HuiChang Li Emails Part 3.3.2 PDF

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Michael E. Johnson
Gray, Neil D.
Manasse, Edward; Li, Hui Chang; Mike Pyatok; Ronnie Turner; John Given
Re: meeting w Planning before Oct 28th?
Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:07:04 AM
Neil, glad to hear this. We will keep on working to make it a successful project. Thx,
Michael
Michael E. Johnson
President
UrbanCore-Integral, LLC
457 10th Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 748-2300 - Cell
(415) 553-4022 - Office
On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:33 AM, "Gray, Neil D." <NGray@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hi,
I showed Ed Manasse the plans and he is also very happy about the revised massing.
Thanks for such a great response to our input.
--Neil
____________________
Neil Gray, Planner III
Planning and Zoning
City of Oakland
(510)238-3878
From: Michael Johnson [mailto:mjohnson@urbancorellc.com]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 7:25 PM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Cc: Mike Pyatok; Gray, Neil D.; Ronnie Turner; Faye Paulson; John Given
Subject: Re: meeting w Planning before Oct 28th?
Hui Chang and Neil: I thought we had a good meeting. We are

glad you like the direction of the revised elevations which are
still a work in progress. See the attached as requested. Also
we have attached the Unit Mix and Site information you
requested. Hope to see you at the Community Meeting on
Monday Oct. 28th. Regards, Michael
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Li, Hui Chang <HLi@oaklandnet.com>
wrote:
Thanks for the preview today.
As a follow-up, is it possible to email to me a PDF of the latest drawings you showed
us today?
Also, just to reiterate, please get back to Neil for his zoning analysis:
-
calculation of open space
total parcel area
parking spaces
# of units and by type
I will check in again after your Nov 4th meeting with Tim White to arrange the
meeting Gregory asked for re: presenting to us your ideas for the potential use of the
adjacent OUSD site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hui-Chang Li
Urban Economic Analyst
Office of Neighborhood Investment

City of Oakland
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 5313
Oakland CA 94612
Tel 510-238-6239
From: Li, Hui Chang

Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 5:33 PM
To: 'Mike Pyatok'; Michael Johnson
Cc: Gray, Neil D.; Ronnie Turner
Subject: RE: meeting w Planning before Oct 28th?
OK, Monday, Oct 21st 1:30pm 3:00pm it is. Come to the Dunsmuir Room on the
5 th floor of 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza. Neil Gray (Planner III assigned to this project)
and I will be there. I have also invited others to join this meeting.
Just FYI, here are the contact info and roles of the other staff I invited to this meeting
(all who were present at our last meeting except Rachel).
Christina Ferracane
Planner II
(Planner assigned to Lake Merritt Station Area Plan)
cferracane@oaklandnet.com
(510) 238-3903
Edward Manasse
emanasse@oaklandnet.com
Manager, Planning Department
(510) 238-7733
Rachel Flynn
Director, Planning and Building
rflynn@oaklandnet.com
(510) 238-2229
Patrick Lane
Redevelopment Manager
pslane@oaklandnet.com
(510) 238-7362
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hui-Chang Li

City of Oakland
Oakland CA 94612
Tel 510-238-6239
From: Mike Pyatok [mailto:mpyatok@pyatok.com]

To: Michael Johnson
Cc: Li, Hui Chang; Mike Pyatok; Gray, Neil D.; Ronnie Turner
I can do this Monday 1:30-3:00.

Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 16, 2013, at 5:02 PM, "Michael Johnson"
<mjohnson@urbancorellc.com> wrote:
I can do Monday Oct. 21st at 1:30pm - 3:00pm or

Tuesday at 10:30am. Let me know. Thanks
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Li, Hui Chang

<HLi@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, 10:30am - 12:00noon on Oct 21st doesnt work for Neil
but we are available for that same time on Tuesday. Or Monday 10/21
1:30pm 3pm or 4pm 5pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hui-Chang Li

City of Oakland
Oakland CA 94612
Tel 510-238-6239
To: Mike Pyatok
Cc: Li, Hui Chang; Gray, Neil D.
All, I could to Monday Oct 21st from 10:30am 12:00noon, or Tuesday morning same time. Thanks,
Michael
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Mike Pyatok

<mpyatok@pyatok.com> wrote:
Monday 10:30-12 or in the afternoon 2-6.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 16, 2013, at 4:05 PM, "Michael E. Johnson"
<mjohnson@urbancorellc.com> wrote:
Yes we can. Per this email I'm asking Mike when he
could join me to review it with your team next week.
Mike? Thx
Michael E. Johnson
President
457 10th Street
(415) 748-2300 - Cell
(415) 553-4022 - Office
On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:52 PM, "Li, Hui Chang"
Michael,
Since you mentioned to me your team has
made changes to the towers design
following Planning staffs feedback, could
we schedule a time for you to show us what
you came up with prior to the community
meeting?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hui-Chang Li
City of Oakland
Oakland CA 94612
Tel 510-238-6239
_____________________________________________
From: Gray, Neil D.
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013
11:01 AM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Subject: RE: UrbanCore-Integral's 1st
Community Meeting for 12th St Parcel
Is there any way we can look at them
sooner than the meeting?
____________________
Planning and Zoning
City of Oakland
(510)238-3878
_____________________________________________
From: Li, Hui Chang
10:55 AM
To: Gray, Neil D.
Subject: RE: UrbanCore-Integral's 1st
Community Meeting for 12th St Parcel
Hi Neil, I just wanted to let you know that
the Developer has made changes to their
design based on their meeting with
us/Planning Staff. I have not seen this yet
but they said they have showed it to CALM
and will be showcasing it at this community
meeting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hui-Chang Li
City of Oakland
Oakland CA 94612
Tel 510-238-6239
-----Original Appointment----From: Gray, Neil D.
10:38 AM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Subject: Tentative: UrbanCoreIntegral's 1st Community Meeting for
12th St Parcel
When: Monday, October 28, 2013 6:30
PM-8:30 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time
(US & Canada).
Where: 1050 2nd Street, Oakland, CA:
La Escuelita Elementary School,
Cafeteria
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Li, Hui Chang

Gerard, Jennie; Guillen, Abel
RE: Michael finds this acceptable: Final Section 21 of DDA Term Sheet
Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:30:00 AM
OK, I will incude

_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li
CITY OF OAKLAND, Economic & Workforce Development Department

Project Implementation Division
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Ste. 5313, Oakland CA 94612

Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691
From: Gerard, Jennie [mailto:JGerard@oaklandnet.com]

Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:30 AM
To: Guillen, Abel
Cc: Li, Hui Chang
Subject: Michael finds this acceptable: Final Section 21 of DDA Term Sheet
See your language, which Michael has agreed to.

Jennie Gerard, Chief of Staff
Oakland District 2 Councilmember Abel Guillen
510.238.7023 (direct)
510.238.7002 (District Office)
In the office Monday - Thursday

To: Gerard, Jennie
Cc: Guillen, Abel
Subject: Re: FW: Final Section 21 of DDA Term Sheet
That is agreeable. Thanks

_______________________
Michael E. Johnson, President
UrbanCore Development, LLC
4096 Piedmont Avenue
Suite 313
Oakland, CA 94611
c: (415) 748-2300
e: mjohnson@urbancorellc.com
www.urbancorellc.com
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Gerard, Jennie <JGerard@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Michael,
Here is language acceptable to Abel, which builds on your suggestion of leaving the funding
in escrow until the skate board park project is ready to move forward. Our language removes
references to matching funding since we dont have a bid now, and it makes clear what the
back-up plan for the funding is in the event that the skate board park project doesnt move
forward.
At the time of transfer of the property, developer will fund at least $150,000 into escrow
towards the construction of a skate board park on existing publicly-owned property in
Council District 2, such as at San Antonio Park. If the remaining funds necessary for the
development of the skate board park are not available at the time of transfer, the developer's
funds will remain in escrow until all the skate board park funding is available. Should the
skate board park project not go forward during the DDA period, the $150,000 will be
distributed to organizations that already are recipients of these community benefits, as
decided by the District 2 Councilmember.
510.238.7023 (direct)

To: Gerard, Jennie
Cc: Li, Hui Chang; Guillen, Abel; Lane, Patrick
Subject: Re: Final Section 21 of DDA Term Sheet
Jennie, see revision as we discussed:

At the time of transfer of the property, developer will fund at least
$150,000 into escrow towards the construction of the skate board park
on exisiting publicly-owned property in Council District 2, such as at San
Antonion Park. If the matching funds are not available at the time
transfer the developer's funds will remain in escrow until the matching
funds are available, or refunded to the developer if they do not become
available during the duration of the DDA.
Thanks, Michael
_______________________
Suite 313
Oakland, CA 94611
c: (415) 748-2300
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Michael Johnson <mjohnson@urbancorellc.com> wrote:
Jennie, all we are trying to do is make sure that our funding is matched
by the rest of the funds needed to complete the project. So let's agree
on some language that acknowledges what Abel is doing...that all we are
asking to do.
Please confirm. Thanks, Michael
_______________________
Suite 313
Oakland, CA 94611
c: (415) 748-2300
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Gerard, Jennie <JGerard@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hello Hui Chang,
Michaels proposed additional language regarding the skate park funding is not acceptable to
Abel, who is lining up additional funding now. Abel expects to be ready to move ahead with
approvals to build the park when the developers funding becomes available in 2016.
510.238.7023 (direct)
From: Li, Hui Chang

To: Gerard, Jennie; Lane, Patrick
Cc: Michael Johnson; Guillen, Abel
Subject: RE: Final Section 21 of DDA Term Sheet
All,
Regarding the timing of the skate park funding, are we OK with adding this
additional language that Michael is requesting to the community benefits list:
If the balance of the funds to complete the skate park have not been identified at
time of property transfer, developers funds will come at a later date when the funds
have been identified.
Jennie, please confirm by 11am. Otherwise, I will not include it.
Thank you,
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li Urban Economic Analyst

Fax: 510.238.3691
Tel: 510.238.6239
From: Gerard, Jennie [mailto:JGerard@oaklandnet.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:42 PM
To: Li, Hui Chang; Lane, Patrick
Cc: Michael Johnson; Guillen, Abel
Subject: Final Section 21 of DDA Term Sheet
Hui Chang and Patrick,

Attached is the final version of the Section 21 of the DDA Term Sheet. Michael Johnson has
reviewed it and his edits have been incorporated into this version, fyi.
510.238.7023 (direct)
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Michael Johnson
Li, Hui Chang
RE: Next steps & Community Benefit Asks - 12th St Remainder
Monday, July 28, 2014 3:04:11 PM
Next couple of days. Thanks

__________________________
Michael E. Johnson
President & CEO
UrbanCore Development
457 10th Street
(415) 748-2300
mjohnson@urbancorellc.com
On Jul 28, 2014 2:09 PM, "Li, Hui Chang" <HLi@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
August 4 th is fine.
Yes, I will keep you in loop and will circle back re: items raised by constituents.
When will updated ENA be signed?
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691

Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 9:36 AM
To: Li, Hui Chang

Subject: Re: Next steps & Community Benefit Asks - 12th St Remainder
Hui Chang, thanks for your email and the information provided. We will
continue to monitor and review these items and discuss them with staff.
In the meantime, I wanted to let you know that my architecture team
needs a few more days for our submittal, so instead of July 31st it will
be Monday August 4th. They are taking into account the various
comments and suggestions from the recent meetings in revisions in this
package, as well as refining the elevations to create an attractive
package for submittal. Let me know if this is ok. Also following this
submittal we can discuss the timing of the next Community Meeting and
the forum for such. Thanks, Michael
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Li, Hui Chang <HLi@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hi Michael,
The report out to the Measure DD Coalition meeting Monday night went well. Here is
link a to meeting minutes, FYI, and also attached is written report from the
subcommittee of our 7/17 meeting. While there were no additional comments on the
design, do take note of the community benefit asks on the last page from Meas DD
group. In addition, a letter from the Oakland Tenant Union has come to my attention
(also attached).
In summary, OTU is asking the City to prohibit accruing "condominium conversion

credits" on this project (that a Developer would normally be allowed under the Citys
condo conversion ordinance if project is condo-mapped and rented out for the first 7
years) and a requirement that all tenants be notified at the beginning of tenancy that
the units are subject to being sold at any time at the owner's discretion. (The latter
point is not reflected in the attached letter but Mr. Vann elaborated on this in
subsequent emails to me).
Just to be clear, I am simply forwarding these letters to you right now as an FYI so
you are kept in the loop. I am not asking for a response from you at this point or
stating a City position. I will need to first coordinate the relevant City staff to meet
internally to consider and discuss the issues raised.
In terms of next steps, per ENA:

1. Updated project designs and applicable zoning applications due to Planning next
week, 7/31 (I will remind relevant City staff to send any comments on the 7/15
drawings before then).
2. We need to start planning the next Community Meeting, setting time, place and
outreach, which I will f/u on in a separate email
Thank you,
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Estes, Lesley
"Ronnie Turner"
Li, Hui Chang
RE: November 18 Measure DD Coalition meeting
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:13:49 PM
Hi Ronnie,
The coalition would like a ten or fifteen minute PowerPoint presentation with
an additional 15 minutes for questions and discussion. We can put you early in
the agenda. The meeting starts at 7:10 pm and is held at the Lakeside Park
garden center on Bellevue. The coalition
(http://www.waterfrontaction.org/dd/dd_orgs.htm) is comprised of lead
members of community oragnizations including CALM, Waterfront Action, East
Bay Bicycle Coalition, Lake Merritt Institute and others. Typically about 20
people attend.
Lesley Estes
Watershed and Stormwater Management
Department of Engineering
City of Oakland | Public Works Agency | APWA Accredited Agency
250 Frank Ogawa Plaza Suite 4314 | Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-7431 | (510) 238-7227 Fax
lestes@oaklandnet.com
Report A Problem | Public Works Agency Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app: SeeClickFix
><((((> . .`.. ><((((>

