J., and Lori L. Taylor. "Neighborhood school characteristics: what signals quality to homebuyers?" Economic Review-Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (1996): 29.
Hipp, John R. 2007. Income Inequality, Race, and Place: Does the Distribution of Race and Class within
Neighborhoods Affect Crime Rates? Criminology 45(3): 665697.
Hirschman, Albert. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Houston, D., Wu, J., Ong, P., & Winer, A. (2004). Structural Disparities of Urban Traffic in Southern California: Implications for VehicleRelated Air Pollution Exposure in Minority and HighPoverty Neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Affairs, 26(5), 565592.
Hunt, Michael E., and Gail Gunter-Hunt. "Naturally occurring retirement communities." Journal of Housing for the Elderly 3.3-4 (1986): 322.
Hyra, Derek. 2008. The New Urban Renewal: The Economic Transformation of Harlem and Bronzeville.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Jargowsky, Paul 1997. Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City. New York: Russell
Sage.
----. 1996. "Take the Money and Run: Economic Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas." American Sociological Review 61:984998.
----. 2003. Stunning Progress, Hidden Problems: The Dramatic Decline of Concentrated Poverty in the
1990s. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Jencks, Christopher and Susan E. Mayer. 1990. The Social Consequences of Growing Up in a Poor
Neighborhood, p. 111186 in Lawrence E. Lynn, Jr. and Michael G. H. McGreary, eds. Inner-City
Poverty in the United States. National Academy Press.
Jonas, Andrew EG. 1991 "Urban growth coalitions and urban development policy: postwar growth and
the politics of annexation in metropolitan Columbus." Urban Geography 12(3): 197225.
Joseph, Mark L. and Robert J. Chaskin. 2010. Life in a Mixed-Income Development: Resident Perceptions at Two Developments in Chicago. Urban Studies 47(11).
Joseph, Mark L., Robert J. Chaskin, and Henry S. Webber. 2007. The Theoretical Basis for Addressing
Poverty through Mixed-income Development. Urban Affairs Review 42(3): 369409.
Kelly, Janet M. 2012. "Indicators of Financial Condition in Pre and PostMerger Louisville." Journal of
Urban Affairs.
Keyes, Langley. 1969. The Rehabilitation Planning Game: A Study in the Diversity of Neighborhood.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

73

King, Mel. 1981. Chain of Change: Struggles for Black Community Development. Boston: South End
Press.
Kim, Jae Hong, and Nathan Jurey. 2013 "Local and Regional Governance Structures: Fiscal, Economic,
Equity, and Environmental Outcomes." Journal of Planning Literature.
Kingsley, G. Thomas and Pettit, Kathryn L. S. 2003. Concentrated Poverty: A Change in Course. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Kingsley, G. Thomas, Jennifer Johnson, and Kathryn S. Pettit. 2003. Patterns of Section 8 Relocation in
the HOPE VI Program, Journal of Urban Affairs 25 (4): 427447.
Kleit, Rachel Garshick. 2005. HOPE VI New Communities: Neighborhood Relationships in Mixed Income
Housing. Environment and Planning A 37: 14131441.
Kleit, Rachel. 2001. Neighborhood Relations in Suburban Scattered-Site and Clustered Public Housing.
Journal of Urban Affairs 23(3-4): 40930.
Kneebone, Elizabeth and Alan Berube. 2012. Confronting Suburban Poverty in America. Washington DC:
The Brookings Institution Press.
Kneebone, Elizabeth, Carey Nadeau, and Alan Berube. 2011. The Re-Emergence of Concentrated Poverty. The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Opportunity Series.
Koshgarian, Lindsay, Alan Clayton-Matthews, and Carrie Bernstein. 2010. Economic Contributions of
Housing Permitted through Chapter 40B. Boston: University of Massachusetts-Boston Donohue Institute.
Krivo, Lauren J. and Ruth D. Peterson. 1996. Extremely Disadvantaged Neighborhoods and Urban
Crime. Social Forces 75(2): 619648.
Krupka, Douglas J. 2006. The Stability of Mixed-Income Neighborhoods in America, 19902000. Working paper no. 06-08. Atlanta: Georgia State University, Urban and Regional Analysis Working Group.
Lacy, Karyn. 2007. Blue-chip black: Race, class, and status in the new black middle class. University of
California Press.
Lee, Barrett A., Sean F. Reardon, Glenn Firebaugh, Chad R. Farrell, Stephen A. Matthews, and David
OSullivan. 2008. Beyond the Census Tract: Patterns and Determinants of Racial Residential Segregation at Multiple Geographic Scales. American Sociological Review 73:766791.
Levine, Jonathan. 2006. Zoned out: Regulation, markets, and choices in transportation and metropolitan
land-use. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Levy, Diane K., Zach McDade, and Kassie Dumlao. 2010. Effects from Living in Mixed-Income Communities for Low-Income Families: A Review of the Literature. Urban Institute.
Lewis, Paul G. 2005. Can State Review of Local Planning Increase Housing Production? Housing Policy
Debate 16(2), 173200.
Long, J., Lynch, J., Machiran, N., Thomas, S., & Malinow, K. 1982. The effect of status on blood pressure
during verbal communication. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5, 165171.
Luttmer, Erzo. 2005. "Neighbors as Negatives: Relative Earnings and Well-Being," The Quarterly Journal
of Economics, 120(3), 9631002.
Marcuse, Peter. 2005. Enclaves Yes, Ghettos No: Segregation and State. In Desegregating the City, ed.
D. Varady, 1530. Albany: State University of New York Press.
74

