ATTACHMENT B
Executive Summary
The owner of 410 14th Street and the artists and business owners of the Black Arts Movement and Business District (BAMBD) are in opposition and are formally appealing the building proposed at 1431 Franklin, who have applied for both residential and commercial permitting, for a project site that is located within an existing listed National Register historic resource and the Downtown Historic District Area of Primary Importance (API). Although it was not acknowledged in in form during this process, the proposed building if approved would be built directly next door to a registered National Resource, 410 14th Street.
Below you will hear a detailed argument of contention that adequately proves the detriment this proposed building will impose if allowed by the council. You will also find a detailed account of the unjust occurrences throughout the permitting process exemplified by the Landmarks Preservation Board and the Oakland Planning Commission. The disregard of the historical status of 410 14th Street, the former Athenian Nile Club and its subsequent retail store fronts, the mismanagement of the protections provided by the designation of the cultural district cited as the Black Arts Movement and Business District by the City of Oakland appointed officials, within the Planning Commission and the Landmarks Preservation Board.
Opportunity Zones and Hyper Development
The current wave of downtown high-rise residential development is clear evidence that Oakland has become activated as a location for investors. This actuality is in part due to large sections of Oakland being declared Opportunity Zones. Please discover the definition of an opportunity zone and its benefits to opportunistic developers:
The Opportunity Zones are meant to spur economic development and job creation in distressed communities by providing tax benefits to investors. Investors receive capital-gains tax deferral, reduction in basis for long-term investments and other tax incentives. Investments made by individuals through Qualified Opportunity Funds in these zones would be allowed to defer or eliminate Federal taxes on capital gains. You can get the tax benefits, even if you don’t live, work or have a business in an Opportunity Zone while investments are not administered or overseen by the City of Oakland.
The act of labeling large portions of the City of Oakland, areas mostly and historically populated by majority African Americans and other minorities, as Opportunity Zones and incentivizing the removal of the longstanding African American populace by rendering attractive tax breaks to developers, presents the very foundation for aggressive gentrification.
As depicted in the map above, Downtown Oakland’s Black Arts Movement and Business District, a Black cultural district, has been labeled and incentivized for dismemberment by developers such as Tidewater Capital.
BAMBD and its African American business and property owners were not consulted before the district was greenlit.
This development surge is not without damaging consequences to long-standing small businesses and historic properties. Geoffrey’s Inner Circle has operated continuously from 1990 to present. Geoffrey’s Inner Circle has been operating in the historic, registered National Resource (Former Athenian Nile Club) Building at 410 14th Street since 1993. This business, along with many others have suffered from
considerable economic duress and displacement during the construction of the Atlas Building across the street (4 years of construction pollution, loss of sunlight, loss of revenues etc.), AC Hotel, 1900 Broadway and other recent large projects.
Of particular concern is the proposed commercial building at 1431 Franklin Street which recently received approval from the Oakland Planning Commission on March 17, 2023. During this entire process we have presented our valid concerns regarding this project in both oral and written entreaties.
Non-Conformance Relative to The Permit
Foremost, the actuality of Tidewater Capital applying for dual permits in residential and in commercial categories is unprecedented and not the typical way the permitting process is administered. There is no history of this being the accurate way that the permitting process is governed. We would like to formally bring this point into record and dispute the validity of this process. -Lack of Conformance with Conditional Use Permit Criteria The (office and residential) proposal is required to conform to all of the general use permit criteria as described in 17.134.050. Specifically, the proposal does not conform to the following Conditional Use Permit criteria.
1. The proposal does not conform to 17.134.050 (A) which requires “harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density; and will result in having a “harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood character; to the generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets; and to any other relevant impact of the development”.
In particular, the impact of the development will continue to exacerbate conditions detrimental to the livelihood of existing small businesses by removing parking, increasing traffic and impacts from extended construction periods.
2. The proposal does not conform to 17.134.050 (C) which requires that the “proposed development will enhance the successful operation of the surrounding area in its basic community functions”.
