| 04-09-2006 | Huge Oakland housing project criticized 09-26-2005 Waterfront plan for Oakland not floating with some locals |
| 04-19-2004 | Legislation pushes for waterfront projects - Perata's bills would clear path for planned |
| 10-07-2003 | Hidden costs in port's land sale - Behind-the-scenes deal includes appraiser slashing value of property |
| 09-30-2003 | Waterfront land issue has owners suing city - They allege City Council |
| 09-03-2003 | Sale of land on estuary approved - Housing, retail development now needs endorsement from state |
| 09-02-2003 | Port ready to sell blight for condos - Housing, retail developer would pay $18 million for industrial land near Jack London Square |
| 07-15-2003 | Artists colony fears development - Oakland's waterfront redevelopment project could displace longtime Fifth Avenue community |
As the giant Oak to Ninth housing development inches closer
to final approval, debate over what its developer should give the city is
becoming more pronounced and heated.
In the last two weeks, various groups have come together to
question both the project's impact on the city and terms of the deal that earned
Signature Properties of Pleasanton control over 64 acres of waterfront land.
Those questions have come in the form of an appeal of the
city Planning Commission's recommended project approval and a letter from an
attorney questioning the deal.
"It is a huge project and they are trucking down the
road pretty quickly here," said Naomi Schiff, executive director of the
Oakland Heritage Alliance, one of six groups that have filed an appeal of the
development. "This is an opportunity to get a better deal."
Concerns raised by the group remain the same as they have
been since the project was proposed several years ago.
The groups are worried about not having enough park land
along the water. They're concerned with limited access to the development.
Others oppose destruction of an historic port terminal. And they want to
ensure the public benefits the developer has promised are completed in a timely
manner.
The project is proposed to be built in phases with the all
the park land and the Bay Trail not completely finished until at least 2026.
"We feel like this is the developer telling us what he
wants to do. It should be us telling
the developer what we want to do," said
The fact that the development would be built on public land
has caused emotions to run hot and given residents a sense of entitlement not
found in a more private development proposal.
It also will require a change to the city's Estuary Plan, a
much touted document created a decade ago to guide how the city's waterfront
land should be developed.
As a result, many say, the city should get more for the
development than it would if the project were being built on private land.
"If we are going to give up public lands, we should
get, in return, improved access to those lands," said Robert Raburn,
executive director of the East Bay Bicycle Coalition. "It is unfair to
residents to build new housing and parks that are not accessible to the entire
city."
But access would not matter if there were no park to begin
with, argues Signature Properties' President Michael Ghielmetti.
"If this project wasn't there, how would their parks
be built?" he said. "This developer has offered to install the parks,
and maintain them forever."
The amount of open space in the project has increased since
it was first proposed, he said. And access to the land will be improved once it
is completed, he argued.
"We are building on blighted and unopened land,"
Ghielmetti said.
Signature Properties was selected by the
Under the deal, Signature Properties paid $18 million for
the land that was appraised at $34 million. But Signature Properties took full
responsibility for cleaning up the site. At the time, the cleanup cost was
estimated to be $16 million.
Since then, Signature Properties has increased the number
of housing units it plans to build at the site to 3,100 from 1,400. That has
caused critics to question if the value of the land has increased.
And now critics want the port to seek additional funds when
it might be forced later this year to extend its exclusive negotiation agreement
with Signature Properties.
"The port is working on an appraisal that is three
years old," said Arthur Levy, an attorney who is investigating the
agreement. "Signature
Properties stands to gain (value) just on the entitlements alone ... they
basically are way underpaying for the property."
Ghielmetti, however, said the deal is still fair to all.
Since Signature Properties began working on the site,
clean-up costs have risen by at least $8 million. He said his company is
providing all infrastructure improvements, such as sewer, roads and parks.
All those improvements will cost more than originally
thought since the cost of construction has risen since 2001, Ghielmetti said.
"I need to provide infrastructure, I have to bring in
water, I have to bring in sewer, I have to bring in storm water basins," he
said. "It is still a fair deal
for the port. It is still a fair deal for the city."