Massey, Douglas and Mary Fischer. 2003. "The Geography of Inequality in the United States, 19502000." Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs: 140.
Massey, Douglas. 1996. "The Age of Extremes: Concentrated Affluence and Poverty in the Twenty-First
Century." Demography 33:395412.
Massey, Douglas, Michael J. White, and Voon-Chin, Phua. 1996. The Dimensions of Segregation Revisited. Sociological Methods & Research 25(2): 172206.
Massey, Douglas and Nancy A. Denton. 1988. The Dimensions of Residential Segregation. Social Forces
67(2): 281315.
Mayer, Susan. 2002. How The Growth in Income Inequality Increased Economic Segregation. JCPR
Working Paper.
McClure, Kirk. 2010. Are Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Developments locating where there is a shortage of affordable units? Housing Policy Debate 20(2): 153171.
-----. 2008. Deconcentrating Poverty With Housing Programs, Journal of the American Planning Association 74(1):9099.
-----. 2012. "The Prospects for Guiding Housing Choice Voucher Households to High-Opportunity Neighborhoods," Cityscape 12(3):101122.
McCormick, Naomi J., Mark L. Joseph, and Robert J. Chaskin. 2012. The new stigma of relocated public
housing residents: Challenges to social identity in mixed-income developments. City and Community
11(3): 285308.
McFarlane, Alastair. 2009. Inclusionary Zoning and the Development of Urban Land. US Department of
Housing and Urban Development Working Paper.
McKinnish, T., Walsh, R., White, T.K., 2010. Who gentrifies low-income neighborhoods? J. Urban Econ.
67 (2), 180193.
Myers, Dowell, and Elizabeth Gearin. 2001. "Current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments." Housing Policy Debate 12(4): 633659.
Mollenkopf, John. 1983. The Contested City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Larson, Nicole I., Mary T. Story, and Melissa C. Nelson. 2009. Neighborhood Environments: Disparities
in Access to Healthy Foods in the U.S. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 36(1): 7481.
Lukas, Anthony. 1985. Common Ground: A Turbulent Decade in the Lives of Three American Families.
New York: Vintage Books.
Morello, C. and Ted Melnik. 2013. Washington: A World Apart. Washington Post, November 9, page A1.
Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2013/11/09/washington-a-world-apart/.
Mulroy, Elizabeth. 1991. Mixed-Income Housing in Action. Urban Land 50(5).
Muth, Richard. 1969. Cities and Housing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities. 2013. Social Dynamics in Mixed-Income Developments. Case Western Reserve University. http://blog.case.edu/nimc/2013/12/05/
State_of_the_Field_Scan_1_National_Initiative_on_Mixed-Income_Communities.pdf. Accessed December 19, 2013.

75

Nelson, Arthur C. 1999. "Comparing states with and without growth management analysis based on indicators with policy implications." Land Use Policy 16.2: 121127.
Nelson, Arthur C., et al. 2004."Urban containment and central-city revitalization." Journal of the American Planning Association 70.4: 411425.
Nelson, Arthur C., Rolf Pendall, Casey J. Dawkins, and Gerrit J. Knaap. 2004. The Link between Growth
Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence. In Anthony Downs, ed., Growth
Management and Affordable Housing: Do They Conflict? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press, 117158.
Nelson, Arthur C., and Terry Moore. 1993. "Assessing urban growth management: The case of Portland,
Oregon, the USA's largest urban growth boundary." Land Use Policy 10.4: 293302.
Newman, Kathe, and Elvin K. Wyly. 2006. "The right to stay put, revisited: gentrification and resistance
to displacement in New York City." Urban Studies 43.1: 2357.
Nyden, Philip, J Lukehard, M Maly, and W Peterman. 1998. "Neighborhood Racial and Ethnic Diversity in
US Cities." Cityscape 4.
Oliver, Eric. 1999. Economic Segregation and Civic Participation. American Journal of Political Science
43(1): 186212.
Orfield, Myron. 1997. Metropolitics: A regional agenda for community and stability. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
Orr, Larry, Judith D. Feins, Robin Jacob, Erik Beecroft, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, Lawrence F. Katz, Jeffrey B.
Liebman, and Jeffrey R. Kling. 2003. Moving to Opportunity Interim Impacts Evaluation. Washington,
DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Ostrom, Vincent, Robert Bish, and Elinor Ostrom. 1988. Local government in the United States. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
Parducci, A. 1995. Happiness, Pleasure, and Judgment - The Contextual Theory and Its Applications.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Parsons, K. C. 1990."Clarence Stein and the greenbelt towns settling for less." Journal of the American
Planning Association 56.2: 161183.
Pastor, Manuel Jr., Chris Benner, and Martha Matsuoka. 2009. This could be the start of something big:
How social movements for regional equity are reshaping metropolitan America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Pattillo, Mary. 2007. Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class in the City. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Pattillo-McCoy, Mary. 1999. Black Picket Fences: Privilege and Peril among the Black Middle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pendall, Rolf. 2000. Local Land-Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion. Journal of the American
Planning Association 66(2): 125142.
Pendall, Rolf. 2008. From Hurdles to Bridges: Local Land-Use Regulations and the Pursuit of Affordable
Rental Housing, in Nicolas Retsinas and Eric Belsky, Revisiting Rental Housing, pp. 224273. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