From: Ronnie Turner [mailto:rtdevelops@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:14 AM
To: Estes, Lesley
Subject: November 18 Measure DD Coalition meeting
Leslie,
I am reaching out to get a better understanding of what is expected of the Urban Core 12th
Street/Lake Merritt Boulevard development team for the scheduled meeting of Nov. 18. We have
been told that we will need to present the 12 th Street project, and we wanted to know how much
time we should prepare for our presentation? Thanks
Ronnie M. Turner, President
TURNER DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE GROUP

4100 Redwood Road, Suite 170
Oakland, CA 94619
510.395.2766 Direct
510.250.0853 Fax
www.TurnerDevelopmentRG.com
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Li, Hui Chang

"Kirsty Greer"; Michael Johnson (mjohnson@urbancorellc.com); Ronnie Turner (rtdevelops@comcast.net); Brad
Flewellen (bflewellen@urbancorellc.com); Merlin Edwards (meko11@pacbell.net)
RE: now online - 12th DDA staff report to City Council - for CED on 4/14
Friday, April 03, 2015 1:58:00 PM
Thats right. This is just a request to City Council for authorization to City Administration/staff to
negotiate a DDA with UrbanCore, based mostly on the DDA term sheet that we have agreed to so
far.
The City Attorneys Office is drafting the actually DDA documents to be executed, including the
Completion Guaranty, the Parks Maintenance Agreement, and the Easement.
I am being told that the possible community benefits we are still negotiating on will have to be
included in the first draft of the DDA we send to you for review.
So, I do not know when we can get you a first draft, although, Ive communicated to the City
Attorneys Office our target date of May 5th for a final draft ready for execution and our desire to
build in enough time for legal review and comments on both sides.
Thanks,
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691
From: Kirsty Greer [mailto:kgreer@udr.com]

Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 11:40 AM
To: Li, Hui Chang; Michael Johnson (mjohnson@urbancorellc.com); Ronnie Turner
(rtdevelops@comcast.net); Brad Flewellen (bflewellen@urbancorellc.com); Merlin Edwards
(meko11@pacbell.net)
Subject: RE: now online - 12th DDA staff report to City Council - for CED on 4/14
Thanks, Hui-Chang. Just to clarify, this is not the actual DDA, correct? Do we know when well have
the draft of that?
Thank you,
KIRSTY GREER
Director, Development
UDR, INC.
1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 200
Highlands Ranch, CO 80129
(O) 720.348.7605
(M) 347.404.2082
kgreer@udr.com
www.UDR.com
From: Li, Hui Chang [mailto:HLi@oaklandnet.com]

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 7:42 PM
To: Michael Johnson (mjohnson@urbancorellc.com); Kirsty Greer; Ronnie Turner
(rtdevelops@comcast.net); Brad Flewellen (bflewellen@urbancorellc.com); Merlin Edwards
(meko11@pacbell.net)
Subject: now online - 12th DDA staff report to City Council - for CED on 4/14
FYI
https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2241058&GUID=8E7C6511-37BE-468BBF93-100DB8D8A70D&Options=&Search=
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Michael Johnson
Gray, Neil D.
Flynn, Rachel; Lane, Patrick; Li, Hui Chang; Ronnie Turner; Merlin Edwards
RE: Oakland Planning Commissioners
Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:36:52 PM
Ok. Glad we have 4 left. So we need 3 votes out of 4.

Rachel, see you at 11:45am tomorrow with the UDR folks that will be in town. Thx,
MJ
_____________________________
Michael E.Johnson, President
Suite 313
Oakland, CA 94611
c: (415) 748-2300 mjohnson@urbancorellc.com
On Mar 17, 2015 4:19 PM, "Gray, Neil D." <NGray@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hi,
As far as we know, only Jahaziel Bonilla, Chris Patillo, and Negraj Adhi are recusing themselves.
--Neil
Neil Gray, Planner III | City of Oakland | Bureau of Planning | 250 Frank H. Ogawa, Suite 2114
|Oakland, CA 94612 | Phone: (510)238-3878 | Fax: (510) 238-4730 | Email: ngray@oaklandnet.com |
Website: www.oaklandnet.com/planning

Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 2:44 PM
To: Gray, Neil D.
Cc: Flynn, Rachel; Lane, Patrick; Li, Hui Chang; Merlin Edwards; Ronnie Turner
Subject: Oakland Planning Commissioners
Neil, we have now met with all the OP Commissioners. We had good
briefings with them all. Can you confirm the status of who is going to
recuse themselves or not. We have heard from them that Chris and
Adhi were not going to participate. Then we heard that Jahaziel and
Emily might also? We don't see any reason why Jahaziel and Emily
would have to. Please confirm this with your other associates as this is
important to know how many are going to deliberate and vote. Thanks,
Michael
_______________________
Suite 313
Oakland, CA 94611
c: (415) 748-2300
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Gray, Neil D.
Michael Johnson
Flynn, Rachel; Lane, Patrick; Li, Hui Chang; Merlin Edwards; Ronnie Turner
Hi,
As far as we know, only Jahaziel Bonilla, Chris Patillo, and Negraj Adhi are recusing themselves.
--Neil

To: Gray, Neil D.
recuse themselves or not. We have heard from them that Chris and Adhi
were not going to participate. Then we heard that Jahaziel and Emily
might also? We don't see any reason why Jahaziel and Emily would have
to. Please confirm this with your other associates as this is important to
know how many are going to deliberate and vote. Thanks, Michael
_______________________
Suite 313
Oakland, CA 94611
c: (415) 748-2300
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Flynn, Rachel
Michael Johnson; Gray, Neil D.
Lane, Patrick; Li, Hui Chang; Merlin Edwards; Ronnie Turner
Michael Jahaziel lives within 500 of your project (at 1200 Lakeshore). The Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC) prohibits public officials from participating in public decision making if they own
or lease a property within 500 of the project under consideration.
To: Gray, Neil D.
recuse themselves or not. We have heard from them that Chris and Adhi
were not going to participate. Then we heard that Jahaziel and Emily
might also? We don't see any reason why Jahaziel and Emily would have
to. Please confirm this with your other associates as this is important to
know how many are going to deliberate and vote. Thanks, Michael
_______________________
Suite 313
Oakland, CA 94611
c: (415) 748-2300
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Michael E. Johnson
Li, Hui Chang
Re: outreach list
Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:48:47 AM
I think that would be good to have so we can send them a notice of the mtg. Thx
Michael E. Johnson
President
457 10th Street
(415) 748-2300 - Cell
(415) 553-4022 - Office
On Aug 20, 2013, at 11:11 AM, "Li, Hui Chang" <HLi@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Michael,
Would you be interested a list of property owners (and mailing addresses) within a
certain buffer around the site? If so, I could help get that generated for you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hui-Chang Li

City of Oakland
Oakland CA 94612
Tel 510-238-6239
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Li, Hui Chang

"Michael Johnson"
Faye Paulson; Mike Pyatok; "Merlin Edwards"; Crystal Beverly; Ronnie Turner
RE: Parcel Map
Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:27:00 PM
Michael,
Im out of the office next week and return in the new year on the 2nd. I think it would be a good idea to check in the week of January 6th on the schedule, design, project status, etc..
Lets figure out a time do you want to come in to my office for a meeting, morning of January 10th, 2014? Or let me know what you had in mind.
Separately, I will send an email with a working schedule for our ENA, updated based on the approach we talked about taking for this projects CEQA approval.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hui-Chang Li

City of Oakland
Oakland CA 94612
Tel 510-238-6239
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 8:52 PM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Cc: Faye Paulson; Mike Pyatok; 'Merlin Edwards'; Crystal Beverly; Ronnie Turner
Subject: Re: Parcel Map
Thanks. If you are around next week let's discuss the schedule, design and project status. Thanks, Michael
_______________________
Michael E. Johnson
President & CEO
457 10th Street
(415) 748-2300
On Dec 18, 2013 5:49 PM, "Li, Hui Chang" <HLi@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Attached is a PDF the recorded parcel map of 12 th St Remainder your records.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hui-Chang Li

City of Oakland
Oakland CA 94612
Tel 510-238-6239
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Lane, Patrick
Michael Katz
Li, Hui Chang
RE: Parcel Question
Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:39:00 PM
image001.png
We had an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Urban Core. The term was just completed
but the project still does not have entitlements or CEQA review from Planning because of delays in
approving the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan. We expect the project to complete entitlement in the
next couple months and then the City can approve the Disposition and Development Agreement.
Hui Chang Li is the project manager so if you have more questions contact her.
Patrick Lane [mailto:pslane@oaklandnet.com]
Development Manager, City Of Oakland
Economic & Workforce Development Department
Oakland CA 94612
tel (510) 238-7362
fax (510) 238-3691
From: Michael Katz [mailto:mkatz.eastbayworks@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:12 PM
To: Lane, Patrick
Subject: Parcel Question
Hi PatrickI work in the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (3rd floor). I was speaking
with Kelley Kahn at an event last week and she suggested you would could help me with
some background information on a parcel that may or may not still be city owned.
The parcel in question is the 12th Street site at Lake Marritt Blvd. across from the lake and
adjacent to the Dewey School campus.
I was unable to pull any documentation from the county recorder's office and hoping you
might have the following:
What is the city's current relationship to that parcel?
If the city no longer owns the site, who does?
Has the developer secured financing for their proposed project?
Is there a window of time the developer has in which to secure funding before the site
returns to the city or goes back on the market?
Thank you for your assistance!
Best,
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Katz
Regional Coordinator
250 Frank Ogawa Plaza Suite 3315

Oakland, CA 94612
C: 510-205-5902
O: 510-238-6152
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Gray, Neil D.
Li, Hui Chang
RE: Pending projects
Tuesday, November 05, 2013 12:01:32 PM
Yes, they should contact me regarding a pre-application submittal.

--Neil
____________________
Planning and Zoning
City of Oakland
(510)238-3878
From: Li, Hui Chang
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 4:31 PM
To: Gray, Neil D.
Subject: RE: Pending projects
They have not asked for pre-application meeting? What process do you recommend? Should they
just contact you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hui-Chang Li

City of Oakland
Oakland CA 94612
Tel 510-238-6239
From: Gray, Neil D.

Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:30 AM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Hi Hui-Chang,
Have the applicants applied for a preapplication meeting yet? An submittal is required prior to us
providing environmental review.
--Neil
____________________
Planning and Zoning
City of Oakland
(510)238-3878
From: Li, Hui Chang

To: Ranelletti, Darin; Ferracane, Christina
Cc: Gray, Neil D.
Right now, 247 units.

See attached
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hui-Chang Li

City of Oakland
Oakland CA 94612
Tel 510-238-6239
From: Ranelletti, Darin

To: Ferracane, Christina
Cc: Gray, Neil D.; Li, Hui Chang
Thanks Christina. How many units does the Lake Merritt Specific Plan envision for the project on the
BART site?
Darin
_______________________________
Darin Ranelletti, Planner III
City of Oakland
Planning and Zoning Division
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 238-3663
Fax (510) 238-6538
dranelletti@oaklandnet.com
www.oaklandnet.com/planning
From: Ferracane, Christina
To: Ranelletti, Darin
Cc: Gray, Neil D.; Li, Hui Chang
My additions are in blue.

*Neil and Hui Chang, Ive copied you because I included info on Lake Merritt Blvd Apts.
Christina Ferracane, Strategic Planning Division

City of Oakland | Planning, Building and Neighborhood Preservation
250 Frank H Ogawa Plaza, Ste 3315 | Oakland, CA 94612
T: (510) 238-3903 | Fax: (510) 238-6538 | cferracane@oaklandnet.com
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 4:27 PM
To: Brenyah-Addow, Maurice; Payne, Catherine; Warner, Lynn; Thornton, Elois; Ferracane, Christina;
Gray, Neil D.; Merkamp, Robert; Vollmann, Peterson; Klein, Heather
Subject: Pending projects
Hi all,
Rachel has asked me to compile information on the number of residential units and status for a
variety of active projects she has heard about recently. The project list from Rachel is below. I have
tried my best to provide information, where I can, from PTS and the Major Projects List (which
hasnt been updated since May 2013). I have highlighted the projects in red that need info and have
tried to identify the planner who might have information. Can you review the list and let me know if
you have any information for the red projects or other projects on the list or missing from the list? If
you could get back to me by Monday, thatd be great. (Sorry for the short notice.)
1. High and MacArthur 115 units, approved by Planning Commission, under appeal to City
Council
2. Emerald Views 370 units, under review
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
39 th and Adeline (Protopappas) 100 units, approved, no building permit