Ghielmetti said there is not much more he can give back to
the city without losing the investment funds needed to make the project a
success.
"I can't attract financing to this project without
having something that has a minimum level of profitability," he said.
"Look, I am buying an old house, fixing it up and delivering it at
cost."
(c) 2006 The
Author: Paul T. Rosynsky, STAFF WRITER Section:
It's the largest chunk of waterfront land in
It encompasses more than 64 acres and is home to a historic
shipping terminal, two marinas and more than a mile of shoreline along the
Oakland Estuary.
For years it's been a mostly vacant industrial track, used
in the past to support shipping operations and freight trains for the
Now it's slated to be one of the largest housing
developments in the city.
Because of that, the Oak to
This week, debate over how Pleasanton-based Signature
Properties should develop the land will move to the city's Planning Commission,
which is holding a workshop to discuss the plan and a recently released
environmental impact report.
If Signature Properties gets everything it wants, the Oak
to Ninth project will have more than 3,100 housing units in 13 buildings ranging
in height from six to 24 stories.
It will have 200,000 square feet of commercial space, 20
acres of park land and two refurbished marinas.
It will basically create a new neighborhood in an area long
forgotten.
"It will reintroduce
But to get that balance, some say, the developer's plan
will destroy a city landmark, close off the waterfront to the rest of the city
and create an exclusive neighborhood on what was once public land.
"We have this one opportunity, and if we blow it, we
have blown it for good," said John Sutter, a former Oakland City Council
member and Alameda County Superior Court judge. "We've fought for 60 years
to get this property, and now we are just going to privatize it and cut out the
real potential it has for the public."
The problem, Sutter and others said, is the project's
density and configuration.
They worry that the high-rise buildings will block views of
the water while shading the parks. And, they said, the road configuration inside
the project would make it difficult for residents to realize they could gain
access to the estuary from the Embarcadero.
To make their point, some residents turn to the city's
Estuary Policy Plan, a six-year-old planning document that outlines how the city
should develop its waterfront. The plan calls for the area to be mostly park
land, with low-density buildings housing retail uses.
"It is the footprint that is a major concern,"
said Sandra Threlfall, executive director of Waterfront Action, an Oakland-based
group that promotes public uses of the waterfront. "Generally speaking, if
people can't see the edge, they don't know it is there."
Ghielmetti disagrees and says that while the project does
not conform to the Estuary Plan, it is designed in a way to bring vibrancy and
vitality to the area.
"The Estuary Plan as written wouldn't have drawn
people in significant numbers to the water," he said. "In order to pay
for the parks and make those parks viable and vibrant, we had to get more
height."
And to get more park land, Ghielmetti argued, he will be
forced to demolish about 90 percent of the Ninth Avenue Terminal, built in the
1920s and expanded in the 1950s.
Ghielmetti said the building's facade and about 15,000
square feet of its warehouse portion will remain and be used as a possible
market location.
"We are saving the architectural significant part and
we are turning it into a cultural resource," he said. "If you leave
the entire building there, you obscure the views and the water."
Naomi Schiff, president of the Oakland Heritage Alliance,
doesn't agree.
The alliance last year tried to make the building, the last
of its kind in
Some groups are also concerned with the lack of affordable
housing in the current plan and say at least 25 percent of the project should be
set aside for families earning less than $25,000 a year.
Ghielmetti said he is currently working to include more
affordable housing, but details are still not available.
The start of the approval process will begin Wednesday at
6:30 p.m.
If the approval process goes as planned, the project would
be completed by 2014, with about 1,139 residential units completed between 2007
to 2010.
"If you think of it as a loaf of bread, it's like
saving the end piece and throwing out the loaf," she said. "This is
not historic preservation, this is hanging on to an old door knob."
Instead, Schiff said, the developers should save the
building and try to refurbish it for use as a large market or retail center.