76

Pendall, Rolf, Robert Puentes, and Jonathan Martin. 2006. From Traditional to Reformed: A Review of
the Land Use Regulations in the Nations 50 Largest Metropolitan Areas. Brookings Institution Research Brief
Pendall, Rolf, William Fulton, and Jonathan Martin. 2002. Holding the Line: Urban Containment in the
United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Pendall, Rolf. 2000a. Local land-use regulation and the chain of exclusion. Journal of the American
Planning Association 66(2): 125142.
Pendall, Rolf. 2000b. Why voucher and certificate users live in distressed neighborhoods. Housing Policy Debate 11(4): 881910.
Pendall, Rolf, Elizabeth Davies, Lesley Freiman, and Rob Pitingolo. 2011. A Lost Decade: Neighborhood
Poverty and the Urban Crisis of the 2000s. Washington, DC: Joint Center for Political and Economic
Studies.
Pendall, Rolf, Juliet Gainsborough, Kate Lowe, and Mai Nguyen. 2012. Bringing Equity to TransitOriented Development: Stations, Systems, and Regional Resilience. In Margaret Weir, ed., Building
Resilient Regions: Urban and Regional Policy and its Effects, Volume 4, Brookings Institution Press.
Pendall, Rolf, Sandra Rosenbloom, Diane K. Levy, Elizabeth Oo, Gerrit Knaap, Arnab Chakraborty, and
Jason Sartori. 2013a. Can Federal Efforts Advance Federal and Local De-Siloing? Lessons from the
HUD-EPA-DOT Partnership for Sustainable Communities. Urban Institute:
http://www.urban.org/publications/412820.html
Pendall, Rolf and others. 2013b. Developing Choice Neighborhoods: An Early Look at Implementation in
Five Sites - Interim Report. US Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research.
Perry, Clarence. 1929. The Neighborhood Unit. In Neighborhood and Community Planning, Volume 7
(New York: Committee for the Regional Survey of New York and its Environs).
Peterson, Paul. 1981. City Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Pres.
Pettigrew, Thomas F. and Linda R. Tropp. 2000. "Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice: Recent Meta-Analytic Findings." in Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination, edited by S. Oskamp. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Piketty, Thomas and Emmanuel Saez. 2003. Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(1): 139.
Popkin, Susan J., Bruce Katz, Mary Cunningham, Karen D. Brown, Jeremy Gustafson, and Margery
Turner. 2004. A Decade of HOPE VI: Research Findings and Policy Challenges. Washington DC: Urban
Institute and Brookings Institution.
Popkin, Susan J., Diane K. Levy, Laura E. Harris, Jennifer Comey, Mary K. Cunningham, and Larry Buron.
2002. HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report: Final Report. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Popkin, Susan J., Larry Buron, Diane K. Levy, and Mary K. Cunningham. 2000. The Gautreaux Legacy:
What Might Mixed-Income and Dispersal Strategies Mean for the Poorest Public Housing Tenants.
Housing Policy Debate 11(4): 91142.
Porter, Douglas R. Inclusionary Zoning for Affordable Housing. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute,
2004.

77

Quillian, Lincoln. 1995. Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population Composition
and Anti-Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review 60:586611.
-----. 1996. Group Threat and Regional Change in Attitudes towards African Americans. American Journal of Sociology 102: 81660.
Quigley, John M. and Steven Raphael. 2008. Neighborhoods, Economic Self-Sufficiency, and the MTO
Program. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs: 146.
Rankin, Bruce and James Quane. 2000. "Neighborhood Poverty and the Social Isolation of Inner-City African American Families." Social Forces 79:139164.
Reardon, S. and K. Bischoff. 2011a. Income Inequality and Income Segregation. American Journal of
Sociology 116(4): 10921153.
Reardon, S. and K. Bischoff. 2011b. Growth in the Residential Segregation of Families by Income, 19702009. US2010 Research Brief, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Reardon, S. F., Firebaugh, G., OSullivan, D., & Matthews, S. 2006. A new approach to measuring sociospatial economic segregation. Paper presented at 29th general conference of the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, Joensuu, Finland.
Reich, Robert. 1991. Secession of the Successful, New York Times Magazine January 20. Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/20/magazine/secession-of-thesuccessful.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Rosenbaum, J., S. Popkin, J. Kaufman, and J. Rusin. 1991. Social Integration of Low-Income Black Adults
in White Middle-Class Suburbs. Social Problems 38(4): 44861.
Rosenbaum, James, E., Linda K. Stroh, and Cathy Flynn. 1998. Lake Parc Place: A Study of Mixed-income
Housing. Housing Policy Debate 9(4): 703740.
Rothwell, Jonathan T. "Racial enclaves and density zoning: the institutionalized segregation of racial minorities in the United States." American Law and Economics Review 13.1 (2011): 290358.
Ryan, Sherry, and Bridget Elaine Enderle. 2012. "Examining spatial patterns in affordable housing: the
case of California density bonus implementation." Journal of Housing and the Built Environment
27.4: 413425.
Ryan, William, Allan Sloan, Maria Seferi, Elaine Weberly. 1974. All In Together: An Evaluation of MixedIncome Multi-Family Housing. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency.
Sampson, Robert J. and Stephen Raudenbush. 1999. Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A
New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology 105: 603651.
Sampson, Robert J. and W.B. Groves. 1989. Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social Disorganization Theory. American Journal of Sociology 94:774802.
Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Felton Earls. 1999. Beyond Social Capital: Spatial Dynamics and Collective Efficacy for Children. American Sociological Review 64: 633660.
Schneider, Mark. 1989. The competitive city. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.
Schubert, F. Michael, and Alison Thresher. 1996. Lessons from the Field: Three Case Studies of MixedIncome Housing Development. Great Cities Institute. University of Illinois at Chicago.