Campbell St. (Protopappas) 92 units (conversion), under construction
Wood Street Studios [158 units?; no information available] Maurice?
The Hive Catherine?
Brooklyn Basin 3,100 units, master plan approved, no building permits
Oak Knoll 960 units, no approvals yet
Jack London Square Catherine?
Produce Mart Catherine?
Masri site development concept still being discussed; no submittal yet
Tom P. / Simi [?, no information]
Sears [no information]
Uptown Parcel 4 Catherine?
Shorenstein (City Center) Lynn?
1900 Broadway 294 units, under review
Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center [no information]
MacArthur BART Transit Village 624 units, phase 1 under construction
California Hotel 137 units (conversion), under construction
West Oakland BART RFP Elois?
Chinatown/Lake Merritt BART Christina?
RFQ for developer consultant issued was issued a couple years ago, several applied, selected
group was on board for a while, then bowed out (second choice also declined) RFQ/RFP
process is now on hold
BART is doing studies with EPS to understand infrastructure, financial feasibility of
development
BART is interested in discussing with the City and the community the possibility of relocating
Madison Square Park (and redeveloping that block instead of their headquarters block)
22. 29 th & Telegraph (formerly Courthouse Condos) Maurice?
23. 51 st & Telegraph (formerly Civiq and Creekside) revisions to previous approvals,
development concept still being discussed, roughly 150-200 units
24. 460 Grand 68 units, approved, building permit to issued Dec. 2013
25. Measure DD leftover parcel (southeast of Lake Merritt) Name? Neil?
Neil is project planner, but they have not yet submit any permit applications (not even PreApp)
Hui-Chang Li is the ONI staff coordinating the ENA with Urban Core (developer), Pyatok are
the architects
Current proposal here (see most recent docs): \\Ceda-server3\zoning\Strategic
Planning\Lake Merritt BART Station Area Plan\02_Background\Lake Merritt Blvd Apartments
26. 1100 Jackson (EBALDC)
Entitled for development
Latest info here: \\Ceda-server3\zoning\Strategic Planning\Lake Merritt BART Station Area
Plan\02_Background\1100 Jackson (EBALDC) charrette intro + drawings 09-12-13.pdf
Thanks,
Darin
_______________________________
Darin Ranelletti, Planner III
City of Oakland
Planning and Zoning Division
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 238-3663
Fax (510) 238-6538
dranelletti@oaklandnet.com
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Li, Hui Chang

"Karen Kunze"
Merkamp, Robert; Guillen, Abel; Gray, Neil D.
RE: PLN 14-266 Lake Merritt Blvd and 12th Street Development
Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:51:00 AM
RFP 12th St Remainder Parcel Dec 2012.pdf
Hello Ms. Kunze,

Sorry for this delayed response.
Please see page 5 of the RFP that describes the Evaluation Criteria for selection of developer.
Best,
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691
From: Karen Kunze [mailto:kunzerow@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 7:34 AM
To: Gray, Neil D.
Cc: Li, Hui Chang; Merkamp, Robert; Guillen, Abel
Subject: Re: PLN 14-266 Lake Merritt Blvd and 12th Street Development
I wanted to get this brief response off to you before the weekend. I will try to send a more
complete response on Sunday.
* I will forward the email I sent to the developers.
* Please seriously consider changing the time of day this matter is heard. I like many of the
residents in our building am 60 + and no longer able to drive. Being downtown that late at
night is a risk most of us are unwilling to take.
* how can a building that probably has the highest residencial density in the city, be
considered infill?
* what criteria did the city council use in selecting the three developers to bid on this
building?
More later.
Thanks so much
Karen Kunze
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Gray, Neil D. <NGray@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hello Ms. Kruze:
I am sorry about the inconvenience of the cancelled item and the agenda for April 1st. I have ccd
Robert Merkamp, the staff member who organizes the Planning Commission agenda, on this email.
Below are my responses to your questions.
1. Why were there only two developers considered for the right to develop this city parcel?
Please contact Hui Chiang Li, the project manager and ccd on this email, regarding this
issue.
2. Why has this significant project by-passed design review prior to going to the planning
commission? The project is required to receive Design Review approval from the Planning
Commission after a recommendation from Staff. Staff could have referred the project to a 3person subcommittee of the Planning Commission called the Design Review Committee, but
the chair of the committee would have had to recused herself and staff is generally satified
with the proposed design. There is no statutory requirement for a project to be presented to
the Design Review Committee.
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?
Attachment D of the Lake Merritt Boulevard Categorical Exemption Memorandum
(Attachment B in the staff report) is a transportation assessment of the project. A link to the
Staff Report, including the attachments, are on this page.
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? Soil, geotechnical, and
engineering studies will be presented to the City with the Building Permit application. The
City will review the building permit application to assure the project is consistent with all of
the relevant building codes, including current seismic and geotechnical standards.
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? I do not know who you
petitioned. Can you give me a name so I can check?
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? The TDM is a condition of approval that is required before the City issues a
building permit. Conditions of approval require staff review for completeness and are not
normally publicly noticed. Note that the applicant will have to pay an in-lieu fee of $20,000
per parking space below the minimum required and the money would be required to be
invested back into the Lake Merritt Specific Plan Area.
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. Are the units condos or rental? If they are
condos and within 300 feet of the project, then they are legally required to be noticed. Is
there a place in the lobby to pin up a flyer?
Hope these answer your questions sufficiently. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any
questions,
--Neil
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Michael Johnson
Li, Hui Chang
Re: Project Schedule for DDA
Monday, February 23, 2015 5:29:04 PM
Ok will do tonight. Thx

_____________________________
Michael E.Johnson, President
Oakland, CA 94611
c: (415) 748-2300 mjohnson@urbancorellc.com
On Feb 23, 2015 5:18 PM, "Li, Hui Chang" <HLi@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
The formatting in last email was weird. Just respond to this email. Thanks.
Milestone
1. Developer submits 2
years of audited financial
statements for each
principal and joint venture
partner
2. Developer submits
updated and refined
Project Proforma
(Development Budget &
Operating Cash Flow)
Financial Plan, especially
evidence of funds for land
acquisition and preconstruction costs.
4. Conveyance/ Close of
Escrow
5.
Developer submits
# of months
after City
approval of
DDA
Date assuming
DDA approval
on April 21,
2015
June 22, 2015
2
June 22, 2015
2
June 22, 2015
2
on or by June
30 th,
June 30, 2015
2015
July 22, 2015
Construction PreApplication and draft

Compliance Matrix to
Bureau of Building
Construction Permit
Application to Bureau of
Building
7. Developer receives
approved Construction
Permits
8. Developer finalizes
Project Financing:
construction financing,
permanent financing, and
other sources
January 22,
2016
9
12
April 22, 2016
12
October 22,
9. Commence
Construction (within 6
months after
Construction Permits
received)
10. If applicable, Developer

implements environmental
clean-up and/or other (on
and off) site mitigations
11. Complete Construction
( 30 month max period.)
April 22, 2016
2016
18
21
48
January 22,
2017
April 22, 2017
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Michael Johnson
Li, Hui Chang
Re: proposed relocation of storm drain
Friday, May 02, 2014 9:18:10 PM
Ok. Our plan is to relocate the sewer as needed to potentially accommodate parking
under the park. But we are evaluating several options regarding parking even still. More
to come. Thanks
_____________________________
Michael E. Johnson
President & CEO
457 10th Street
(4150 748-2300
mjohnson@urbancorellc.com
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Li, Hui Chang <HLi@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Thanks, Michael. All the forthcoming info sounds great, but for now I was just wanting
confirmation, for my own understanding, that what you are proposing is to hook into
the existing storm drain and to relocate the existing pipes?? This is not something
weve talked about before so I am just needing to get clear first before I start
coordinating internally on the City side, if necessary.
I am hoping to confirm May 9 th meeting before end of day but the problem is it is hard
to get on the City attorneys calendar and she really should be there if we are take this
time to also review the CEQA scope
more soon,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hui-Chang Li

City of Oakland
Oakland CA 94612
Tel 510-238-6239

Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 11:01 AM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Cc: Mike Pyatok; Doug Austin; Brad Flewellen; Ronnie Turner
Subject: Re: proposed relocation of storm drain
Hui Chang, we are underway with a detailed topo, boundary and utility survey.
We have asked the surveyor to include the entire area outside the site down to the
Estuary where the expansion of garage and the park will be located. We will be
evaluating the storm sewer to determine what is necessary and possible. This is a
part of our current schematic design work. So we will have more info on this in
the coming weeks. Thanks and please confirm the May 9th mtg. Michael
_______________________
Michael E. Johnson
President & CEO
457 10th Street
(415) 748-2300
On May 2, 2014 1:54 PM, "Li, Hui Chang" <HLi@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hi Michael, Michael and Doug,
Quick questions for you while I am waiting to get our next meeting set up
I am trying to understand what you are proposing re: the relocation of the storm drain.
Are you proposing to hook into the existing storm drain and relocate the pipes? It looks
to me like the proposed relocation of the assumed location of existing pipes is to allow
the building additional underground parking space (167 parking spots:343 units or .48).
Is that correct? Please clarify.
I am trying to get clarification from you so I can find out:

1)re: capacity, is the proposed relocation physically feasible/possible
2)what is the cost 3)what is City process to grant permission for such an endeavor
4)verification of actual location of pipes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hui-Chang Li

City of Oakland
Oakland CA 94612
Tel 510-238-6239
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Gray, Neil D.
Stanley, Jennifer
Li, Hui Chang
RE: Public Meeting for Proposed Housing Development-1/20
Monday, January 12, 2015 4:01:50 PM
Hi,
Sorry, I misread the email. I thought that the meeting below was the BPAC meeting. You should contact Hui Chang (ccd here) to
discuss whether taking the project to the BPAC is necessary. Hui Chang is the project manager in redevelopment.
--Neil
Neil Gray, Planner III | City of Oakland | Bureau of Planning | 250 Frank H. Ogawa, Suite 2114 |Oakland, CA 94612 | Phone: (510)238-3878 |
Fax: (510) 238-4730 | Email: ngray@oaklandnet.com | Website: www.oaklandnet.com/planning
From: Stanley, Jennifer

Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 3:58 PM
To: Gray, Neil D.
Subject: RE: Public Meeting for Proposed Housing Development-1/20
Hi Neil,
Please give me any idea of when it is timely to bring this to BPAC so I can determine whether there is time available.
Thanks!
Jennifer Stanley
City of Oakland | Public Works | APWA Accredited Agency
250 Frank H Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4344 | Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-3983 | (510) 290-2790 cell | bikeped@oaklandnet.com
From: Gray, Neil D.

Cc: Stanley, Jennifer; Manasse, Edward
Hi,
I was already planning on going because of the Lake Merritt Blvd project.

To: Stanley, Jennifer; Manasse, Edward; Gray, Neil D.
Subject: FW: Public Meeting for Proposed Housing Development-1/20
Ed: Is anyone being appointed to represent the Planning Dept. at BPAC meetings during Christinas absence (see below)?
Jennifer & Neil: I am forwarding this to Neil (via this email) since he is the case planner for the Lake Merritt project so that you two can
discuss if the project is going to BPAC.
Thanks,
Darin
Darin Ranelletti, Deputy Director | City of Oakland | Bureau of Planning | 250 Frank H. Ogawa, Suite 3315 | Oakland, CA 94612 | Phone:
(510) 238-3663 | Fax: (510) 238-6538 | Email: dranelletti@oaklandnet.com | Website: www.oaklandnet.com/planning

Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 11:13 AM
Hi Darin,
Can you tell me who (if anyone) is covering for Ms Ferracane while shes away? Thx,
Jennifer Stanley
From: Patton, Jason

To: Stanley, Jennifer
Discuss with Christina on how to handle it. Shes the BPAC point person for the Planning Dept.
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 9:47 AM
To: Patton, Jason
Thoughts on how to handle this?

From: prinz.ebbc@gmail.com [mailto:prinz.ebbc@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Prinz
Subject: Re: Public Meeting for Proposed Housing Development-1/20
Hi Jennifer,
Can you tell me if the attached development project at Lake Merritt Blvd and E 12th St will be coming to the BPAC for
review? If not then it seems like it would be a good one add to a future agenda.
Thanks,
Robert Prinz
Education Director
Bike East Bay
**************************
Bike East Bay Office: 466 Water Street in Oakland's Jack London Square
Mail: PO Box 1736, Oakland, CA 94604
Telephone: (510) 845-RIDE (7433), ext 2
**************************
Click here to join Bike East Bay as a member! Support our advocacy work while getting great incentives and discounts at
local bike shops and businesses.
**************************
Bike East Bay has moved! We are still at Jack London Square in Oakland, just a block from our former office. Click here for
a map showing how to find us.
From: Lake Merritt Station Area Plan <L2@oaklandnet.com>

Date: Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:20 PM
Subject: Public Meeting for Proposed Housing Development-1/20
To: lake_merritt_plan@oaklandnet.com
--Robert
Subject:
Date:
RE: Public Meeting for Proposed Housing Development-1/20

Tuesday, January 13, 2015 4:31:18 PM
FYI Neil, I talked to Jennifer about this. The next opportunity to present at BPAC would be February 19th but that agenda is looking
full.
In addition to the community meeting the developer is hosting on 1/20, the park plan related to this project is going before the PRAC
on 2/11 and then to Planning Commission on 3/18, which are opportunities for BPAC commissioners to weigh in on project.
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691
From: Gray, Neil D.

Cc: Li, Hui Chang
Hi,
Sorry, I misread the email. I thought that the meeting below was the BPAC meeting. You should contact Hui Chang (ccd here) to
discuss whether taking the project to the BPAC is necessary. Hui Chang is the project manager in redevelopment.
--Neil

To: Gray, Neil D.
Hi Neil,
Please give me any idea of when it is timely to bring this to BPAC so I can determine whether there is time available.
Thanks!
Jennifer Stanley
From: Gray, Neil D.

Cc: Stanley, Jennifer; Manasse, Edward
Hi,
I was already planning on going because of the Lake Merritt Blvd project.