But doing so, Ghielmetti argues, would take away a key
component of his plan to create a park along the water similar to Marina Green
in
(c) 2005 The
Author: Paul T. Rosynsky, STAFF WRITER Section: Review (c)
2005 The
State Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland, is sponsoring twin pieces
of legislation local political and port officials say are crucial for the future
of two controversial developments along
One bill would pave the way for a private developer's plan
to buy 60 acres of
The second bill would advance the city's proposal for a
mixed-used development on a section of the former Oakland Army Base near the
foot of the
The two developments require special legislation because
both would violate the state's Tidelands Trust law, which prohibits specific
types of construction -- such as building condominiums -- on waterfront
property.
The bills would remove the Tidelands Trust designations
from both the city's portion of the former Army Base and the Oak-to-Ninth
District and place them on other pieces of land so the two developments can
proceed legally.
The bills are scheduled for Senate committee hearings
Tuesday in
At the former Army Base, which closed in 1999 and was
transferred to the Oakland Base Reuse Authority last year, the city wants the
Tidelands Trust designation removed from about 98 acres just south of the
bridge.
SB 1435 then requests the Tidelands Trust designation be
placed on about 131 acres of inland base property that is to be awarded to the
port. The port plans to tear up its $37 million rail yard, completed in spring
2002, and rebuild it on the former base at an additional cost estimated to top
$65 million.
Port officials, who have come under fire for their plans
since they were revealed in an Oakland Tribune investigation two years ago, said
previously they needed to relocate the rail yard, known as the Joint Intermodal
Terminal, to improve overall efficiency at the port.
Moving the rail yard inland would make room for expansion
of several maritime terminals, allowing the port -- which is the fourth-largest
container harbor in the nation -- to maintain market share, they said.
But port Executive Director Tay Yoshitani said Friday the
port has hired an outside consultant to examine alternatives. If the port
doesn't move the rail yard, it could expand terminals adjacent to the base.
"We asked (the consultants) to review the total rail
operation and our long-term strategy," said Yoshitani, who is retiring this
summer. "We want to optimize
the utilization of the monies we already invested."
At one time, Mayor Jerry Brown and former City Manager
Robert Bobb had grandiose plans for the city's half of the base, including
construction of an American-Indian casino, a four-star hotel and a major
department store.
Those plans have been scrapped, leaving the city with an
older proposal for a mixed-use development with a light industrial park.
Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente (San Antonio-Fruitvale)
said he believes what goes on the base ultimately will hinge on market forces.
"It's going to take us a couple of years to get
through this (the Tidelands Trust changes), and it will depend on what the
economy is doing," he said.
De La Fuente also said the city, which has considerable
power over the port, may ask the port to buy the city's half of the base if
"I believe it's our responsibility to maximize
revenues for the city," he said, noting that extra funds could help the
city avoid future budget cuts.
But Councilmember Nancy Nadel (Downtown-West Oakland),
whose district includes the base, said she would oppose such a move. The city
should use the base to create private-sector jobs, not add to the city's
coffers, she said.
"Even if the port offers us a large sum of money, that
doesn't help people who need jobs," she said.
In addition, one top official from the state Lands
Commission, which oversees the Tidelands Trust, said the commission may have
concerns about the city selling the base to the port.
Lands Commission staff essentially has signed off on both
of Perata's bills. But it may frown on the city requesting that a Tidelands
Trust designation be removed from its property and placed on port property, only
to have the port buy the city's property. That would make the Tidelands Trust
swap unnecessary, said Blake Stevenson, senior counsel for the Lands Commission.
The Lands Commission already has raised issues with a
previous city/port agreement that required the port to pay the city $30 million
for another section of the base -- the Knight Rail Yard -- that many believe the
port should have received for free, Stevenson said.
Critics inside the port have viewed that deal as a device
for the city to get at port funds, which have numerous restrictions on them.
City officials have fumed for years as the port raked in hundreds of
millions of dollars from its profitable shipping and aviation divisions while
the city Perata's other bill, SB 1622, would remove the trust designation on the
Oak-to-Ninth District and place it on a yet-to-be named port property not
already encumbered by the trust.
If such a property cannot be found, the port would be
allowed to deposit funds in the Tidelands Trust in an amount equal to the value
of the land removed from the Trust, Stevenson said.