78

Schuetz, Jenny, Rachel Meltzer, and Vicki Been. 2007. The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing Markets: Lessons from the San Francisco, Washington DC, and Suburban Boston Areas. Furman
Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. New York University.
Schwartz, Alex, and Kian Tajbakhsh. 1997. Mixed-Income Housing: Unanswered Questions. Cityscape
3(2): 7192.
Schwartz, Alex. 2010. Housing Policy in the United States. New York: Routledge.
Sharkey, Patrick. 2013. Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress Toward Racial
Equality. University of Chicago Press.
Shaw, Clifford and Henry McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Slavin, Robert and Robert Cooper. 1999. "Improving Intergroup Relations: Lessons Learned from Cooperative Learning Programs." Journal of Social Issues 55:647663.
Small, Mario L. 2004. Villa Victoria: The Transformation of Social Capital in a Boston Barrio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-----. 2009. Unanticipated Gains: Origins of Network Inequality in Everyday Life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Alastair. 2002. Mixed-Income Housing Developments: Promise and Reality. Cambridge, MA:
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.
Smith, David. A. 1999. Mark to market: A fundamental shift in affordable housing policy. Housing Policy
Debate 10(1): 143182.
Smith, Neil. 1996. The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city. Routledge.
South, Scott J., and Kyle D. Crowder. 1997. "Residential mobility between cities and suburbs: Race, suburbanization, and back-to-the-city moves." Demography 34.4 (1997): 525538.
Tach, Laura. 2009. More than Bricks and Mortar: Neighborhood Frames, Social Processes, and the
Mixed-Income Redevelopment of a Public Housing Project. City & Community 8(3): 273303.
-----. 2010. Beyond Concentrated Poverty: The Social and Temporal Dynamics of Mixed-Income Neighborhoods. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University.
-----. 2011. Imagined Communities, Contested Realities: How Stakeholders Understand and Negotiate
Space in Mixed-Income Developments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Urban Affairs
Association. March 16-19, 2011. New Orleans, LA.
-----. 2013. Mixed Income Community Dynamics: Five Insights from Ethnography. Evidence Matters
(Spring 2013). HUD PD&R.
Tatian, Peter, G. Thomas Kingsley, Joe Parilla, and Rolf Pendall. 2012. Building Successful Neighborhoods. Urban Institute, available: http://www.urban.org/publications/412557.html
Taylor, Marylee C. 1998. "How White Attitudes Vary with the Racial Composition of Local Populations:
Numbers Count." American Sociological Review 63:512535.
Tiebout, Charles. 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures." The Journal of Political Economy 64:416
426.

79

Turnham, J. C. Herbert, S. Nolden, J. Feins, and J. Bonjourni. 2004. Study of homebuyer activity through
HOME investment partnerships program. Washington DC: Abt Associates.
US Census Bureau, Governments Division. 2012. 2007 Census of Governments, Individual State Descriptions: 2007, Reissued November 2012. Washington, DC: Census Bureau.
http://www2.census.gov/govs/cog/isd_book.pdf
US Census. 2013. Current Population Survey Historical Income Tables. Table H-11, Size of Household by
Median and Mean Income. Machine-readable file downloaded by authors from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2012/H11AR_2012.xls on
November 15, 2013.
Vale, Lawrence. 2006. Reclaiming Public Housing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vigdor, Jacob. 2002. Does Gentrification Harm the Poor? Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs:
133182.
Vigdor, Jacob L. 2010. "Is urban decay bad? Is urban revitalization bad too?" Journal of Urban Economics
68.3: 277289.
Walker, C., P. Dommel, A. Bogdon, H. Hatry, P. Boxall, A. Abramson, R. Smith, and J. Silver. 1994. Federal
funds, local choices: An evaluation of the Community Development Block Grant Program. Washington DC: The Urban Institute.
Walker, C., C. Hayes, G. Galster, P. Boxall, and J. Johnson. 2002. The impact of CDBG spending on urban
neighborhoods. Washington DC: The Urban Institute.
Watson, Tara, 2009. Inequality and the Measurement of Residential Segregation by Income. Review of
Income and Wealth 55: 820844.
Wen, Ming, Christopher R. Browning, and Kathleen A. Cagney. 2003. Poverty, Affluence, and Income
Inequality: Neighborhood Economic Structure and Its Implications for Health. Social Science & Medicine 57(5): 843860.
Wheaton, William. 1977. Income and urban residence: An analysis of consumer demand for location.
American Economic Review 67, 62031.
Wheeler, Christopher and Elizabeth Jeunesse. 2006. "Neighborhood income inequality." FRB of St. Louis
Working Paper No. 2006-039B
Wilson, William Julius and Richard D. Taub. 2006. There Goes the Neighborhood: Racial, Ethnic, and
Class Tensions in Four Chicago Neighborhoods and their Meaning for America. New York: Alfred
Knopf.
Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yang, Rebecca and Paul A. Jargowsky. 2006. Suburban Development and Economic Segregation in the
1990s. Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 253273.

80

Table 1: Among-Tract and Among-Jurisdiction Income Inequality for the 50


Largest CBSAs, 2005- 2009

CBSA Name
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue
Louisville/Jefferson County
Indianapolis-Carmel
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano
Beach
Oklahoma City
San Antonio-New Braunfels
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria
St. Louis
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale
Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro-Franklin
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
Kansas City
Cincinnati-Middletown
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos
Pittsburgh

State
WA
KY-IN
IN
FL
OK
TX
CO
CA
FL
DC-VAMD-WV
MO-IL
CA
AZ
TN
CA
TX
MN-WI
TX
IL-IN-WI
CA
MO-KS
OH-KY-IN
OH
NC-SC
TX
PA

#
Tracts
664
267
315

# Jurisdictions
85
157
88

892
334
339
528
349
547

107
90
68
61
19
39

CBSA
2005/2009 Household
Population
Gini
3,306,836
0.453
1,235,476
0.460
1,695,807
0.459

AmongAmongJurisdictionTract
Jurisdiction Tract Gini
Gini
Gini
Ratio
0.201
0.250
1.248
0.235
0.287
1.223
0.242
0.277
1.147