To: Stanley, Jennifer; Manasse, Edward; Gray, Neil D.
Ed: Is anyone being appointed to represent the Planning Dept. at BPAC meetings during Christinas absence (see below)?
Jennifer & Neil: I am forwarding this to Neil (via this email) since he is the case planner for the Lake Merritt project so that you two can
discuss if the project is going to BPAC.
Thanks,
Darin
Darin Ranelletti, Deputy Director | City of Oakland | Bureau of Planning | 250 Frank H. Ogawa, Suite 3315 | Oakland, CA 94612 | Phone:
(510) 238-3663 | Fax: (510) 238-6538 | Email: dranelletti@oaklandnet.com | Website: www.oaklandnet.com/planning

Hi Darin,
Can you tell me who (if anyone) is covering for Ms Ferracane while shes away? Thx,
Jennifer Stanley
From: Patton, Jason

Discuss with Christina on how to handle it. Shes the BPAC point person for the Planning Dept.
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 9:47 AM
To: Patton, Jason
Thoughts on how to handle this?

From: prinz.ebbc@gmail.com [mailto:prinz.ebbc@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Prinz
Subject: Re: Public Meeting for Proposed Housing Development-1/20
Hi Jennifer,
Can you tell me if the attached development project at Lake Merritt Blvd and E 12th St will be coming to the BPAC for
review? If not then it seems like it would be a good one add to a future agenda.
Thanks,
Robert Prinz
Education Director
Bike East Bay
**************************
Bike East Bay Office: 466 Water Street in Oakland's Jack London Square
Mail: PO Box 1736, Oakland, CA 94604

Telephone: (510) 845-RIDE (7433), ext 2
**************************
Click here to join Bike East Bay as a member! Support our advocacy work while getting great incentives and discounts at
local bike shops and businesses.
**************************
Bike East Bay has moved! We are still at Jack London Square in Oakland, just a block from our former office. Click here for
a map showing how to find us.
From: Lake Merritt Station Area Plan <L2@oaklandnet.com>

Date: Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:20 PM
Subject: Public Meeting for Proposed Housing Development-1/20
To: lake_merritt_plan@oaklandnet.com
--Robert
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Lane, Patrick
Li, Hui Chang; Gerard, Jennie
RE: Question - please answer by noon on Thurs
Wednesday, February 18, 2015 6:31:25 PM
In 2011 the City decided to sell the property to the Redevelopment Agency for future development.
The property transferred to the in June 2011.
In 2012, while the Agency was waiting for the Measure DD work to be completed and the final
parcel to be surveyed, making the site ready for development, the Agency received a couple
unsolicited letters of interest.
In late 2012 the Agency was asked to get more formal proposals and issued a mini-RFP to the
interested parties. By the time the ENA was approved in July 2013, the City was expecting the sale
price to be clawed back by the State Controller under the dissolution of redevelopment. The ENA
was therefore executed by the City Of Oakland
The FY 2013-15 Budget, approved in June 2013, included $4 million in land sales proceeds. The only
property held by the City that could generate the sales proceeds is the 12 th Street Remainder.
Oakland CA 94612
tel (510) 238-7362
fax (510) 238-3691
From: Li, Hui Chang
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 4:59 PM
To: Lane, Patrick; Gerard, Jennie
Subject: RE: Question - please answer by noon on Thurs
Patrick,
How would you answer Jennies question?
I would say that the decision to sell 12th St Remainder at FMV was made by the City
Administrator for City budgetary reasons in 2012. The money from the sale of this land was
anticipated to be at least $4 million in revenue for the 2013-15 budget (to the general fund).
The decision was later approved by the City Council in Dec 2012 when they first approved the
RFP process and then again in July 2013 when UrbanCore was selected for the ENA.
Patrick, please let us know if you have anything to add to this.
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li

Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691
From: Gerard, Jennie

Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 4:13 PM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Subject: Question - please answer by noon on Thurs
Hi Hui Chang,
CM Guillen is meeting at 1:00 pm on Thurs with some of the folks who oppose the Lake
Merritt Blvd Tower project. He may be asked when the decision was made to sell the parcel
at FMV, and who made it. Please refresh my memory if you can respond before the meeting.
That would be helpful if the question comes up. Thank you.
510.238.7023 (direct)
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Li, Hui Chang

Lane, Patrick
Flynn, Rachel
RE: Reply & Request re Response Letter Regarding the Lake Merritt Blvd "Remainder Parcel"
Monday, November 17, 2014 5:01:00 PM
Letter to James Vann Measure DD Nov 2014.doc
Patrick,
Can you sign attached letter in response to Measure DD Coalition group? It is pretty much the
same letter that went out to Oakland Tenants Union, except I added a City response to a fourth
concern raised regarding the wind and shadow studies that the DD Coalition group wants done.
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691
From: Li, Hui Chang

Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 4:48 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Cc: Lane, Patrick
Subject: RE: Reply & Request re Response Letter Regarding the Lake Merritt Blvd "Remainder Parcel"
Yes, will do.

_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691
From: Flynn, Rachel

Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 2:51 PM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Cc: Lane, Patrick
Subject: FW: Reply & Request re Response Letter Regarding the Lake Merritt Blvd "Remainder Parcel"
Hi Hui Chang and Patrick Can you handle this request? Thanks so much, Rachel
From: jamesevann@aol.com [mailto:jamesevann@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 11:24 AM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Cc: Cowan, Richard; Quan, Jean; Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Reply & Request re Response Letter Regarding the Lake Merritt Blvd "Remainder Parcel"
Good morning, Hui,

Your reply and the attached letter of Director Flynn are received and are much appreciated on
conveying the desired outcome relating to our varied requests.
Especial thanks and appreciation to Director Flynn and Planning Manager Patrick Lane for their
cooperative consideration.
Director Flynn's 30 October letter is addressed to Oakland Tenants Union, certainly one of the
concerned and requesting organizations. The initial requests, however, relating to the "remainder
parcel" were submitted 21 May & 21 July by the Measure DD Community Coalition, the City-ordained
organization charged with monitoring and oversight of DD projects.
Accordingly, it is requested that the same letter (with minor revisions as appropriate) be transmitted to
the DD Coalition for the Coalition's records, as followup and response to the initial request and report of
DD's appointed "Subcommittee on the Lake Merritt Boulevard Remainder Parcel"
The transmittal can be addressed to:
Subcommittee on Lake Merritt Boulevard Remainder Parcel
Measure DD Community Coalition
via:
William Threlfall, DD Coordinator wthrelfall@pacbell.net
with Copies to the Subcommittee:
Naomi Schiff,
Naomi@17th.com
Joel Peter,
joelpeter88@gmail.com
James E Vann jamesevann@aol.com
Many thanks,
James E Vann,
for the Meas DD Subcommittee
Hi James,
See attached the letter from Rachel Flynn in response to your e-mail below dated
September 10, 2014 and your letter dated April 16, 2014.
_____________________________________________
Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Li, Hui Chang

"wthrelfall@pacbell.net"
"Naomi@17th.com"; "jamesevann@aol.com"; "joelpeter88@gmail.com"; Flynn, Rachel; Lane, Patrick; Estes,
Lesley
RE: Reply & Request re Response Letter Regarding the Lake Merritt Blvd "Remainder Parcel"
Tuesday, November 18, 2014 10:38:00 AM
Letter to James Vann Measure DD Nov 18 2014 SIGNED.pdf
DD letters re E 12th St parcel Oct 30, Jul 21, May 21 2014.pdf
To: Subcommittee on Lake Merritt Boulevard Remainder Parcel

Attn: William Threlfall, DD Coordinator
Please see attached letter from Patrick Lane, Acting Manager of Project Implementation Division, as a
follow-up and response to the initial request and report of DD's appointed "Subcommittee on the Lake
Merritt Boulevard Remainder Parcel"
Thank you,
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691

Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 11:24 AM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Cc: Cowan, Richard; Quan, Jean; Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Reply & Request re Response Letter Regarding the Lake Merritt Blvd "Remainder Parcel"
Good morning, Hui,
Your reply and the attached letter of Director Flynn are received and are much appreciated on
conveying the desired outcome relating to our varied requests.
Especial thanks and appreciation to Director Flynn and Planning Manager Patrick Lane for their
cooperative consideration.
Director Flynn's 30 October letter is addressed to Oakland Tenants Union, certainly one of the
concerned and requesting organizations. The initial requests, however, relating to the "remainder
parcel" were submitted 21 May & 21 July by the Measure DD Community Coalition, the City-ordained
organization charged with monitoring and oversight of DD projects.
Accordingly, it is requested that the same letter (with minor revisions as appropriate) be transmitted to
the DD Coalition for the Coalition's records, as followup and response to the initial request and report of
DD's appointed "Subcommittee on the Lake Merritt Boulevard Remainder Parcel"
The transmittal can be addressed to:
Subcommittee on Lake Merritt Boulevard Remainder Parcel
via:
William Threlfall, DD Coordinator wthrelfall@pacbell.net
with Copies to the Subcommittee:

Naomi Schiff,
Naomi@17th.com
Joel Peter,
joelpeter88@gmail.com
James E Vann jamesevann@aol.com
Many thanks,
James E Vann,
for the Meas DD Subcommittee
Hi James,
See attached the letter from Rachel Flynn in response to your e-mail below dated
September 10, 2014 and your letter dated April 16, 2014.
_____________________________________________
Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
jamesevann@aol.com
Li, Hui Chang
Re: Report of 7/17 Meeting of Meas DD Subcommittee with Developer on LM Blvd "Remainder Parcel"
Saturday, July 26, 2014 1:12:03 AM
Hui,
As a heads-up, I was among a group of tenant activists invited to meet today (Friday morning) with
Mayor Quan on her present initiative dealing with seismic retrofit of residential buildings.
At the end of the meeting, I asked the Mayor and Richard Cowan, Chief of Staff, if the office had
looked into the "remainder parcel" matter as delineated in the April 16 letter from Oakland Tenants
Union. I told Richard there have been recent communications with the City Project Manager (you) on
the matter. Richard asked that I forward copies of the communications, which I did earlier today.
james
OK. Thank you.

_____________________________________________
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
jamesevann@aol.com
Li, Hui Chang
Friday, July 25, 2014 8:11:34 AM
Hui Chang,
I confirm that your interpretation of the two "asks" of the tenant community (ineligibility for condo
conversion credits & advance notification to tenants that developer's option to revert to condos may be
exercised at any time at the option of developer), and the "ask" of the Measure DD Coalition (for some
offering of "community benefits") is correct.
One additional comment where the tenant community's position appears may still be unclear: You
write: "... the City is placing restrictions on the project to keep the project affordable (e.g. limiting
condo conversion which would remove affordable rental units from the market). In these
development deals, the City may or may not own the land to be sold/developed but there is a clear
City subsidy for affordable housing." Over and above very real and significant moral and ethical
considerations, the tenant community is convinced and strongly contends that the tremendous material
and financial investment of the City (and the community in passing the DD Bond Measure) for creation
of the "remainder parcel" far exceed any "appraisal valuation" of the parcel, and literally amount to a
"clear City subsidy" -- the basis of contention that this development should be determined "ineligible to
accrue condominium conversion credits."
As the project manager for the "remainder parcel" development, we are pleased that you are aware of
these "asks" and hopefully, to the extent that your authority permits, will attempt as much as possible to
assure these "asks" are appropriately addressed in legislative instruments.
PS: The report of the 7/17 meeting now archived in Meas DD website is corrected as requested.
James E Vann, on behalf of
Oakland Tenants Union and an Assembly of Pro-Tenant Organizations
-----Original Message----From: Li, Hui Chang <HLi@oaklandnet.com>

To: jamesevann <jamesevann@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 24, 2014 4:46 pm
Subject: RE: Report of 7/17 Meeting of Meas DD Subcommittee with Developer on LM Blvd
"Remainder Parcel"
Thank you for the clarification, James.

I understand now from your email below that you/pro-tenant activists are asking that the
DDA between the City and UrbanCore:
prohibits Developer from accruing the "condominium conversion credits" (that a Developer
would normally be allowed under the Citys condo conversion ordinance if project is condomapped and rented out for the first 7 years) and
requires all tenants be notified at the beginning of tenancy that the units are subject to
being sold at any time at the owner's discretion.
Please confirm this is what you are asking.
I will need to find out what the existing regulations are now on these two issues.
And as project manager for the existing ENA with UrbanCore (and for the upcoming DDA),
I am keeping track of these two asks, in addition to the other community benefits asks
from Measure DD. I and appropriate staff will be considering these asks in our
negotiations with Developer, or specifically in the drafting of our DDA.
And just to clarify, so we are on the same page when using certain words:
An ENA (Exclusive Negotiating Agreement) is the contract between the City and Developer
during the planning/pre-development phase, to get a City-owned site ready for sale and
then construction.
A DDA (Disposition and Development Agreement) is the contract between the City and
Developer that governs the sale of City-owned land and also development. The DDA is the
mechanism to enforce any special/additional restrictions or requirements that the City
wants for a project that normally does not apply if City is not the seller.
A Regulatory Agreement is between the City and a Developer, but unlike in a DDA, the
Developer is a non-profit receiving City subsidy to develop affordable housing (either rental
or for-sale) and the City is placing restrictions on the project to keep the project affordable
(e.g. limiting condo conversion which would remove affordable rental units from the
market). In these development deals, the City may or may not own the land to be
sold/developed but there is a clear City subsidy for affordable housing.
Best,
_____________________________________________