The proposal is located within the Black Arts Movement and Business District (BAMBD).
All development applications are required to be processed in accordance with zoning regulations that include notification of the project within BAMBD and how the proposed project will conform to the goals of the BAMBD. This proposal has not followed the prescribed procedures and has not demonstrated compliance with the BAMBD goals until February 1, 2023. The project was first proposed in December 2021.
3. The proposal does not conform to 17.134.050 (D) Regular Design Review criteria set forth in the regular design review procedure at Section 17.136.050.
See discussion below on Design Review.
The proposal does not conform to 17.134.050 (E) “in all significant respects with the Oakland General Plan and with any other applicable guidelines or criteria, district plan or development control map which has been adopted by the Planning Commission or City Council”.
The proposal fails wholeheartedly to demonstrate consideration of the goals of City Council Resolution 85958, Oakland General Plan, and the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan. These planning documents prescribe in part that proposals in the BAMBD, and quote; “preserve, protect, enhance, perpetuate, and prevent the unnecessary destruction or impairment of properties or physical features of special character or special historic, cultural, educational, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value.”
-Lack of Conformance with Design Review Criteria
4. The proposal does not conform to 17.136.050 (A)(1) which requires “That the proposed design will create a building or set of buildings that are well related to the surrounding area in their setting, scale, bulk, height, materials, and textures”.
The (office and residential) proposal is required to conform to 17.136.050 regular design review criteria.
Regular design review approval may be granted only if the proposal conforms to all of the following general design review criteria, as well as to any and all other applicable design review criteria:
Specifically, the proposal does not conform to the following regular design review criteria.
5. The proposal does not conform to 17.136.050 (A)(2) which requires “That the proposed design will protect, preserve, or enhance desirable neighborhood characteristics.
The proposed design creates negative shadows, eliminates parking, and will not preserve the existing neighborhood character of black-owned, small businesses and the cultural district.
6. The proposal does not conform to 17.136.050 (A)(5) which requires “That the proposed design conforms in all significant respects with the Oakland General Plan and with any applicable design review guidelines or criteria, district plan, or development control map which have been adopted by the Planning Commission or City Council.”
The proposal fails completely to demonstrate consideration of the goals of City Council Resolution 85958, Oakland General Plan, and the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan. These planning documents prescribe in part that proposals in the Black Arts Movement and Business District (BAMBD) and quote; preserve, protect, enhance, perpetuate, and prevent the unnecessary destruction or impairment of properties or physical features of special character or special historic, cultural, educational, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value.”
7. The proposal does not conform to 17.136.050 (B)(1) which requires “That the proposal will help achieve or maintain a group of facilities which are well related to one another and which, when taken together, will result in a well-composed design, with consideration given to site, landscape, bulk, height, arrangement, texture, materials, colors, and appurtenances”.
Despite Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and Design Review Committee recommendations, a reasonable conclusion can be reached that the proposal introduces a building of such a large scale that it does not result in a well-composed design due to its bulk and height.
8. The proposal does not conform to 17.136.050 (B)(2) which requires “That the proposed design will be of a quality and character which harmonizes with, and serves to protect the value of, private and public investments in the area”.
Small, black-owned businesses in the area are losing their ability to remain viable as new, incentivized development rapidly occurs. The BAMBDs goals are written to protect these institutions. The proposal presented does not even mention the Black Arts Movement and Business District (BAMBD) until 2/1/23, over two years after its initial submission.
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Decision Was Disreputable
The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) identifies historic landmarks in Oakland, conducts design review hearings on historic properties, and advises the Planning Commission and City Council on preservation. In addition, the board reviews projects utilizing the Oakland General Plan Historic Preservation Element (HPE).
In 2022, the LPAB conducted three meetings on the project. During the meeting in September, the LPAB recommended that the project proceed to the next step in the development process. Their recommendations failed to protect a historic property from avoidable impacts.
The loss of natural light to the 3rd floor ballroom will have a significant impact on the character and use of the space. Please see attached photos of the ballroom windows that face and receive 100% of their sunlight from where the proposed building would be constructed if approved. The integrity of this room would be forever compromised and the loss of revenues due to the loss of natural light would be immeasurable. The bay windows in this room are character-defining elements of this historic building.