The port plans to sell the 60-acre Oak-to-Ninth land to
Signature Properties of Pleasanton for $18 million. Signature Properties also
has agreed to spend $16 million to clean the land of toxins.
But the port has come under fire for the Oak-to-Ninth deal
because the appraiser slashed $30 million off the price of the property to
finance Signature's costs to ready the land for development.
Such price breaks often are called public subsidies. But
the port maintains they are legitimate cuts, required by the marketplace.
However, the port did not put the sale of the land out to bid to
determine its market value.
(c) 2004 The
Author: Robert Gammon and Paul T. Rosynsky, STAFF WRITERS
Section: More Local News (c) 2004 The
The
The documents reveal a port-commissioned appraiser earlier
this year slashed the value of the land just southeast of
The deal to sell the estuary land to Signature Properties
of Pleasanton and Reynolds & Brown of
In addition, the port plans to hand over to the developers
at least $1.2 million a year in rent the public agency currently collects from
businesses on the property, the documents show.
The developers, meanwhile, plan to lease part of the
property from the port for $1 a year for the next 66 years. The developers also
plan to ask the city for a $20 million public subsidy to build 2,000
condominiums on Oak-to-Ninth. Port officials Monday continued to praise the
deal, saying it will turn industrial blight into a vibrant waterfront community
with plenty of public access to the Oakland Estuary.
"Whether (the deal) is for $18 million or not is not
the issue," said Port Executive Director Tay Yoshitani. "The real
issue is that the port does not have the kind of funds that we would need to
develop this property ... which is an eyesore."
But opponents say the hidden costs are yet another sign the
port favors no-bid, sweetheart deals for politically-connected developers.
"There are so many layers to this that make a bad
deal," said Charles Steidtmann, an attorney for a private property owner in
the middle of Oak-to-Ninth who has filed two lawsuits against the city. "It
makes it hard to put your finger on one thing and say, 'That's what makes this
deal bad.'"
An option agreement that would allow the developers to buy
the property during the next two years is scheduled for final approval by the
Port Commission this afternoon. Some port officials have estimated the total
private investment generated by the development deal could reach $400 million to
$500 million.
A port-commissioned appraisal of Oak-to-Ninth completed in
March originally pegged the fair market value of the land at $63.6 million.
But the San Francisco-based appraiser, Carneghi-Bautovich & Partners,
then lowered the price tag to $34 million, citing "extraordinary
costs" Signature Properties said it would have to spend to ready the
property for development.
Those expenses include:
$11.9 million for so-called "offsite costs"
related to infrastructure, such as widening the Embarcadero roadway and the
$7.8 million to demolish buildings on property the
developer does not plan to use.
$3.1 million to truck in 256,800 cubic yards of soil to
shore up soft Bay muds.
$2.8 million to build a 12.8-acre park the
The $34 million price tag was further reduced when
Signature Properties/Reynolds & Brown said it would pay the port $18
million, and promised to spend at least $16 million to clean the property of
toxins.
Port Commission President John Protopappas said when he
first heard the sales price, he thought $18 million was too low. But Protopappas,
a local developer appointed to the commission by his longtime ally, Mayor Jerry
Brown, said that after he "put his developer's hat on" he realized the
developers' costs were going to be "very, very expensive."
And he argued the development was "going to increase
waterfront access to the public."
"Right now, there's no real way for people to have
access to the water," he said.
However, one local developer who has done business with the
city but is not connected to the deal questioned some of the "extraordinary
costs." The "offsite costs" and the cost to build a public park
have been considered public subsidies in other development deals with the city,
said the developer, who requested anonymity.
The port also has come under criticism for a massive
waterfront development proposed for nearby
In return, the port gave up about $5.5 million a year in
rent generated by the buildings, port documents show. Plus the port agreed to
spend $10 million to build a multi-story garage to service the new development.
Before it becomes final, the Oak-to-Ninth deal must clear
several regulatory hurdles that could cost the port at least $3 million. Port
Deputy Attorney Vivian O'Neal said about 10 acres of Oak-to-Ninth are strictly
controlled by Tidelands Trust law, which prohibits certain uses on waterfront
property, such as building condominiums.