Tel: 510.238.6239 Fax: 510.238.3691

Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 10:11 AM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Subject: Re: Report of 7/17 Meeting of Meas DD Subcommittee with Developer on LM Blvd
"Remainder Parcel"
Hui-Chang,
Sorry to miss your call yesterday (Wed) afternoon. I had just left for the monthly meeting of East Bay
Housing Organizations (EBHO). Please feel free to call back if desired.
I write to clarify my message of yesterday. I reacted incorrectly to the questions you posed, so I reply
to clarify what was intended.
Of course, even if to be operated as a new multi-family rental project, the developer is entitled to file
both for subdivision and to condo-map its project. We acknowledge that this is consistent with, and is
necessary for UrbanCore's expressed intent to sell the units at some point as condos. The contention
of the tenant community, however, is that this process should not generate "conversion credits"
You are absolutely correct, and I totally misstated the facts regarding condo-mapping a new project.
I also misstated in asserting that the desire of pro-tenant activists is to disqualify the remainder parcel
project from its entitlement to be condo-mapped. Also out of ignorance, I failed to distinguish between
the DDA and the Regulatory Agreement," and in fact did not know of the Regulatory Agreement.
I thank you for the distinction and for your helpful explanation.
To be totally clear, the pro-housing community desires that the development be prohibited from
accruing "condominium conversion credits" (as is currently the restriction with all other publicly assisted
projects). As you describe, the restriction language is included in the standard regulatory agreement,
not the DDA. There is no intent to create or reference any other document, nor to ascribe new
additions to the DDA, the intent and the desire of both this response and the April 16 letter is that the
present procedures of the City that prohibit the application of "condominium conversion credits" also be
applied to development of any residential project at the "remainder parcel."
We also request that if the development is initially operated as rental apartments with the intent to be
subsequently sold as condominium units that appropriate documents should also specify that all tenants
be given notice at the beginning of tenancy that the units are subject to being sold at any time at the
owner's discretion.
Finally, as you request and by virtue of your interest and knowledge, it will be a benefit to the tenant
community to assure that you are kept informed of actions and intents on this matter.
I trust this reply sufficiently clarifies my earlier misinterpretation.
James E Vann, 763-0142

Sent: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 4:59 pm
"Remainder Parcel"
Thank you for your thoughtful and responsive email, James. The attached letter was also
very informative. Could you please copy me in such correspondences related to the
Remainder Parcel going forward? I should stay in the loop so I can help keep track of
these important issues, especially amongst City staff.
Yes, the oral report you gave to the Coalition on Monday was correct but I did notice that
the electronic copy of the report since emailed out still contained the word mandate and
incorrectly credited the City Council (as opposed to the City Administrator) for granting the
6-month extension on the ENA. Please have Bill correct this in the archive copy.
In the letter from OTU dated April 16, 2014, you wrote:
The Citys Disposition & Development documents and regulations of the CEDA
Division prohibit developments that receive city, county, federal, or public
financial assistance from accruing "conversion credits."
Could you please clarify what you are referring to when you write Citys Disposition &
Development documents and regulations of the CEDA Division? Do you mean the
Regulatory Agreements between the City and Developer?
As far as I know, it is only via the Regulatory Agreement (between the City and
Developer) that the affordable rental projects receiving funding from the City are prohibited
from converting to condo or selling conversion credits. (Please correct me if you know
otherwise are there other sources/regulations for the prohibition?) For example, here is
the language from a standard Regulatory Agreement for City funded affordable housing
projects:
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION. Owner may not convert Project Units to condominium or
cooperative ownership or sell condominium or cooperative conversion rights to the Property
during the term of this Regulatory Agreement. However, Oakland will give reasonable
consideration to any proposal to convert Project Units to limited-equity cooperative ownership.
Your wrote in your 7/17 report:

Developments that have public assistance are not eligible to convert their rental developments
to condominiums. The Coalition interprets this prohibition as equally applicable to development
of the Remainder Parcel.
When you write, not eligible again, are you basically referring to the Regulatory
Agreement or is there another basis as well?
Also, I want to clarify what you/ the pro-tenant community is asking for in the April 16 letter.
Are you asking that in the DDA b/w Developer & City, the project be:
restricted from both being condo-mapped and exercising conversion credits
restricted from either a condo-map or exercising conversion credits
Best,
_____________________________________________
Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691

Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:40 PM
To: Li, Hui Chang
"Remainder Parcel"
Hello Hui-Chang,
I owe you an apology. I had not seen the actual ENA, but assumed the terms carried over. Even so,
I understood your objection to the term "mandate," and actually did modify the report to say "will
coordinate." What I discovered yesterday was that I had two DD files on my PC and the one I initially
edited from your clarifications and other comments at DD, was not the final copy. When I realized the
error and made revisions to page 3, I inadvertently overlooked the "mandate" correction because I
thought I had already made it (but on the wrong copy). I think it was stated properly in the oral report,
so I will talk with Bill about correcting the archive copy. Again, sorry.
Regarding condominium conversion credits, Yes, the pro-tenant community strongly objects to the
"remainder parcel" being able to be condo-mapped, and thus cause the removal of up to 298 existing
rental units. The remainder parcel is a creation of the Measure DD referendum voted 90% by
Oaklanders as a general plan for betterment and beautification of the city. The pro-tenant community
firmly contends that the remainder parcel, where major city resources were required for the parcel's
creation, should then become a loophole where the apartments produced would (by agreement to rent
the units for 7 years) automatically accrue "298 conversion rights" enabling the parcel's developers to
cause 298 existing rental units to be converted to for-sale condominiums, together with the wholesale
eviction of up to 298 existing Oakland renter households. This cannot happen, and while the developer
is free to build and market condo units as it may wish, we strongly oppose "condo-mapping" of the
development -- which automatically grants "conversion rights," and will therefore insist that the DDA
should prohibit condo-mapping this particular development.
Such possible occurrence would be a moral injustice that totally turns the objectives of Meas DD on its
head, and is an outcome that no one would have approved as a result of the Measure DD referendum.
Your questions:
My understanding is that if a Developer builds with a condo map, the units are not subject to the city's
condo conversion law because technically no conversion is taking place, even if units are initially rented
out.
A bit of semantic acrobatics here: A development that is condo-mapped is not subject to the City's
Condo Ordinance, BUT, by virtue of the Condo Ordinance if the condo-mapped development agrees to
rent for 7 years, the Developer gains "conversion credits" that can be sold to other Developers, or the
same Developer accrues the "automatic right" through conversion credits to remove the same number
of existing rental units from the inventory, convert the units to condos, and sell the condos at market.
It seems to me that even if the City determines there is not a basis to disqualify the project from being
condo-mapped, you and other organizations like Oakland Tenants Union are advocating that this
restriction at least be a part of the DDA is that correct?
Yes, the pro-tenant community is unanimous in having this restriction included in the DDA. OTU
contends that the City has made tremendous financial investments in this parcel that can never be
reflected in an "appraisal valuation." On that basis the reminder parcel differs from other lots that may
be purchased from the City, and which should disqualify this parcel from being condo-mapped.
The initial Oakland Tenants Union statement -- sent April 16 to Mayor Quan and Planning Director
Flynn -- is attached. The statement has been endorsed by all the various pro-tenant
organizations, which are presently in waiting to know what direction the City and Developer may be
inclining toward. Depending on those inclinations, the organizations will begin meeting, developing, and
implementing a serious action program to see that this possible injustice does not occur.
I welcome hearing your thoughts.
james vann, 763-0142

Sent: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 12:52 pm
"Remainder Parcel"
Thank you, James. I thought you did a great job of reporting out to the Coalition. And your points here
have all been duly noted.
Just to clarify, the quote you are referring to below comes from page 4 of the staff report to City Council
to approve the Citys ENA with UrbanCore:
https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1441186&GUID=8BADE21D-E83E-4381-BAF0BA64C6F8CDAD
It is not from the original ENA Agreement itself. There is no such language in the ENA itself that
mandates that UrbanCore coordinate with OUSD. However, staff recognized that this coordination is
needed for the project to be successful so it was called out in the coordination section of the staff
report. Just to be clear, I think the focus of my correction here is on semantics.

I am interested in your argument that this project does qualify for condo conversion. Could you please
forward me the statement you sent to Mayor Quan and Planning Director Rachel Flynn listing the
reasons why you believe the "remainder parcel" does not qualify for a condo map? I would like to
understand what you think is the basis for the disqualification and will look into that question further.
out.
_____________________________________________
Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691

Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:15 AM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Cc: Estes, Lesley; Flynn, Rachel; Lane, Patrick; Manasse, Edward; Ferracane, Christina;
mayorjeanquan@oakland.net; rcowen@oaklandnet.com
"Remainder Parcel"
Hui-Chang,
Thank you for attending the Measure DD Coalition meeting last night. Your appearance and
assistance in responding to some of the attendee's questions was most helpful. The clarifications you
forwarded were incorporated into the oral report to the Coalition and will be reflected in the report that
goes into the Measure DD archives.
Regarding coordination with OUSD, the original ENA Agreement at Page 4, bottom paragraph states:
... "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 open
space created by Meas DD improvements." Respecting your interpretation, the words "mandate
coordination with OUSD" will be softened.
Regarding possible "Condominium Conversion Rights" for this "remainder parcel" development, The DD
Coalition, CALM (Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt - the group that envisioned and gained City
Council approval for Lake Merritt Blvd), East Bay Housing Organizations, 1200 Lakeshore Tenants
Assn, and Oakland Tenants Union all have grave concerns and objections and strongly contend that
the objectives of Meas DD which formed this City-created parcel makes it inconsistent with, and
therefore not eligible for conversion credits.
It is inconceivable that the residents of Oakland would heavily tax themselves to provide for a
development that could cause the displacement, removal, and condoization of almost 300 of their
residences -- many presently in affordable 3 and 4 bedroom apartments -- but displaced by an
assembly of more expensive and smaller, primarily studio-sized condominiums. We are convinced the
public outrage would be both visible and immediate.

To date, Oakland Tenants Union has submitted an extensive statement to Mayor Quan and Planning
Director Rachel Flynn listing some 14 of the broad range of financially-valued city-assistance
contributions that OTU and other objecting organizations are convinced disqualifies the "remainder
parcel" from conversion credits. Hopefully, long before the DDA and prior to more active opposition
actions, an early decision will be made disqualifying this possible development from accruing
conversion credits.
James E Vann

Cc: Estes, Lesley <LEstes@oaklandnet.com>; Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com>; Lane,
Patrick <PSLane@oaklandnet.com>; Manasse, Edward <EManasse@oaklandnet.com>; Ferracane,
Christina <CFerracane@oaklandnet.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 21, 2014 6:25 pm
"Remainder Parcel"
Hi James,
Thanks for these notes.
Two minor corrections 1)the ENA was extended by the City Administrator, not the City Council. The
the possibility of a 6-month extension to be granted by the City Administrator was always a part the
original Agreement. 2) It is true that UrbanCore has been coordinating the development of this
Remainder Parcel with OUSDs plans for the adjacent site but this coordination is not mandated by
the ENA.
I have noted your list of proposed community benefits.
I will look into the question of whether this development would be eligible to convert to condos. My
understanding is it can be because this project has no public assistance. There is no such restriction
for market rate sale of City/Agency land.
The shadow study is indeed underway by environmental consultant LSA as part of additional CEQA
study needed by this roject. I will keep the Coalition posted on when this study is complete.
See you at tonights meeting.
_____________________________________________
Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691

Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 3:34 PM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Cc: Estes, Lesley; Flynn, Rachel; Lane, Patrick; Manasse, Edward; Ferracane, Christina
Subject: Report of 7/17 Meeting of Meas DD Subcommittee with Developer on LM Blvd "Remainder
Parcel"
To:
Hui-Chang Li, Urban Economics Analyst
cc:
Rachel Flynn, Director of Building Services & Planning

Patrick Lane, Development/Redevelopment Program Manager
Lesley Estes, Meas DD Programs Manager
Ed Manase, Strategic Planning Director
Christina Ferracane, Senior Planner
Re:
Report of 7/17 Meeting of Meas DD Subcommittee with Designated Developer of Lake Merritt
Boulevard "Remainder Parcel"
For information, we forward the Meas DD Subcommittee's report of the meeting held 17 July with
representatives of the designated developer's team.
Appreciation to Ms Hui-Chang for her coordination, assistance and logistics in making the meeting
happen in a timely manner.
Meas DD Subcoommittee
Naomi Schiff, Chair
Joel Peter
Sandy Threlfall
James E Vann
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
jamesevann@aol.com
Li, Hui Chang
Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:40:26 PM
OTU-LettToMayorRe-LMBlvdApts-16Ap14.rtf
Hello Hui-Chang,
I owe you an apology. I had not seen the actual ENA, but assumed the terms carried over. Even so,
coordinate." What I discovered yesterday was that I had two DD files on my PC and the one I initially
edited from your clarifications and other comments at DD, was not the final copy. When I realized the
error and made revisions to page 3, I inadvertently overlooked the "mandate" correction because I
thought I had already made it (but on the wrong copy). I think it was stated properly in the oral report,
so I will talk with Bill about correcting the archive copy. Again, sorry.
"remainder parcel" being able to be condo-mapped, and thus cause the removal of up to 298 existing
rental units. The remainder parcel is a creation of the Measure DD referendum voted 90% by
Oaklanders as a general plan for betterment and beautification of the city. The pro-tenant community
firmly contends that the remainder parcel, where major city resources were required for the parcel's
creation, should then become a loophole where the apartments produced would (by agreement to rent
the units for 7 years) automatically accrue "298 conversion rights" enabling the parcel's developers to
cause 298 existing rental units to be converted to for-sale condominiums, together with the wholesale
eviction of up to 298 existing Oakland renter households. This cannot happen, and while the developer
is free to build and market condo units as it may wish, we strongly oppose "condo-mapping" of the
development -- which automatically grants "conversion rights," and will therefore insist that the DDA
should prohibit condo-mapping this particular development.
Such possible occurrence would be a moral injustice that totally turns the objectives of Meas DD on its
head, and is an outcome that no one would have approved as a result of the Measure DD referendum.
Your questions:
out.
A bit of semantic acrobatics here: A development that is condo-mapped is not

subject to the City's Condo Ordinance, BUT, by virtue of the Condo Ordinance if the
condo-mapped development agrees to rent for 7 years, the Developer gains
"conversion credits" that can be sold to other Developers, or the same Developer
accrues the "automatic right" through conversion credits to remove the same number
of existing rental units from the inventory, convert the units to condos, and sell the
condos at market.
reflected in an "appraisal valuation." On that basis the reminder parcel differs from other lots that may
be purchased from the City, and which should disqualify this parcel from being condo-mapped.
inclining toward. Depending on those inclinations, the organizations will begin meeting, developing, and
implementing a serious action program to see that this possible injustice does not occur.