Their recommendation for approval also threatens the integrity of the Downtown Oakland Historic District. Additionally, the LPAB failed to uphold the HPE objectives and policies including policy 3.1 (current General Plan) which is intended to avoid or minimize adverse effects on character-defining elements of historic properties.
The draft 2023 Oakland General Plan Historic Preservation Element refers to the economist James Boyce’ conclusions that identifies in part,
“Four types of political power that wealthier, predominantly White residents have in addition to their greater levels of purchasing power: decision power, agenda power, value power, and event power”.
This means greater influence in determining what decision-makers, both public and private, will or will not do; shaping decision makers’ agendas; shaping others’ preferences; and altering the circumstances others face, respectively.
In particular, event power means that once an action has occurred, such as causing air pollution, chopping down trees, or constructing buildings, the populations without similar event power or adaptive capacity must deal with the consequences of that action, often with limited to no resources.” This is precisely the situation that is facing BAMBD businesses and property owners who are left to overcome deliberate policy decisions that negatively affect their livelihoods such as reduced on-street parking, bicycle lanes and most egregious, large-scale development that is detrimental to their existence.
Design Review Committee (DRC)
The Design Review Committee (DRC) is an official committee of the Oakland Planning Commission tasked with providing design feedback to project developers and staff. The DRC conducted a meeting on September 28, 2022, to review the project. Their comments primarily addressed the superficial aspects of the project yet failed to mitigate the impact of the proposed monolithic slab tower on adjacent properties. Their comments also failed to address the concerns that both a registered Historic National Resource, 410 14th Street, and also registered Historic National Resource district are threatened by the project as designed. Their window, façade treatment, density and other comments do not begin to address the level of effort and commitment the project sponsor is required to extend for a development in the BAMBD.
During this and all other design review meetings, The Black Arts Movement and Business District was never acknowledged nor were design procedures discussed relative to the mission of the cultural district and goals of City Council Resolution 85958 enacted to protect the resources there of. Not once.
Oakland Planning Commission
A streamlined CEQA analysis was issued for the project in December 2022. The analysis reached questionable conclusions specific to the project by relying on program EIRs that did not measure the impacts from the proposed project on specific historic resources. The standard of measurement in the EIR of “Equal or Less Severity of Impact Previously Identified in Program EIRs” fails to account for the local conditions at 410 14th Street and in the project vicinity.
Specifically, Section A. Aesthetics, Shadow, and Wind, concludes that there will be “no adverse effect on a historic building, or cast shadow that would materially impair the historic resources significance”. This conclusion fails to address the impact of loss of natural light to 410 14th Street especially on the 3rd floor ballroom. The CEQA also fails to acknowledge the importance of the cultural resources in the project vicinity and the compliance with goals of the BAMBD is completely missing from the analysis.
Figure 4 on page 89 does not even identify 410 14th Street as an “Individual Other Resource” while accurately designating other surrounding properties as such.
These are critical oversights that cannot be ignored.
The project sponsors have an obligation and an opportunity to create a project that meets their financial goals as well as the preservation goals of the city as defined in the BAMBD, Downtown Oakland Specific Plan, Oakland General Plan Historic Preservation Element, and other relevant documents. A rigorous implementation of the goals and serious discussions by the project sponsor to mitigate impacts from their project could have resulted in a better solution.
It is extremely worrisome that throughout this planning review the applicable measures including meeting the goals of the BAMBD and acknowledgement of 410 14th St. being a registered National Resource have not been included. These measures are meant to protect and preserve existing businesses and historic resources through policies to ensure and encourage cultural institutions not be negatively impacted. The review of this project has not met the standard of care as required by the Zoning Code, Oakland General Plan Historic Preservation Element, or the Downtown Specific Plan. The Planning Commission should not have approved the 1431 Franklin Street application without the project sponsors and planning staff fully complying with the regulations as they are intended to be implemented for this project.