As a result, the port may have to purchase another piece of
property of equal or greater worth and "trade" it into the Tidelands
Trust in order to have the Tidelands Trust removed from Oak-to-Ninth, O'Neal and
Yoshitani confirmed.
If so, it could cost the port about $3 million or more and
would require special legislation signed by the governor, O'Neal said. The
legislation likely would be carried by state Sen. Don Perata.
Yoshitani said the port may attempt to have a section of
the former Oakland Army Base not already in the trust traded into the trust. But
Dave Plummer, regional manager for the State Lands Commission, which oversees
the trust, said such a move would further complicate the Tidelands Trust issues
on the Army Base. The city and the port currently are attempting to swap trust
designations on sections of the former base.
"We have told them (port officials) that they should
look first at (swapping) land along the Estuary before they look at the Oakland
Army Base," Plummer said.
(c) 2003 The
Author: Robert Gammon, STAFF WRITER Section: Local &
Regional News (c) 2003 The
Owners of a four-acre lot along
J.W. and Barbara Silveira claim in a lawsuit filed last
week that the city illegally added their property to its Central City East
Redevelopment Plan so officials could later use eminent domain to take it in the
name of progress.
Their fear stems from two city-backed proposals that have
gained approval over the last year.
The first is a
The Silveiras' property, known as the Fifth Avenue Artists'
Colony, sits in the middle of those 60 acres and the owners fear the developer
wants their land for the project.
The second proposal is a city plan that designated a large
swathe of land along the north side of Nimitz Freeway as a redevelopment area.
By doing so, the city made it easier to claim eminent domain on any
property within that plan so it could redevelop it.
"The main thing is, this property was broughtin, not
because it was in need of redevelopment, it was brought in to give to (the
developer)," said Charles Steidtmann, an attorney representing the
Silveiras. "We want an amendment to the plan so the city cannot claim
eminent domain and take the property."
The
But city officials denied the claims, saying the property
needed to be included to give the city negotiating room as it tries to redevelop
the waterfront.
City Councilman Danny Wan (Grand Lake-Chinatown), who
represents the area, said the property was included because it is one of a few
sections from which flatland residents have direct access to the water.
Under a previously approved Estuary Plan, the city is
required to build public access along the water but preserve the artists'
colony. Wan said Monday that by
having the property in the redevelopment plan, both goals can be accomplished.
"It's a tool that we can use, it gives us some
flexibility," Wan said. "We're not saying we will use eminent domain,
but if the Silveiras refuse to be part of the planning ... that is a
possibility."
However, Wan said, the Estuary Plan prevents the city from
destroying the artists' colony. Instead, he said, the city might
"upgrade" their living quarters or "give them another
space."
Steidtmann said the lawsuit is asking an Alameda County
Superior Court judge to postpone enactment of the plan and declare it illegal.
Among the problems cited by Steidtmann was the city's failure to properly
notify the Fifth Avenue Colony and the Silveiras about the plan, and the
blueprint's failure to comply with state laws regulating how redevelopment plans
should be created.
(c) 2003 The
Author: Paul T. Rosynsky, STAFF WRITER Section: More Local
News (c) 2003 The
The Oakland Port Commission on Tuesday unanimously approved
a plan to sell 60 acres of public land near
The developers, Signature Properties of Pleasanton and
Reynolds & Brown of
In addition, port officials revealed Tuesday the proposed
sale could include all or some of nearby
If state officials in charge of ensuring public access to
waterfront land approve key aspects of the sale, the developers have agreed to
pay the port $18 million for Oak-to-Ninth, under the deal approved by port
commissioners Tuesday in a 6-0 vote. One commissioner was absent.
The developers also promised to spend at least $16 million
on cleaning up the polluted industrial property between the Oakland Estuary and
Interstate 880.
"We're committed to promoting the waterfront -- to
promoting people to go down to the water," said Signature Properties
President Michael Ghielmetti after the port commission's vote.