Sent: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 12:52 pm
"Remainder Parcel"
Thank you, James. I thought you did a great job of reporting out to the Coalition. And your
points here have all been duly noted.
Just to clarify, the quote you are referring to below comes from page 4 of the staff report to
City Council to approve the Citys ENA with UrbanCore:
https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1441186&GUID=8BADE21D-E83E4381-BAF0-BA64C6F8CDAD
It is not from the original ENA Agreement itself. There is no such language in the ENA
itself that mandates that UrbanCore coordinate with OUSD. However, staff recognized
that this coordination is needed for the project to be successful so it was called out in the
coordination section of the staff report. Just to be clear, I think the focus of my correction
here is on semantics.
I am interested in your argument that this project does qualify for condo conversion. Could
you please forward me the statement you sent to Mayor Quan and Planning Director
Rachel Flynn listing the reasons why you believe the "remainder parcel" does not qualify
for a condo map? I would like to understand what you think is the basis for the
disqualification and will look into that question further.
My understanding is that if a Developer builds with a condo map, the units are not subject
to the city's condo conversion law because technically no conversion is taking place, even
if units are initially rented out.
It seems to me that even if the City determines there is not a basis to disqualify the project
from being condo-mapped, you and other organizations like Oakland Tenants Union are
advocating that this restriction at least be a part of the DDA is that correct?
_____________________________________________

Tel: 510.238.6239 Fax: 510.238.3691

To: Li, Hui Chang

"Remainder Parcel"
Hui-Chang,
assistance in responding to some of the attendee's questions was most helpful. The clarifications you
forwarded were incorporated into the oral report to the Coalition and will be reflected in the report that
goes into the Measure DD archives.
Regarding coordination with OUSD, the original ENA Agreement at Page 4, bottom paragraph states:
Regarding possible "Condominium Conversion Rights" for this "remainder parcel" development, The DD
Coalition, CALM (Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt - the group that envisioned and gained City
Council approval for Lake Merritt Blvd), East Bay Housing Organizations, 1200 Lakeshore Tenants
Assn, and Oakland Tenants Union all have grave concerns and objections and strongly contend that
the objectives of Meas DD which formed this City-created parcel makes it inconsistent with, and
therefore not eligible for conversion credits.
assembly of more expensive and smaller, primarily studio-sized condominiums. We are convinced the
public outrage would be both visible and immediate.
conversion credits.
James E Vann

Sent: Mon, Jul 21, 2014 6:25 pm
"Remainder Parcel"
Hi James,
Two minor corrections 1)the ENA was extended by the City Administrator, not the City
Council. The the possibility of a 6-month extension to be granted by the City Administrator
was always a part the original Agreement. 2) It is true that UrbanCore has been
coordinating the development of this Remainder Parcel with OUSDs plans for the
adjacent site but this coordination is not mandated by the ENA.
I will look into the question of whether this development would be eligible to convert to
condos. My understanding is it can be because this project has no public assistance.
There is no such restriction for market rate sale of City/Agency land.
The shadow study is indeed underway by environmental consultant LSA as part of
additional CEQA study needed by this roject. I will keep the Coalition posted on when this
study is complete.
_____________________________________________
Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691

To: Li, Hui Chang
Parcel"
To:
cc:

Re:
Report of 7/17 Meeting of Meas DD Subcommittee with Designated Developer of Lake Merritt
Naomi Schiff, Chair
Joel Peter
Sandy Threlfall
James E Vann
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Jeffrey Levin
Li, Hui Chang
James Vann
Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:43:38 PM
What I meant is that for the City's affordable housing program, DDAs aren't used
because such development isn't taking place on city-owned parcels. That's why
Regulatory Agreements are used in that case, while DDAs are used when city
properties are being sold.
The prohibition on condo conversion and condo credits was incorporated in the first
affordable housing agreements that were approved by the City
Council/Redevelopment Agency over 30 years ago. That language has been
preserved ever since. There isn't any ordinance or resolution establishing such a
policy as far as I know. But that doesn't mean that staff can't recommend that such
a provision be included here.
I don't know if there's ever been such a prohibition on other city-owned properties,
but then again, in most cases the projects were developed as for-sale and therefore
wouldn't have had conversion credits to sell (doing so would have required them to
enter into an agreement to maintain their new project as rental for at least 7 years).
I'm not aware of any instance where such projects sold conversion credits, and
certainly I'm not aware of any project on city-owned land that included sale of condo
conversion credits as part of its financing strategy.
Jeffrey P. 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!

Save the Date: September 17th is EBHO's 10th Annual Interfaith Breakfast! Visit our
website for details.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Li, Hui Chang <HLi@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Thanks, Jeff.
Buts just to clarify:
there is no City-owned parcel where a DDA would be used.
Actually, in the case of the DDA for the 12 th St Remainder Parcel, a City-owned parcel
is involved.
But, yes, I understand that the DDA is the document to be used to

prohibit condo conversion credits and the language to be added to the DDA could
mirror the language that Housing uses in its Regulatory Agreement. I am gathering that
such a restriction has never been added to a DDA for the market-rate sale of Cityowned land.
And the question that I am not clear on is if there is an actual City policy (outside of a
Regulatory Agreement or a DDA) that prohibits city-subsidized projects to convert or
sell conversion credits. I understand that this has been City practice but is there an
actual City policy (i.e. ordinance, law?) that I can reference?
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691
From: Jeffrey Levin [mailto:jeff@ebho.org]

Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:20 PM
To: James Vann
Cc: Li, Hui Chang
Subject: Re: Report of 7/17 Meeting of Meas DD Subcommittee with Developer

on LM Blvd "Remainder Parcel"
I want to clarify something about which document would be used to prohibit

condo conversion credits.
The HCD affordable housing programs use a Regulatory Agreement because it's
tied to provision of funds (loans/grants) but there is no City-owned parcel where a
DDA would be used. In the case of this parcel, the City would be using a DDA to
establish restrictions/conditions of development, but probably will not be using a
Regulatory Agreement unless financing is also being provided.
In this case, it would be appropriate to add language to the DDA that mirrors the
language that HCD uses in its Regulatory Agreement.
Jeffrey P. 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!
Save the Date: September 17th is EBHO's 10th Annual Interfaith Breakfast! Visit our
website for details.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:11 AM, <jamesevann@aol.com> wrote:

Hui-Chang,
Sorry to miss your call yesterday (Wed) afternoon. I had just left for the monthly
meeting of East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO). Please feel free to call back if
desired.
I write to clarify my message of yesterday. I reacted incorrectly to the questions you

posed, so I reply to clarify what was intended.
Of course, even if to be operated as a new multi-family rental project, the developer

is entitled to file both for subdivision and to condo-map its project. We acknowledge that this is
consistent with, and is necessary for UrbanCore's expressed intent to sell the units at some point as
condos. The contention of the tenant community, however, is that this process should not generate
"conversion credits"
You are absolutely correct, and I totally misstated the facts regarding condo-mapping a new project.
I also misstated in asserting that the desire of pro-tenant activists is to disqualify the remainder
parcel project from its entitlement to be condo-mapped. Also out of ignorance, I failed to
distinguish between the DDA and the Regulatory Agreement," and in fact did not
know of the Regulatory Agreement.
I thank you for the distinction and for your helpful explanation.
the pro-housing community desires that the development be

prohibited from accruing "condominium conversion credits" (as is currently the
restriction with all other publicly assisted projects). As you describe, the restriction
language is included in the standard regulatory agreement, not the DDA. There is
no intent to create or reference any other document, nor to ascribe new additions to
the DDA, the intent and the desire of both this response and the April 16 letter is
that the present procedures of the City that prohibit the application of "condominium
conversion credits" also be applied to development of any residential project at the
"remainder parcel."
To be totally clear,
We also request that if the development is initially operated as rental apartments

with the intent to be subsequently sold as condominium units that appropriate
documents should also specify that all tenants be given notice at the beginning of
tenancy that the units are subject to being sold at any time at the owner's
discretion.
Finally, as you request and by virtue of your interest and knowledge, it will be a
benefit to the tenant community to assure that you are kept informed of actions and
intents on this matter.
I trust this reply sufficiently clarifies my earlier misinterpretation.

James E Vann, 763-0142

Sent: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 4:59 pm
"Remainder Parcel"
Thank you for your thoughtful and responsive email, James. The attached letter was
also very informative. Could you please copy me in such correspondences related to the
Remainder Parcel going forward? I should stay in the loop so I can help keep track of
these important issues, especially amongst City staff.
Yes, the oral report you gave to the Coalition on Monday was correct but I did notice
that the electronic copy of the report since emailed out still contained the word
mandate and incorrectly credited the City Council (as opposed to the City
Administrator) for granting the 6-month extension on the ENA. Please have Bill correct
this in the archive copy.
In the letter from OTU dated April 16, 2014, you wrote:
The Citys Disposition & Development documents and regulations of the CEDA
Division prohibit developments that receive city, county, federal, or public
financial assistance from accruing "conversion credits."
Could you please clarify what you are referring to when you write Citys Disposition &
Development documents and regulations of the CEDA Division? Do you mean the
Regulatory Agreements between the City and Developer?
As far as I know, it is only via the Regulatory Agreement (between the City and
Developer) that the affordable rental projects receiving funding from the City are
prohibited from converting to condo or selling conversion credits. (Please correct me if
you know otherwise are there other sources/regulations for the prohibition?) For
example, here is the language from a standard Regulatory Agreement for City funded
affordable housing projects:
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION. Owner may not convert Project Units to condominium or
cooperative ownership or sell condominium or cooperative conversion rights to the Property
during the term of this Regulatory Agreement. However, Oakland will give reasonable
consideration to any proposal to convert Project Units to limited-equity cooperative
ownership.
Your wrote in your 7/17 report:

Developments that have public assistance are not eligible to convert their rental
developments to condominiums. The Coalition interprets this prohibition as equally
applicable to development of the Remainder Parcel.
When you write, not eligible again, are you basically referring to the Regulatory
Agreement or is there another basis as well?
Also, I want to clarify what you/ the pro-tenant community is asking for in the April 16
letter. Are you asking that in the DDA b/w Developer & City, the project be:
1.
restricted from both being condo-mapped and exercising conversion credits
2.
restricted from either a condo-map or exercising conversion credits
Best,
_____________________________________________

Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691

Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:40 PM
To: Li, Hui Chang
"Remainder Parcel"
Hello Hui-Chang,
I owe you an apology. I had not seen the actual ENA, but assumed the terms carried over. Even
so,
coordinate." What I discovered yesterday was that I had two DD files on my PC and the one I
initially edited from your clarifications and other comments at DD, was not the final copy. When I
realized the error and made revisions to page 3, I inadvertently overlooked the "mandate" correction
because I thought I had already made it (but on the wrong copy). I think it was stated properly in
the oral report, so I will talk with Bill about correcting the archive copy. Again, sorry.
"remainder parcel" being able to be condo-mapped, and thus cause the removal of up to 298
existing rental units. The remainder parcel is a creation of the Measure DD referendum voted 90%
by Oaklanders as a general plan for betterment and beautification of the city. The pro-tenant
community firmly contends that the remainder parcel, where major city resources were required for
the parcel's creation, should then become a loophole where the apartments produced would (by
agreement to rent the units for 7 years) automatically accrue "298 conversion rights" enabling the
parcel's developers to cause 298 existing rental units to be converted to for-sale condominiums,
together with the wholesale eviction of up to 298 existing Oakland renter households. This cannot
happen, and while the developer is free to build and market condo units as it may wish, we strongly
oppose "condo-mapping" of the development -- which automatically grants "conversion rights," and
will therefore insist that the DDA should prohibit condo-mapping this particular development.
Such possible occurrence would be a moral injustice that totally turns the objectives of Meas DD on
its head, and is an outcome that no one would have approved as a result of the Measure DD
referendum.
Your questions:
My understanding is that if a Developer builds with a condo map, the units are not subject to the
city's condo conversion law because technically no conversion is taking place, even if units are
initially rented out.
A bit of semantic acrobatics here: A development that is condo-mapped is not subject to the City's
Condo Ordinance, BUT, by virtue of the Condo Ordinance if the condo-mapped development agrees
to rent for 7 years, the Developer gains "conversion credits" that can be sold to other Developers, or
the same Developer accrues the "automatic right" through conversion credits to remove the same
number of existing rental units from the inventory, convert the units to condos, and sell the condos at
market.
It seems to me that even if the City determines there is not a basis to disqualify the project from
being condo-mapped, you and other organizations like Oakland Tenants Union are advocating that
this restriction at least be a part of the DDA is that correct?
reflected in an "appraisal valuation." On that basis the reminder parcel differs from other lots that
may be purchased from the City, and which should disqualify this parcel from being condo-mapped.
inclining toward. Depending on those inclinations, the organizations will begin meeting, developing,
and implementing a serious action program to see that this possible injustice does not occur.