At a Planning Commission meeting on September 27, 2017, when a separate building sought a permit to block the view of City Hall from the E. 18th Street Pier, the issue of view corridors was raised as the planning commission official Robert Meerkamp went before the Commission to ask the Planning Commissioners, shockingly, whether they wanted the environmental impact report to “come back with findings for approval or denial of the project”! The video of the meeting is online at https://www.oaklandca.gov/meeting/september-27-2017-planning-commission-meeting . The alarming exchange starts at 1:02:45 on the video and continues for 14 minutes before Mr. Meerkamp tells the Commissioners that “I am hearing a pretty strong consensus towards directing us to complete our CEQA review and to bring it back with findings for approval – so that’s what we’ll do.” The Planning Commission has gone rogue in its effort to hyper develop downtown Oakland as high and as fast as possible. It will require the action of the City Council to restore some accountability and lawfulness to the process and to protect Oakland’s beautiful legacy, the connection between Oakland’s downtown and Lake Merritt sunsets and the interests, continuance and advancement of the Black Arts Movement and business District.
Historical Status of The District
The history of downtown Oakland development began with its roots at the foot of Broadway and grew northward through succeeding decades. The pinnacle of development occurred during the early 20th century around the intersection of 14th and Broadway in an area known today as the Downtown Oakland Historic District. This collection of historic commercial buildings gives downtown its character as an urban center.
After World War 2, Oakland’s changing demographics reflected an increase in the black population and decrease in the white population. Downtown became unattractive to developers of large-scale projects who preferred to invest in suburban locations following the population that abandoned the inner city.
Beginning in the 1950’s-60’s, small, local, black, and other minority-owned businesses have kept downtown vibrant offering an array of diverse goods and services. Recently, institutional investors have “rediscovered” Oakland (Due to these areas being greenlit as Opportunity Zones) resulting in the development of multiple high-rise residential projects.
This current trend acknowledges what we owners of small businesses have always known; that downtown Oakland is a unique, distinctive, and creative urban environment. While others fled and avoided Oakland, our businesses stayed, struggled, served the community, and kept the lights on downtown. In 2016, the city council acknowledged the legacy of the congregation of downtown black- owned businesses with the creation of the Black Arts Movement and Business district (City Council Resolution No. 85958 attached).
In 1998 this district was declared a National Resource by California State Parks- Office of Historic Preservation. This actuality was eerily missing from The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Boards website that lists all the historic districts in the City of Oakland (See attached documentation from California State Parks- Office of Historic Preservation) We have serious reservations about our districts status as a National Resource. We have the exact same protections as Old Oakland (notably found on the LPAB’s website) which prevents large development in that district. We currently have multiple large scale developments being built, countless others completed and are arguably correct about the harm Tidewater Capitals proposal can cost yet, the Planning Commission continues to approve these proposals. What is the difference between The Downtown Oakland Historic District and Victorian Row (Old Oakland) that prevents their development and encourages ours?
Historical Status of the Building
In 1980, 410 14th Street was listed as National Resource by California State Parks- Office of Historic Preservation. This status was not acknowledged even once throughout this entire process.
According to the California State Law & Historic Preservation Statutes, Regulations & Administrative Policies Regarding the Preservation & Protection of Cultural & Historical Resources:
-Page 18 section 5029. State Historical Resource Designation; notification of county recorder; effect on title. (a) The commission shall, within 90 days after the approval by the director of the issuance by the commission of an historical resources designation for an individual property, submit to the county recorder for recordation, and the county recorder shall record, a certified resolution establishing the historical resources designation. For historical resources designations.
This proves the city and county was informed of the status 90 days after it was granted. It does not appear on The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board website that lists all the historic and heritage properties in the City of Oakland (See attached documentation from California State Parks- Office of Historic Preservation)
This is the status listed on the City of Oakland Landmarks Preservation Advisory boards website in relation to 410 14th Street (a corner property listed as its Franklin side address of 1411). This buildings National Resource status has been hidden from the public by the city in hopes that owner Geoffrey Pete was ignorant to its protected status and therefore be steamrolled by Tidewater Capital, The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and the City Planning Commission. The lack of professionalism and dishonesty occurring by the means of the city representatives involved is criminal.