However, some local activists are raising concerns about
the sale of Oak-to-Ninth, while others oppose it outright, calling it a
sweetheart deal with politically-connected developers.
Both Signature Properties and Reynolds are top campaign
contributors to
A coalition of nine community groups delivered a letter to
port commissioners Tuesday, saying they cannot support the planned project
unless it includes affordable housing.
The coalition also wants promises that community and
neighborhood groups will be involved in the project design and that the
development will create jobs for local construction workers, while enhancing
"the waterfront as an asset for all Oaklanders."
"Our support for this project will be contingent upon
the extent to which the project conforms to this vision," said Junious
Williams, chief executive officer of the Urban Strategies Council, reading from
the letter.
In addition, residents, artisans and owners of the
J.W. and Barbara Silveira, owners of
Steidtmann also questioned the price to be paid for
Oak-to-Ninth, which the
"The value may have increased significantly," he
told port commissioners. "I suggest you update your appraisal."
But several representatives from
Port Commission President John Protopappas said the sale of
Oak-to-Ninth signals the end of the port's maritime operations southeast of
The increasing size of tanker ships has made the relatively
narrow and shallow inner Estuary unsuitable for navigation. The port's maritime
operations are now all west and northwest of
At the same time, it's unclear what will happen to the
historic
The biggest hurdle facing the developers and the port
likely will be getting approvals from the state Lands Commission, which oversees
waterfront land under Tidelands Trust law.
The port hopes to get the Tidelands Trust designation
transferred from Oak-to-Ninth to another port property. If the port fails,
Ghielmetti said the deal will collapse because Tidelands Trust law prohibits the
sale of waterfront public land to private individuals or corporations.
Ghielmetti and Omar Benjamin, port director of Commercial
Real Estate, estimated that all of the regulatory approvals could take two to
five years. Ghielmetti estimated it will take an additional five to 10 years to
complete the development project. The developers also plan to lease a small
section of Oak-to-Ninth.
Benjamin said the port and the developers also have not yet
decided how much of
When completed, the Oak-to-Ninth deal will mark the second
major sale of port waterfront property to private developers in recent years. In
late 2001, the port commission agreed to sell much of
(c) 2003 The
Author: Robert Gammon, STAFF WRITER Section: Local &
Regional News (c) 2003 The
The
The team of Signature Properties of Pleasanton and Reynolds
& Brown of
The team, which uses the name Oakland Harbor Partners and
has been negotiating with the port for two years, says it also is committed to
spending at least $16 million to clean up the waterfront property sandwiched
between the Nimitz Freeway and the Oakland Estuary.
If the deal goes through, it will set in motion what
promises to become the largest private development along
The Port Commission is scheduled to vote on an agreement
today that would pave the way for the sale. However, the deal cannot be
finalized until the port works out a way to overcome legal restrictions on
waterfront property.
"It's going to take several years to get it
done," said Signature Properties President Michael Ghielmetti. "And
that assumes a whole lot of people and whole lot of agencies will be
satisfied."
Residents of the
"They're using up the waterfront and depleting public
access," said Pam Weber, a resident of
The artists' colony sits in the middle of the Oak-to-Ninth
property. The colony is privately
owned and not for sale, but it would be surrounded by the Signature
Properties/Reynolds & Brown development.
However,
The artisans and the owner of
Although council members have said
Clean-up costs
Councilmember Danny Wan (Grand Lake-Chinatown) said he
supports the Signature Properties development of Oak-to-Ninth, noting neither
the city nor the port has the funds to clean it up and develop it.
"This developer is going to contribute a lot of money
to clean it up," said Wan, whose district includes Oak-to-Ninth. "If
we're ever going to develop this property, there has to be some (private)
developer to do it."
Signature Properties/Reynolds & Brown first earned the
right to negotiate with the port on Oak-to-Ninth two years ago when it won a bid
competition against another major development team, Shorenstein Co. of San
Francisco and Interland Corp. of
However, the sale of the property -- just like the port's
recent sale of nearby
Selling the land to Signature Properties will require the
port to navigate several regulatory and legal obstacles because much of
Oak-to-Ninth is encumbered by the Tidelands Trust.