Sent: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 12:52 pm
"Remainder Parcel"
Thank you, James. I thought you did a great job of reporting out to the Coalition. And your points
here have all been duly noted.
Just to clarify, the quote you are referring to below comes from page 4 of the staff report to City
Council to approve the Citys ENA with UrbanCore:
https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1441186&GUID=8BADE21D-E83E-4381BAF0-BA64C6F8CDAD
It is not from the original ENA Agreement itself. There is no such language in the ENA itself that
mandates that UrbanCore coordinate with OUSD. However, staff recognized that this coordination
is needed for the project to be successful so it was called out in the coordination section of the staff
report. Just to be clear, I think the focus of my correction here is on semantics.
I am interested in your argument that this project does qualify for condo conversion. Could you
please forward me the statement you sent to Mayor Quan and Planning Director Rachel Flynn listing
the reasons why you believe the "remainder parcel" does not qualify for a condo map? I would like
to understand what you think is the basis for the disqualification and will look into that question
further.
My understanding is that if a Developer builds with a condo map, the units are not subject to the
city's condo conversion law because technically no conversion is taking place, even if units are
initially rented out.
It seems to me that even if the City determines there is not a basis to disqualify the project from
being condo-mapped, you and other organizations like Oakland Tenants Union are advocating that
this restriction at least be a part of the DDA is that correct?
_____________________________________________

Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691

To: Li, Hui Chang
"Remainder Parcel"
Hui-Chang,
assistance in responding to some of the attendee's questions was most helpful. The clarifications
you forwarded were incorporated into the oral report to the Coalition and will be reflected in the
report that goes into the Measure DD archives.
Regarding coordination with OUSD, the original ENA Agreement at Page 4, bottom paragraph
states:
Regarding possible "Condominium Conversion Rights" for this "remainder parcel" development, The
DD Coalition, CALM (Coalition of Advocates for Lake Merritt - the group that envisioned and gained
City Council approval for Lake Merritt Blvd), East Bay Housing Organizations, 1200 Lakeshore
Tenants Assn, and Oakland Tenants Union all have grave concerns and objections and strongly
contend that the objectives of Meas DD which formed this City-created parcel makes it inconsistent
with, and therefore not eligible for conversion credits.
assembly of more expensive and smaller, primarily studio-sized condominiums. We are convinced
the public outrage would be both visible and immediate.
conversion credits.
James E Vann

Sent: Mon, Jul 21, 2014 6:25 pm
"Remainder Parcel"
Hi James,
Two minor corrections 1)the ENA was extended by the City Administrator, not the City Council.
The the possibility of a 6-month extension to be granted by the City Administrator was always a part
the original Agreement. 2) It is true that UrbanCore has been coordinating the development of this
Remainder Parcel with OUSDs plans for the adjacent site but this coordination is not mandated
by the ENA.
I will look into the question of whether this development would be eligible to convert to condos. My
understanding is it can be because this project has no public assistance. There is no such
restriction for market rate sale of City/Agency land.
The shadow study is indeed underway by environmental consultant LSA as part of additional CEQA
study needed by this roject. I will keep the Coalition posted on when this study is complete.
_____________________________________________
Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691

To: Li, Hui Chang
Parcel"
To:
cc:

Re:
Report of 7/17 Meeting of Meas DD Subcommittee with Designated Developer of Lake
Merritt
Naomi Schiff, Chair
Joel Peter
Sandy Threlfall
James E Vann
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Li, Hui Chang

Michael Johnson
Re: Request for Waiver for Payment & Performance Bond Requirement in DDA
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:49:23 PM
Ok, could you put all that in writing on your letterhead for me to submit to City
Attorney's Office? You need to make it clear why your project should be an
exception and the City is not at greater risk ...
And go ahead and try calling Dianne to see if you can catch her and reason with her
directly...
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:38 PM, "Michael Johnson" <mjohnson@urbancorellc.com>
wrote:
HC, item #1 is fine. But we will need to discuss with Diane item #2. The
City has NO funding in this deal and is selling the land at market rate, so if
the City is getting a Completion Guarantee, there is no reason to require a
Performance and Payment Bond. We need to discuss this item with Diane on
Wed. Thanks, MJ
_______________________
Suite 313
Oakland, CA 94611
c: (415) 748-2300
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Li, Hui Chang

Update, Michael:
Dianne Millner is back today and she has agreed to be the attorney for now
for the purposes of reviewing and approving our DDA term sheet and the
City Ordinance for my staff report to CED on 3/24. (I will work with a new
attorney starting in March to draft the actual DDA, which I hope will be
completely ready by April 22 nd to execute immediately. This means you will
see draft starting mid-March)
Quick comments I am getting back from Dianne, that I am not surprised by

and want you to be aware of:
(more comments may come later)
1. It is *not* acceptable for the City to only *review* the

guarantor. The City has to affirmatively review and approve the
guarantor in its sole and absolute discretion. Are you OK with this?
2. Developers *always* ask that the City waive bonds, but the City
*always* requires bonds. We do not depend on whether another
lender requires bonds or not- the City must protect its interests
independently. This has been standard City policy for years. Please
send me your rationale ASAP for our consideration (but be
prepared, my sense it will be difficult to get a waiver on this)
Thanks,
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691

Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:54 AM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Subject: Re: Request for Waiver for Payment & Performance Bond Requirement in
DDA
Will get you a response by tomorrow. Talking to UDR about

this further. Thanks
_______________________

Suite 313
Oakland, CA 94611
c: (415) 748-2300
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Li, Hui Chang

Hi Michael,
Could you please submit in writing, on your letterhead, your request for a
waiver for the standard requirement of City DDAs for Payment &
Performance Bonds:
Developer shall obtain payment & performance bonds in an amount

not less than 100% of the cost of construction of the Project
pursuant to the Construction Contract to be executed by Developer.
Please provide the rationale and reasons you are requesting this waiver and
why it is not necessary for your project.
Thank you,
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Michael Johnson
Li, Hui Chang
Re: Resending Package
Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:58:55 AM
Yes. The landscape plan is done and we will bring it to the meeting today. I have signed
the ENA Amendment and am waiting to get it back from Integral, which I hope to be by
the end of this week and will get it to you immediately. Thanks, MJ
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Li, Hui Chang <HLi@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Thanks, Michael.
Will the landscaping plan be ready before our meeting? It should definitely be ready
before our meeting with Measure DD folks on Thursday.
Also, I am hoping you will have the signed ENA amendment document for me.
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691

Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:04 PM
To: Li, Hui Chang; Lane, Patrick; Hunter, Gregory
Cc: Brad Flewellen
Subject: Resending Package
All, please see attached two files with our in progress Schematic Design
plans in a drop box link to make sure you received these drawings.
The project now has 298 units, with a combination of Studios, One Br,
Two Br, Lofts at the ground level, and some penthouse units. We have
approx. 209 parking spaces which we think is a good ratio given the
proximity to downtown and two BART stations. We look forward to
discussing this with you on Wednesday. Thanks, Michael
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/clhqo923ret8l6j/AACrS-oPGja5Iy5KS4CHg5oua
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Michael Johnson
Li, Hui Chang
Re: Response to Your Questions
Wednesday, March 11, 2015 10:13:57 AM
That's more than a fraction :-)....$650k per year. Over 10 years that's $6.5 million, so I
would state it that way please. Thaniks
_______________________
Suite 313
Oakland, CA 94611
c: (415) 748-2300
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Li, Hui Chang <HLi@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
OK, thanks for the clarifications.
I will be reporting only a fraction of the $1.9 property tax will go to the City or
$646,000 (34% of $1.9 million)
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691

Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:06 AM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Cc: Kirsty Greer
Subject: Fwd: Response to Your Questions
Hui Chang, please see our responses below in ALL CAPS. Let me know if you have
any further questions. Thanks, MJ
1. Real Estate Investment Trust ownership structure requires a fee simple arrangement when
acquiring land what is the basis of that? Also, why then would a ground lease with an upfront
payment equivalent to $5.1 million not work? THE BASIS REASON GIVEN BY THE UDR
FINANCIAL OFFICER, IS THAT LEASE PAYMENTS OVER TIME WOULD HAVE TO BE
EXPENSED DIFFERENTLY WITHIN THE PROPERTY FINANCIALS IMPACTING THE OPERATING
CASHFLOW OF THE UDR STOCK, WHILE PAYMENT FOR THE LAND CAN BE A CAPITALIZED
COST UPFRONT AND ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BASIS OF THE PROJECT WHICH IS
PREFERABLE FOR A REIT STRUCTURE AS UDR IS. THEREFORE AS WE STATED
PREVIOUSLY THIS WOULD REQUIRE REUNDERWRITING THE DEAL BY UDR WHICH COULD
AFFECT THEIR TERMS AND
THE TIMING OF THEIR

COMMITMENT TO THE TRANSACTION THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND
NEGOTIATED OVER THE LAST 6 MONTHS WITH URBANCORE.
2.
Can you explain why 6% is the required rate of return on equity? THIIS IS A RETURN ON
COST (ROC) METRIC - 6%, EG. NET OPERATING INCOME DIVIDED BY TOTAL PROJECT
COST. THIS IS A TRESHOLD THAT INVESTORS ARE USING IN THE MARKET CURRENTLY IN
OAKLAND. BECAUSE OF UDR'S REIT STRUCTURE URBANCORE AND UDR NEGOTIATED A
SLIGHTLY LOWER ACCEPTABLE ROC IN ORDER TO MOVE THE TRANSACTION FORWARD.
3. Can you show me how you calculated the property tax of $1.6 million to be generated to the
City? WE ARRIVED AT THIS AMOUNT BASED ON MULTIPLYING THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT
COST, MINUS DEVELOPER FEE, TIMES(X) THE TAX RATE OF 1.4376% TO ARRIVE AT
APPROX. $6,400/UNIT/YEAR IN PROPERTY TAXES OR APPROX. $1.9 MILLION ANNUALLY. WE
DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE ALAMEDA TAX ASSESSOR TO CONFIRM THE CALCULATION.
4. Lease Vs. Sale - SEE THE ANSWER TO ITEM ONE ABOVE. WE ARE
ABSOLUTELY COMMITTED TO A SALE, AND WILL ADVOCATE THIS WITH THE
CITY COUNCIL SO AS NOT TO CHANGE THE TRANSACTION NEGOTIATED WITH
OUR CAPITAL/JV DEVELOPMENT PARTNER AFTER 6 MONTHS.
5. Performance & Payment Bond - A SEPARATE STATEMENT ON THIS WILL BE

FORTHCOMING ON WED...LATEST THURSDAY.
THANKS, MICHAEL
_______________________

Suite 313
Oakland, CA 94611
c: (415) 748-2300
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Li, Hui Chang

"jamesevann@aol.com"
Naomi@17th.com; joelpeter88@gmail.com; mikeudkow@gmail.com; wthrelfall@pacbell.net
RE: Review Letter of Measure DD Community Coalition re: Wind & Shadow Studies for Lake Merritt Apartments
Thursday, January 08, 2015 5:19:00 PM
To: Measure DD Community Coalition Subcommittee on Lake Merritt Boulevard Remainder

Parcel Development
Thank you for your review of the environmental studies and your comments.
Thank you for pointing out that the Citys existing palm trees on E 12th St might conflict with the
studys wind mitigation recommendation to install porous trees on the same block. Duly noted.
And yes, I want to confirm that the community benefits of this project that we have agreed to,
which were documented in a letter signed by Redevelopment Manager Patrick Lane, dated
November 18, 2014, will be a part of the Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA)
currently under negotiation between the City and UrbanCore.
Thank you,
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691

Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 4:08 PM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Cc: Naomi@17th.com; joelpeter88@gmail.com; mikeudkow@gmail.com; wthrelfall@pacbell.net
Subject: Review Letter of Measure DD Community Coalition re: Wind & Shadow Studies for Lake
Merritt Apartments
Hello Hui
Attached is the Measure DD Coalition's Review Letter of the Wind Impact and Shadows Impact Studies
of the Lake Merritt Boulevard Remainder Parcel, as proposed for the development of Lake Merritt
Boulevard Aprtments.
If questions ir need for additional information, please contact a member of the Subcommittee
Measure DD Community Coalition Subcommittee on Lake Merritt Boulevard Remainder Parcel

Development
Naomi Schiff, Coordinator
Joel Peter
James E Vann
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Li, Hui Chang