5,484,777
1,191,174
1,979,686
2,398,156
1,784,130
2,702,390

0.491
0.467
0.475
0.463
0.448
0.466

0.276
0.256
0.248
0.249
0.207
0.212

0.310
0.287
0.273
0.270
0.223
0.222

1.124
1.123
1.102
1.082
1.076
1.047

1,016
551
2,631
696

117 5,332,297
305 2,803,776
124 12,800,000
37 4,151,634

0.437
0.462
0.483
0.459

0.249
0.246
0.277
0.253

0.257
0.250
0.267
0.242

1.033
1.016
0.964
0.956

267
871
895
746
1,046
2,057
587
516
486
696
267
256
721

71
70
149
254
245
411
52
201
182
155
65
61
460

0.469
0.469
0.483
0.446
0.471
0.471
0.451
0.452
0.464
0.473
0.471
0.467
0.470

0.263
0.254
0.294
0.218
0.286
0.283
0.209
0.271
0.240
0.294
0.266
0.264
0.235

0.249
0.240
0.278
0.200
0.259
0.253
0.178
0.229
0.203
0.247
0.223
0.219
0.191

0.946
0.946
0.945
0.921
0.904
0.895
0.849
0.848
0.845
0.840
0.836
0.829
0.813

1,520,649
4,218,534
5,595,262
3,202,412
6,144,234
9,461,816
4,022,939
2,013,797
2,140,796
2,101,821
1,641,257
1,589,393
2,360,259

81

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis
New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro
Detroit-Warren-Livonia
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy
Jacksonville
Birmingham-Hoover
Memphis
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta
Salt Lake City
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington
Dayton
Columbus
Richmond
Sacramento--Arden-Arcade-Roseville
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River
Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Baltimore-Towson
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford
Rochester
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport
News
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner
Las Vegas-Paradise

FL
CA
WI

2,023,605
2,987,543
1,546,312

0.455
0.464
0.460

0.219
0.241
0.276

0.174
0.188
0.214

0.796
0.781
0.777

4,507
426
1,292
924
201
226
285
690
205

435 18,900,000
73 2,163,436
192 4,452,548
205 4,513,934
23 1,294,684
104 1,112,213
57 1,287,231
179 5,238,994
32 1,090,416

0.491
0.458
0.469
0.468
0.457
0.479
0.483
0.465
0.442

0.298
0.193
0.270
0.235
0.212
0.261
0.303
0.249
0.213

0.231
0.149
0.206
0.174
0.157
0.192
0.222
0.180
0.149

0.773
0.773
0.764
0.740
0.738
0.736
0.735
0.722
0.703

1,473
208
385
277

378
65
156
36

5,910,593
839,359
1,758,531
1,209,484

0.475
0.456
0.462
0.457

0.276
0.206
0.268
0.248

0.188
0.135
0.170
0.151

0.682
0.657
0.634
0.607

CA
RI-MA
NY
MD

403
351
304
625

23
61
49
29

2,076,579
1,602,591
1,128,813
2,669,987

0.455
0.468
0.467
0.461

0.200
0.210
0.240
0.262

0.119
0.122
0.123
0.132

0.591
0.583
0.510
0.506

CT
NY

284
256

58
84

1,186,939
1,033,026

0.456
0.456

0.250
0.252

0.126
0.124

0.504
0.492

VA-NC
LA
NV

373
388
345

30
22
6

1,669,614
1,153,788
1,821,507

0.441
0.484
0.445

0.239
0.274
0.217

0.112
0.126
0.084

0.471
0.459
0.386

NY-NJ-PA
OR-WA
MI
MA-NH
FL
AL
TN-MS-AR
GA
UT
PA-NJ-DEMD
OH
OH
VA

328
605
418

40
19
96

Notes: Largest 50 CBSAs in 2005-2009 ACS, ranked with jurisdiction-tract Gini ratios from lowest to highest.
Higher jurisdiction-tract Gini ratios reflect income distributions more unevenly distributed among jurisdictions relative to tracts.
Lower jurisdiction-tract Gini ratios reflect income distributions more unequal within tracts rather than among jurisdictions.
Income measure is average household income.
The average household Gini coefficient for the US across the years 2005-2009 was 0.467.

82

Table 2: Among-Tract and Among-Jurisdiction Income Inequality for the


50 Largest CBSAs, 2000

CBSA Name
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
Louisville/Jefferson County
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano
Beach
San Antonio-New Braunfels
Indianapolis-Carmel
Salt Lake City
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
St. Louis
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro--Franklin
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington
Oklahoma City
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor
Pittsburgh
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos
Cincinnati-Middletown
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford

State
CA
KY-IN
WA
CO

#
Tracts
349
267
664
528

# Jurisdictions
19
165
84
57

2000 Population
1,735,819
1,161,975
3,043,878
2,157,756

CBSA
Household
Gini
0.443
0.449
0.443
0.444

FL
TX
IN
UT
CA
MO-IL
AZ

892
339
315
205
871
551
696

99
66
86
31
70
299
36

5,007,564
1,711,703
1,525,104
968,858
4,123,740
2,698,687
3,251,876

0.487
0.449
0.442
0.428
0.472
0.448
0.447

0.276
0.231
0.217
0.210
0.247
0.227
0.242

0.326
0.253
0.233
0.222
0.259
0.237
0.251

1.180
1.097
1.073
1.056
1.046
1.046
1.037

TN
MN-WI
OK
DC-VA-MDWV
CA
TX
IL-IN-WI
TX
OH
PA
CA
TX
OH-KY-IN
FL
FL

267
746
334

72
250
90

1,311,789
2,968,806
1,095,421

0.451
0.434
0.441

0.229
0.208
0.231

0.229
0.202
0.223

1.003
0.972
0.968

117 4,796,183
123 12,400,000
144 4,715,407
399 9,098,316
233 5,161,544
147 2,148,143
461 2,431,087
50 3,254,821
54 1,249,763
182 2,009,632
39 2,395,997
40 1,644,561