Under Tidelands Trust law, publicly-owned waterfront land
cannot be sold or given to private corporations or individuals. To get around
that prohibition, the Tidelands Trust designation would have to be lifted from
the Oak-to-Ninth property.
Trading properties
Omar Benjamin, port director of Commercial Real Estate,
said the port may have to "trade" other port property into the trust
in return. Under trust law, such
property must be of equal or greater value to the land traded out of the trust.
Benjamin, however, would not identify which port property would be traded for
Oak-to-Ninth.
"There are options and strategies but nothing that I
can lay my hands on right now," he said.
The value of Oak-to-Ninth after it is cleaned up was
independently appraised at $34 million, according to a report by Benjamin.
Instead of the port paying the clean-up and selling the property, the port and
Signature Properties/Reynolds & Brown agreed the development team would pay
the clean-up and buy the property for $18 million.
Under the deal, the development team would purchase
insurance should the clean-up exceed $16 million. If it's less, the two sides
would split the savings.
But Ghielmetti said the costs could reach $20 million to
$25 million. The development team
also plans to lease a small section of the property along the Estuary.
The development team has yet to come out with a detailed
plan for Oak-to-Ninth, preferring to say it wants a mix of residential, retail
and open space.
Environmental approval
Once the development team discloses its plans, those plans
must undergo the full environmental approval process and must obtain approvals
by the city Planning Commission and the City Council. In addition, the plans
must conform to the Estuary Policy Plan, which governs development along the
waterfront.
The development team plans to ask the city for a subsidy --
in the neighborhood of $20 million. Ghielmetti said they plan to request the
property taxes generated by the development.
The development team is well established in
The team has been among the top campaign contributors to
Staff Writer Paul Rosynsky contributed to this report.
(c) 2003 The
Author: Robert Gammon, STAFF WRITER Section: Local &
Regional News (c) 2003 The
A coalition of local artisans, small businesses and a large
property owner is angry about a sweeping plan it says could wipe out a
decades-old waterfront arts colony and replace it with condominiums.
If the City Council refuses tonight to exempt the
"We're just business people down here trying to make a
living," said Charles Weber, who has operated his antique speed boat
restoration business on
Top city officials maintain there's no need to exempt the
artists colony from the huge Central City East Redevelopment Project because
they say the community will be protected, although it may have to move from its
current home of rambling World War II era warehouses.
And city officials say the redevelopment plan could
actually insulate the artists colony from the whims of property owners J.W. and
Barbara Silveira. The pair have held title to the
"What if Silveira, someday, decides to sell it to some
other developer who wants to build luxury condos?" said City Councilmember
Danny Wan (Grand Lake-Chinatown), whose district includes the
At the center of the controversy over Fifth Avenue arts
community is the city's vision for a blighted swath of waterfront land southeast
of Jack London Square that sits at the mouth of the Lake Merritt Channel where
it meets the Oakland Estuary.
Last November,
Those 60 acres of port land are known as Oak-to-Ninth,
running from
The
But after being chosen as the port's master developer,
current Signature Properties President Mike Ghielmetti contacted the Silveiras
about Fifth Avenue. But the Silveiras told Ghielmetti the land wasn't for sale.
At the same time, the city chose to include the
The plan has engendered no controversy except from the
"Why else would the city put this property in the
redevelopment plan?" said Charles Steidtmann, one of several attorneys
representing the Silveiras, who have a history of litigation with the city.
The Silveiras and the 50 or so artisans and small business
owners of
Ghielmetti said in an interview on Friday he "was not
looking to kick out" the artisans from
Robert Shapiro, an attorney for the Silveiras, said his
clients would welcome such a guarantee.
However, the prospects for such a promise appear to be dim.
Two weeks ago, the council voted unanimously to move forward with the
redevelopment project without guarantees for
Councilmember Wan said the
(c) 2003 The
Author: Robert Gammon, STAFF WRITER Section: More Local
News (c) 2003 The