"Michael Johnson"
Brad Flewellen; Mike Pyatok; Peter Waller; Ronnie Turner; Austin, Doug; Dan Hogman; AVRPStudios .;
Shannon Allen; merlin edwards; Hunter, Gregory (GHunter@oaklandnet.com); Lane, Patrick
RE: Revised performance schedule for ENA extension
Friday, June 13, 2014 5:36:00 PM
First Amendment extending ENA for 12th Street Remainder 6-13-14.pdf
EXHIBIT A ENA Schedule of Performance w 180 extension.xlsx
Michael,
Yes, both date changes you suggested are OK, although Id prefer you submit the next draft of
schematic plans to me sooner morning of the 15th (a Tuesday) rather than COB, so staff has
adequate time to review before the July 21st meeting.
See attached 1 st Amendment to our ENA for your signatures which includes this new Schedule as
Exhibit A. Please return 3 hard copies to me with your wet signatures so I can get signed off on
the Citys end.
For your records, Ive included the Schedule as an Excel file, with the various tabs.
Let me know if you have questions,
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 7:32 PM
To: Li, Hui Chang
Cc: Brad Flewellen; Mike Pyatok; Peter Waller; Ronnie Turner; Austin, Doug; Dan Hogman; AVRPStudios
.; Shannon Allen; merlin edwards
Subject: Re: Revised performance schedule for ENA extension
Hui Chang, thanks for sending the updated Schedule of Performance. In

response to your schedule questions, I think we can target July 15th for
submitting a draft package of schematic plans which will allow a week for
staff review and a meeting during that week before the Measure DD
meeting on July 21st. Then submit the final Schematic Design by July
31st with any final revisions based on staff or community input. Also as
shown in Blue I made one other revision to the Appraisal date so that the
Appraiser can get our Financial Model at the end of Sep and review that
in getting the appraisal done by Oct 30th...let me know if these two
changes are ok. Also, I am asking per this email for LSA to review the
schedule and advise us both on progress. Thanks, Michael
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Li, Hui Chang <HLi@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hi Michael,
Attached is a revised Schedule of Performance for Amendment # 1 to our ENA, which will grants
a 180 day extension (ending January 2, 2015)
There are two tabs the revised schedule you submitted in April 2014, and my response in June. If
you compare the two, you will see the extended dates I am proposing are later than what you
suggested, except I would like to see updated Schematic Design Plans by June 30th (item #20). Do
you think this is possible? I am thinking staff should see your updated plans before July 21st
Measure DD meeting.
I used generous outside dates and am trying to strike a balance between being strict and being
realistic.
Again, the goal is to get all CEQA and permit approvals before entering into a DDA in
January/February 2014; and then sell the land to you by June 2015.
So, given the following schedule of adoption of the LMSAP:
7/25/14 "Final FEIR "
8/11/14 LPAB
9/3/14 Planning Commission
9/30/14 Council CED Committee
10/7/14 Council, 1st Reading
10/21/14 Council, 2nd Reading
I am assuming:
Updated application to zoning and planning along with schematic design plans (for the selected
project and program description), including landscape for adjacent park due by 7/31/14 (though I
am checking with Neil to see if this can be later as I dont know if 7/31/14 is reasonable to expect
at this point)
Admin Draft of Projects CEQA document due by 9/30/14 possibly earlier, depending on
LSAs schedule.
PRAC & Planning Commission: November 2014
Please let me know any comments or questions you have on this revised schedule.
(Once we agree on the final dates of this Schedule of Performance, it will be attached as Exhibit
A to a simple two-page Amendment # 1, to be signed by both you, your partner at Integral and
the City Administrator/designee. The actual Amendment # 1 document is currently under review
by the City Attorney.)
Thank you,
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Michael Johnson
Li, Hui Chang
Re: Revised performance schedule for ENA extension
Monday, June 09, 2014 2:52:48 PM
Hui Chang, thanks for this. I will review and get back to you on Tuesday with comments
or questions. FYI, we are making good progress on the design. And also, FYI, we are
moving away from any parking under the park, and a lower unit count..eg. 280+/- with
the similar gross sq. feet as the original scheme that was 247 units...now more smaller
units (studios and 1br). I will check with the team on the timing for reviewing the plans
with you, as we discussed this during our meeting last week, and let you know. Thanks,
MJ
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Li, Hui Chang <HLi@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hi Michael,
Attached is a revised Schedule of Performance for Amendment # 1 to our ENA, which will
grants a 180 day extension (ending January 2, 2015)
There are two tabs the revised schedule you submitted in April 2014, and my response in June.
If you compare the two, you will see the extended dates I am proposing are later than what you
suggested, except I would like to see updated Schematic Design Plans by June 30th (item #20).
Do you think this is possible? I am thinking staff should see your updated plans before July 21st
Measure DD meeting.
I used generous outside dates and am trying to strike a balance between being strict and being
realistic.
Again, the goal is to get all CEQA and permit approvals before entering into a DDA in
January/February 2014; and then sell the land to you by June 2015.
So, given the following schedule of adoption of the LMSAP:

7/25/14 "Final FEIR "
8/11/14 LPAB
9/3/14 Planning Commission
9/30/14 Council CED Committee
10/7/14 Council, 1st Reading
10/21/14 Council, 2nd Reading
I am assuming:
Updated application to zoning and planning along with schematic design plans (for the
selected project and program description), including landscape for adjacent park due by 7/31/14
(though I am checking with Neil to see if this can be later as I dont know if 7/31/14 is
reasonable to expect at this point)
Admin Draft of Projects CEQA document due by 9/30/14 possibly earlier, depending on
LSAs schedule.
PRAC & Planning Commission: November 2014
Please let me know any comments or questions you have on this revised schedule.
(Once we agree on the final dates of this Schedule of Performance, it will be attached as
Exhibit A to a simple two-page Amendment # 1, to be signed by both you, your partner at
Integral and the City Administrator/designee. The actual Amendment # 1 document is currently
under review by the City Attorney.)
Thank you,
_____________________________________________
Hui-Chang Li


Tel: 510.238.6239
Fax: 510.238.3691
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Michael Johnson
Lane, Patrick
Ronnie Turner; Faye Paulson; Hunter, Gregory; Li, Hui Chang; Estes, Lesley; Mike Pyatok; Peter Waller; Austin,
Doug; Brad Flewellen
Re: Revised Plans - City Comments
Wednesday, May 21, 2014 4:38:42 PM
Patrick, thanks for all this important feedback below. We will be ready for a presentation
at the July 21st meeting, at which time we will have made substantial progress on the
design, including the parking and park area, which we will review with staff prior to the
July 21st meeting. Thanks, Michael
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Lane, Patrick <PSLane@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Your revised plans were reviewed in a Major Projects meeting Monday with staff
from Planning & Building, Public Works (Measure DD), Parks & Recreation, etc.
We received initial comments that seemed to make the use of the open space for
underground parking possible. We also learned that there was a Measure DD
Community Meeting that night. The Measure DD staff asked to present your
revised proposal to get a quick read and requested that the project be presented
by you formally at the next meeting on July 21st .
Major Projects Meeting The were no major problems seen with your proposal but
staff wanted to look at some of the detailed issues. Realizing that there would be
some value in the use of the park land, both Public Works and Parks & Recreation
wanted this to be used to maintain the parks in the area. If the revised proposal
moves forward, a portion of the appraised value would be allocated to the
easement for the underground parking. Since the use of these funds would be
maintenance, the City would probably prefer an annual payment for the
easement. In addition the project would need to provide the park improvements
around the garage and maintain this area.
Measure DD Community Meeting There werent many concerns about the use of
the open space. This wasnt expected as a programmable space. The use would
be a visual open space with more substantial vegetation. But there were concerns
about the increased density. You should be ready to address this concern at the
July 21st meeting. You should coordinate with Lesley Estes regarding this meeting
- LEstes@oaklandnet.com or (510) 238-7431.

Oakland CA 94612
tel (510) 238-7362
fax (510) 238-3691
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Michael Johnson
Li, Hui Chang
Lane, Patrick; Ronnie Turner; Faye Paulson; Hunter, Gregory; Estes, Lesley
Re: Revised Plans - City Comments
Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:32:15 PM
Ok. Let us know. Thanks
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Li, Hui Chang <HLi@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hi Michael,
Just to clarify, Measure DD Coalition does have concerns about park design as well as
other comments theyd like you to address at their July 21st meeting . See attached letter
expressing their concerns -- points 8 and 9 speak to park design specifically. (Though some
of their concerns seem more like policy decisions to be addressed by the City.) Again, this
is to give you a heads up about community concerns you should be preparing to address.
In addition to presenting at their July 21st meeting and presenting to City staff prior to
that, a task group of the DD Coalition may want to meet with you as well. (I just spoke
with their designated Task Group Facilitator Naomi Shiff about this and she will confirm
with me if they still want this meeting to happen in addition to your July 21st presentation.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hui-Chang Li
Economic and Workforce Development Department

City of Oakland
Oakland CA 94612
Tel 510-238-6239
From: Lane, Patrick

Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 4:18 PM
To: Michael Johnson
Cc: Ronnie Turner; Faye Paulson; ghunter@oaklandnet.com; Li, Hui Chang; Estes, Lesley
Subject: Revised Plans - City Comments
Your revised plans were reviewed in a Major Projects meeting Monday with staff
from Planning & Building, Public Works (Measure DD), Parks & Recreation, etc.
We received initial comments that seemed to make the use of the open space for
underground parking possible. We also learned that there was a Measure DD
Community Meeting that night. The Measure DD staff asked to present your
revised proposal to get a quick read and requested that the project be presented
by you formally at the next meeting on July 21st .
Major Projects Meeting The were no major problems seen with your proposal but
staff wanted to look at some of the detailed issues. Realizing that there would be
some value in the use of the park land, both Public Works and Parks & Recreation
wanted this to be used to maintain the parks in the area. If the revised proposal
moves forward, a portion of the appraised value would be allocated to the
easement for the underground parking. Since the use of these funds would be
maintenance, the City would probably prefer an annual payment for the
easement. In addition the project would need to provide the park improvements
around the garage and maintain this area.
Measure DD Community Meeting There werent many concerns about the use of
the open space. This wasnt expected as a programmable space. The use would
be a visual open space with more substantial vegetation. But there were concerns
about the increased density. You should be ready to address this concern at the
July 21st meeting. You should coordinate with Lesley Estes regarding this meeting
- LEstes@oaklandnet.com or (510) 238-7431.

Oakland CA 94612
tel (510) 238-7362
fax (510) 238-3691
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: "Naomi Schiff" <naomi@17th.com>

To: "Li, Hui Chang" <HLi@oaklandnet.com>, "Lane, Patrick"
<PSLane@oaklandnet.com>, "Estes, Lesley" <LEstes@oaklandnet.com>, "Flynn,
Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com>
Cc: "Measure DD Community Coalition" <info@waterfrontaction.org>,
"JamesEVann@aol.com Vann" <jamesevann@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 12:19:07 -0700
Subject: Measure DD Coalition,Regarding 12th Street Remainder Parcel
Hello!
Attached please find a letter from the Measure DD Community Coalition,
expressing some concerns about the 12th Street remainder parcel. Thank you!
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Hom, Donna
Lane, Patrick; Bawa, Kiran; Schlenk, Sarah
Li, Hui Chang; Golde, James; Flynn, Rachel; Sawicki, Mark
RE: Sale of 12th Street Remainder
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 8:26:18 PM
Thank you for the update. Keep going!
Donna Hom
Donna Hom
Interim Assistant City Administrator
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza #301
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-2038 (Phone)
(510) 238-2223 (Fax)
(510) 238-2007 (TDD)
From: Lane, Patrick

Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:10 PM
To: Hom, Donna; Bawa, Kiran; Schlenk, Sarah
Cc: Li, Hui Chang; Golde, James; Flynn, Rachel; Sawicki, Mark
Subject: Sale of 12th Street Remainder
We met with the developer and investor for the 12th Street Remainder Project today. They have
committed to purchasing the site by the end of June if the project continues on its current schedule
3/18/15
3/24/15
Planning Commission approval for entitlements & CEQA review

CED Committee review of the Disposition and Development Agreement
3/31/15
4/21/15
1 st reading of DDA Ordinance

Final approval of DDA
This seems like a real possibility of happening this fiscal year. But we need to make sure that
everything moves according to this tight schedule and that the DDA is ready to sign soon after it is
approved.
Oakland CA 94612

HuiChang Li Emails Part 3.3.2 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

HuiChang Li Emails Part 3.3.2 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

From:

Hui Chang and Neil: I thought we had a good meeting. We are

calculation of open space

total parcel area

# of units and by type

Office of Neighborhood Investment

From: Li, Hui Chang

Subject: RE: meeting w Planning before Oct 28th?

Office of Neighborhood Investment

From: Mike Pyatok [mailto:mpyatok@pyatok.com]

I can do this Monday 1:30-3:00.

I can do Monday Oct. 21st at 1:30pm - 3:00pm or

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Li, Hui Chang

Office of Neighborhood Investment

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Mike Pyatok

Li, Hui Chang

OK, I will incude

Urban Economic Analyst

CITY OF OAKLAND, Economic & Workforce Development Department

250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Ste. 5313, Oakland CA 94612

From: Gerard, Jennie [mailto:JGerard@oaklandnet.com]

See your language, which Michael has agreed to.

From: Michael Johnson [mailto:mjohnson@urbancorellc.com]

That is agreeable. Thanks

From: Michael Johnson [mailto:mjohnson@urbancorellc.com]

Jennie, see revision as we discussed:

From: Li, Hui Chang

Jennie, please confirm by 11am. Otherwise, I will not include it.

250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Ste. 5313, Oakland CA 94612

From: Gerard, Jennie [mailto:JGerard@oaklandnet.com]

Hui Chang and Patrick,

Next couple of days. Thanks

When will updated ENA be signed?

Urban Economic Analyst

CITY OF OAKLAND, Economic & Workforce Development Department

250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Ste. 5313, Oakland CA 94612

From: Michael Johnson [mailto:mjohnson@urbancorellc.com]

To: Li, Hui Chang

In summary, OTU is asking the City to prohibit accruing "condominium conversion

In terms of next steps, per ENA:

Urban Economic Analyst

CITY OF OAKLAND, Economic & Workforce Development Department

250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Ste. 5313, Oakland CA 94612

><((((> . .`.. ><((((>

Ronnie M. Turner, President

TURNER DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE GROUP

Li, Hui Chang

Urban Economic Analyst

CITY OF OAKLAND, Economic & Workforce Development Department

250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Ste. 5313, Oakland CA 94612

From: Kirsty Greer [mailto:kgreer@udr.com]

From: Li, Hui Chang [mailto:HLi@oaklandnet.com]

Urban Economic Analyst

CITY OF OAKLAND, Economic & Workforce Development Department

250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Ste. 5313, Oakland CA 94612

Ok. Glad we have 4 left. So we need 3 votes out of 4.

From: Michael Johnson [mailto:mjohnson@urbancorellc.com]

From: Michael Johnson [mailto:mjohnson@urbancorellc.com]

Office of Neighborhood Investment

Li, Hui Chang

Office of Neighborhood Investment

Attached is a PDF the recorded parcel map of 12 th St Remainder your records.

Office of Neighborhood Investment