0.443
0.487
0.469
0.463
0.458
0.456
0.456
0.445
0.457
0.453
0.450
0.439

0.241
0.272
0.262
0.262
0.263
0.273
0.218
0.198
0.253
0.221
0.198
0.208

0.233
0.259
0.249
0.248
0.236
0.241
0.192
0.174
0.222
0.193
0.170
0.178

0.966
0.955
0.949
0.946
0.899
0.882
0.880
0.878
0.878
0.874
0.863
0.857

1,016
2,631
895
2,057
1,046
696
721
587
256
486
547
328

AmongTract Gini
0.191
0.217
0.190
0.236

AmongJurisdictionJurisdiction Tract Gini


Gini
Ratio
0.240
1.254
0.267
1.229
0.234
1.226
0.280
1.186

83

Kansas City
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro
New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
Detroit-Warren-Livonia
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy
Memphis
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
Birmingham-Hoover
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington
Columbus
Dayton
Sacramento--Arden-Arcade-Roseville
Jacksonville
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River
Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Richmond
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford
Rochester
Baltimore-Towson
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport
News
Las Vegas-Paradise

MO-KS
OR-WA

1,836,038
1,927,881

0.438
0.436

0.250
0.177

0.212
0.149

0.851
0.844

4,507
418
267
1,292
924
285
605
226
690

435 18,300,000
96 1,500,741
60 1,330,448
190 4,452,557
201 4,391,344
56 1,205,204
19 2,813,833
99 1,052,238
177 4,247,981

0.498
0.444
0.452
0.457
0.471
0.469
0.461
0.472
0.452

0.284
0.260
0.235
0.243
0.231
0.265
0.241
0.237
0.232

0.231
0.211
0.187
0.191
0.180
0.204
0.183
0.176
0.165

0.812
0.810
0.796
0.784
0.780
0.770
0.758
0.742
0.713

1,473
385
208

378
153
65

5,687,147
1,612,694
848,153

0.466
0.442
0.436

0.252
0.231
0.194

0.177
0.158
0.133

0.705
0.686
0.684

CA
FL
RI-MA
NY
VA

403
201
351
304
277

21
22
61
49
36

1,796,857
1,122,750
1,582,997
1,170,111
1,096,957

0.447
0.443
0.459
0.446
0.443

0.195
0.204
0.206
0.215
0.224

0.126
0.130
0.121
0.123
0.123

0.647
0.636
0.586
0.573
0.546

CT
NY
MD
LA

284
256
625
388

58
84
29
22

1,148,618
1,037,831
2,552,994
1,316,510

0.452
0.442
0.455
0.480

0.228
0.233
0.243
0.252

0.120
0.122
0.125
0.109

0.527
0.524
0.513
0.434

VA-NC
NV

373
345

30
6

1,576,370
1,375,765

0.424
0.435

0.225
0.209

0.088
0.062

0.393
0.299

NY-NJ-PA
WI
NC-SC
MI
MA-NH
TN-MS-AR
CA
AL
GA
PA-NJ-DEMD
OH
OH

516
426

198
71

Notes: Largest 50 CBSAs in 2000, ranked with jurisdiction-tract Gini ratios from lowest to highest.
Higher jurisdiction-tract Gini ratios reflect income distributions more unevenly distributed among jurisdictions relative to tracts.
Lower jurisdiction-tract Gini ratios reflect income distributions more unequal within tracts rather than among jurisdictions.
Income measure is average household income.
1999 household income Gini coefficient for the US was 0.458.

84

Table 3: Among-Tract- and Among-Jurisdiction Income Inequality for the


50 Largest CBSAs, 1990

CBSA Name
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue
Louisville/Jefferson County
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
Indianapolis-Carmel
San Antonio-New Braunfels
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano
Beach
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater
St. Louis
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro-Franklin
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington
Oklahoma City
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria
Kansas City
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
Cincinnati-Middletown
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos
Pittsburgh
New York-Northern New Jersey-

State
WA
KY-IN
CA
IN
TX

#
Tracts
664
267
349
315
339

# Jurisdictions
70
167
19
85
62

1990 Population
2,559,163
1,055,972
1,534,273
1,294,217
1,407,743

CBSA
Household
Gini
0.413
0.441
0.396
0.421
0.453

FL
CO
FL
MO-IL
AZ
CA
CA

892
528
547
551
696
587
871

94
55
39
292
35
45
69

4,056,100
1,650,489
2,067,963
2,580,901
2,238,480
2,588,786
3,686,592

0.464
0.429
0.439
0.431
0.436
0.422
0.427

0.270
0.236
0.199
0.228
0.260
0.182
0.241

0.340
0.288
0.229
0.257
0.278
0.193
0.253

1.260
1.221
1.153
1.128
1.067
1.062
1.047

267
746
334
2,631
328
895
2,057

67 1,048,175
250 2,538,831
88
971,042
117 11,300,000
40 1,224,851
143 3,767,463
381 8,182,079

0.439
0.408
0.438
0.444
0.422
0.452
0.433

0.227
0.199
0.237
0.267
0.197
0.265
0.271

0.237
0.202
0.237
0.262
0.192
0.257
0.260

1.045
1.016
1.000
0.981
0.974
0.971
0.957

1,016
516
1,046
486
256
721
4,507

116 4,122,582
196 1,636,527
228 3,989,291
182 1,844,793
49
846,162
461 2,468,289
433 16,800,000

0.394
0.426
0.435
0.438
0.454
0.448
0.461

0.223
0.263
0.267
0.231
0.243
0.221
0.271

0.205
0.236
0.232
0.199
0.209
0.189
0.225

0.919
0.899
0.867
0.864
0.859
0.855
0.828

TN
MN-WI
OK
CA
FL
TX
IL-IN-WI
DC-VA-MDWV
MO-KS
TX
OH-KY-IN
TX
PA
NY-NJ-PA

AmongAmongJurisdictionTract
Jurisdiction Tract Gini
Gini
Gini
Ratio
0.175
0.248
1.418
0.224
0.312
1.394
0.185
0.245
1.325
0.225
0.293
1.303
0.243
0.307
1.265

85

Long Island
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro
Detroit-Warren-Livonia
Memphis
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis
Salt Lake City
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
Birmingham-Hoover
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
Columbus
Jacksonville
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta
Dayton
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River
Buffalo-Niagara Falls
Rochester
Baltimore-Towson
Sacramento--Arden-Arcade-Roseville
Richmond
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport
News
Las Vegas-Paradise

OR-WA
MI
TN-MS-AR
PA-NJ-DEMD
OH
MA-NH
WI
UT
NC-SC
AL
CA
OH
FL
GA
OH
RI-MA
NY
NY
MD

426
1,292
285

71
186
56

1,523,738
4,248,698
1,067,263

0.423
0.441
0.465

0.182
0.257
0.288

0.147
0.207
0.230

0.810
0.805
0.797

1,473
696
924
418
205
267
226
605
385
201
690
208
351
304
256
625

378
140
197
94
28
55
94
19
147
22
175
61
59
47
81
29

5,435,553
2,102,168
4,133,897
1,432,149
768,076
1,024,291
956,843
2,498,012
1,405,169
925,214
3,069,427
843,952
1,509,789
1,189,287
1,002,408
2,382,508

0.433
0.442
0.431
0.420
0.417
0.427
0.463
0.429
0.428
0.431
0.428
0.424
0.432
0.438
0.421
0.424

0.242
0.281
0.208
0.254
0.210
0.214
0.239
0.235
0.229
0.208
0.234
0.208
0.180
0.219
0.216
0.231

0.190
0.221
0.160
0.195
0.155
0.153
0.169
0.164
0.144
0.131
0.147
0.124
0.103
0.121
0.118
0.126

0.785
0.784
0.772
0.767
0.739
0.718
0.706
0.696
0.631
0.631
0.628
0.600
0.574
0.553
0.546
0.545

CA
VA

403
277

20
36

1,481,807
949,246

0.424
0.423

0.201
0.230

0.108
0.121

0.535
0.524

CT
LA

284
388

57
22

1,123,678
1,264,392

0.411
0.478

0.208
0.270

0.103
0.124

0.496
0.460

VA-NC
NV

373
345

30
6

1,449,388
741,457

0.414
0.424

0.213
0.325

0.095
0.086

0.446
0.265

Notes: Largest 50 CBSAs in 1990, ranked with jurisdiction-tract Gini ratios from highest to lowest.
Higher jurisdiction-tract Gini ratios reflect income distributions more unevenly distributed among jurisdictions relative to tracts.
Lower jurisdiction-tract Gini ratios reflect income distributions more unequal within tracts rather than among jurisdictions.
Income measure is average household income. 1989 household income Gini coefficient for the US was 0.431.

86

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Christine Cherdboonmuang
Bolotina, Olga; Kalb, Dan
garciamonica; Michael Katz; Samantha Liapes
Thank you + E. 12th community benefits critique and demands attached
Thursday, April 30, 2015 1:29:12 PM
E. 12th CB Concerns letter to AG FINAL.pdf

Dear Councilmember Kalb and Olga,


Thank you for meeting with us yesterday and sharing your insights with us. Per your
request, I am attaching the memo that we had given to Abel when we met with him
on Monday, that includes our critique of the latest draft of CB's, as well as our
updated demands. We appreciate you talking to Abel this week, and we will update
you about any positive progress on our end as well. It sounds like Jeffrey at EBHO
had a good conversation with you yesterday as well. We also want to re-iterate that
we will continue to push Councilmember Guillen to make firm motions in council on
behalf of real community benefits from this parcel--which will include reappraisal
plus the demands outlined in our memo, and that in addition to the motions he
makes, any additional motions and comments you make will boost his position and
the will of other councilmembers to weigh in. He will also very likely benefit from
any advice you may be able to give him about how you were able to advocate with
your colleagues on council to pass the Tenant Protections ordinance.
Thank you again for your leadership on tenants' rights and development without
displacement in Oakland.
Take care,
Christine

(FYI I am representing Eastlake United for Justice and not EBASE when I
am working on this project, but since you asked for my card, here is my
EBASE contact info for reference on future projects:
christine@workingeastbay.org, 510-893-7106, x303)

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:

Darline Mix
Kalb, Dan; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Reid, Larry; Brooks, Desley; At
Large; Kaplan, Rebecca; Guillen, Abel; Office of the Mayor; DL - City Council; staff@ebho.org;
elakeunited@gmail.com; editor@eastbayexpress.com
Urban Core Proposed Lake Merritt Development, File PLN 14 - 266
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 4:34:00 PM

On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 3:54 PM, Darline Mix <de.louise@att.net> wrote:

Dear City Council Members:


Below is a copy of my letter sent to the full council, mayor, city administrator, and
planning, Neil Gray of April 7, 2015.
Mr. Gray:
As you are aware at the April 1, 2015 planning commission meeting the
above referenced development was 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 12th 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 bya majorityof 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 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 as open 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 estuaryto the lake, (as the City
petitioned The State Land Commission) was to be (and was) dedicated
and deeded to the people in perpetuity as open space "park land".
Clearly, the parcel in question along with the adjacent parcels was to be

developed as a park, planted with lawn, trees, shrubs, and paved walking
paths were likewise installed. It was maintained as a park and remained
as such (over 40 years) untilthe 12th Street reconfiguration and
expressway in 1951 which swallowed up,the entire parcel. Likewise, with
the OUSDAdministration Building, which should have never been
erectedon that "open space" parcel, but nevertheless it remains in the
public domain. However, with the School District's recent RFP, that parcel
is no doubt the next battle.
Unarguably, the recent completion of the 12th Street project did not
create a new parcel nor create a surplusparcel - it simply removed the
roadway created in 1951 returning the parcel to its original intent,
(purpose of purchase) an open space park. Without question, it must now
be graded and planted to bring it back to its original state and intent.
Unfortunately this issue is not new. I raised it several times at various DD
coalition meetings in the past and with Joel Peters (DD project director)
and most recently, at the first public meeting conducted by the developer
in 2013, but to no avail. The City indeed has a very bad habit of ignoring
that which it does not wish to deal with.
The question here and now (as noted above) is WHY? Why is the history
of this parcel not being properly nor honestly exposed? Why have you
and the Planning Department purposely provided to the public a "false"
record and account of this parcel - clearly, you and the City Council are
engaged in fraud and deceit.
David E. Mix
Additional comments:

Unfortunately, with the exception of Mr. Gray, no one has bothered to respond to my
inquiry and unfortunately his response simply put the onus on the City surveyor.
Most Council members I spoke with claimed no knowledge of my letter nor of the
claims made therein. Hence, why it is being re-sent to you now. As an observation it
is difficult to understand how you can vote on an issue without being completely
informed.
Neither was this issue (land use restriction) presented at the April 14th CEDA
meeting by the Planning Dept. or any of the Council Members on the committee.
In a short conversation with Patrick Lane yesterday he claims the City Attorney has
looked into it, but has not rendered any type of written opinion or comment. This
matter clearly deserves a complete analysis and writtenopinion. The City Council
simply may not vote to sell this parcel without first determining whether it has a
legal right to do so and verifyinga "clear title" to the land.

Lastly and most importantly, there is absolutely no reason to sell this parcel for
housing. As indicated in the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan there are several other
very suitable sites for housing - market rate or low income. There clearly is no
shortage of buildablelots for this area - this begs the question, why is this developer
so fixated on this particular public parcel. Further, neithercan the City show a need
for the $5 million when it is presently waisting $5.9 million for new (totally unneeded)
parking meters in Montclair, replacing the recently installed kiosks.
David E. Mix .

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

qilo matzen
Kalb, Dan
Vote NO on East 12th st parcel
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:23:01 AM

Dear Dan 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! ($3,000+ average rents for 1-bedroooms)
This development will 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 use this public land to help keep long-term Oakland citizens in
Oakland and not for some developers private profit.
Sincerely,
Qilo Matzen
-**********************************
Qilo Matzen, CMT
Hendrickson Method (R) Therapist
ky-lo mat-zen
510.
qilomatzen@gmail.com
qilomatzen.massagetherapy.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

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

William Threlfall
Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid,
Larry; At Large; Office of the Mayor
Yes on 25% of of "remainder parcel" land sale proceeds for Measure DD maintenance
Monday, April 27, 2015 1:21:54 PM

This is a brief note from an Oakland citizen urging the Council and Mayor to support the
CED Committee recommendation to dedicate 25% of the "remainder parcel" land
sale proceeds to a fund devoted to maintenance of Measure DD improvements
around Lake Merritt.
Measure DD has markedly improved Lake Merritt, and with it, our city's image. But as a
capital bond, it has no provision for maintenance of the improvements, many of which are
at risk of embarrassing decline as the assets are turned over to the City by the
contractors.
The sale of the "remainder parcel" offers a long-envisioned means to provide support for
maintenance. The "remainder parcel" is a project of Measure DD's signature 12th Street
project and was included in CALM's 2001 proposal selected in response to the City's RFP,
in the section titled: "Creation of New Marketable Parcel and Approximate Value". That
section specifically mentioned that the sale of the development parcel could be put back
into the Measure DD project.
Please support the CED Committee recommendation.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Lee Aurich
Kalb, Dan
YES: Dedicate 25% of sale of "remainder parcel" to a maintenance fund for Lake Merritt"s Measure DD
improvements
Thursday, April 23, 2015 9:36:13 AM

Dan,
At the May 5th Council Meeting is the proposed sale of a remainder parcel" on the south-west side of
Lake Merritt to be used for high-rise housing.
I strongly support the Councils CED Committee recommendation to dedicate 25% of the land sales
proceeds to a fund devoted to the maintenance of the Measure DD improvements around Oaklands
crown-jewel: Lake Merritt.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lee Aurich
Oakland resident

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Mary Ellen Navas


Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; McElhaney, Lynette; Campbell Washington, Annie; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid,
Larry; At Large
Office of the Mayor
your decision...please make Lake Merritt Maintenance a Priority
Monday, April 27, 2015 9:12:47 PM

Dear Oakland City Council,


This week you have the opportunity to make a decision that will protect the investments made via
Measure DD. The money that can be set aside to maintain the landscaping of Measure DD, 25% of the
$5.1 million sales price of the new parcel created by the road realignment as a part of the 12th Street
Project, is urgently needed to prevent the investment from going to waste.
I ask that you vote to allow that money to contribute to the maintenance of the landscaping of Measure
DD. Please make Lake Merritt a priority. We volunteers are fighting a losing battle as we try to keep
up with the maintenance of a well loved and well used new park. The dedicated labor to care for the
entire Lake is only one and a half FTEs. There were twelve FTEs in the recent past. The jewel of
Oakland really requires on-going labor to take care of the green space and gardens.
Weed Warriors is a community effort to address the need around the lake. Another group headed by
Joel Peters (alias Sam Merritt) is aimed specifically at the tidal march between Lake Merritt and the
estuary. Neither can possibly do what dedicated workers can. That is what is needed, and I believe
what your constituents would want you to support. Lake Merritt increases the value of real estate in
Oakland and add immeasurably to the quality of life here.
We volunteers will persist but we need the City to step up for the investment youve made and to
protect the asset of Lake Merritt.
Thank you,
Mary Ellen Navas
Oakland, CA 94612
District 3
(510)