Tidewater Offering $5000.00 for Consulting Fees
The developer has proposed draft agreements to seemingly mitigate our concerns. However, as presented the developers proposals are unsatisfactory regarding our interests. Specifically, we note the following: Compensation for Lamumba Inc. dba Geoffrey’s Inner Circle’s consultants in the matter of the suggested construction of the twenty-seven-story structure is of concern. To be offered $5000.00 in total with the expectation of such a modest amount of money covering the most minimal number of billable hours expected of structural engineers, architects, lawyers, and varying consultants is an unattainable goal. The undertaking of the proposed structure is solely the interest of the developer. As a longstanding Oakland business owner and historical site proprietor it is a necessity to have these types of undertakings supervised by professionals. The offer of $5000.00 could not cover the retainment of services from such professionals. It leaves the property owner, who has zero interest in the development to bear the load of retaining these services for hundreds of thousands of dollars, at cost.
In that same regard, their offer to compensate for insurance only before and during the construction and not after completion as well, is worrisome. We have had many instances of after construction insurance becoming required when embarking on such a task as a high-rise building. The Millennium tower in San Francisco is one of the most currently infamous instances of why this type of coverage is needed. 410 14th Street is an unreinforced brick building, and the huge potential of post-construction losses is concerning. It also is a testament of the character of the developer and their collective respect for Black business, historical property ownership and the interests of the BAMBD cultural district.
Violating the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan (DOSP)
The below points are clear violations of the DOSP by the Planning Commission
1. DOSP Vision and Equity Goal
The DOSP sets out a central vision for downtown: Downtown Oakland serves as the setting for a remarkable array of lived experiences. It is both home and gathering space to people of all income levels, races, cultures, and ethnicities. It supports a wide spectrum of community assets, serving not only local residents, but also visitors and workers from around the bay area and the globe. Its economy drives social innovation and reflects the cultures, political movements, and people who are its heritage.
To achieve this vision, the DOSP’s overarching equity goal is to reduce racial disparities by shaping a downtown that provides fair and equitable access to the opportunities that permeate throughout Oakland. This includes countering forces that have led to the displacement of people, businesses, cultures, and communities of color.
2. Economic Opportunity
DOSP GOAL: Create opportunities for economic growth and financial security for all Oaklanders. The following zoning amendments will increase economic opportunity in Downtown Oakland:
-Creation of a Downtown Arts and Culture Combining Zone. As described further in Section 5:
-Culture keeping, this combining zone is proposed to be piloted in the Black Arts Movement and Business District (BAMBD).
-It establishes regulations that favor the location of arts and culture and their supportive services on the ground floor of buildings. The zone will serve as an economic driver by providing jobs and drawing patrons to the district and its surrounding area.
5. Culture Keeping
DOSP’s GOAL: Encourage diverse voices and forms of expression to flourish. The following zoning amendments will support new and more diverse cultural activities in Downtown Oakland:
-Creation of Arts and Culture Overlay Combining Zone. The intent of the Arts and Culture Combining Zone is to foster a sense of belonging for all Oaklanders, highlight Oakland’s rich history and diverse cultures, celebrate, and strengthen ethnic enclaves, support communities harmed by racial inequities, and increase access to artistic and cultural expression.
In short, their approval of the proposed building at 1431 Franklin was a direct violation of the above listed points of the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan and proved to be the opposite of historical landmark protection and culture and arts preservation. Their approval did not strengthen ethnic enclaves or support communities harmed by racial inequities.
Effects of Drilling Into the Ground Next to an Unreinforced Masonry Building
Built in 1903, 410 14th Street is building constructed of unreinforced masonry. Unreinforced masonry buildings (URMs) are old brick buildings typically built prior to 1945. Because these buildings were not built using modern building codes, they are much more likely to experience damage or collapse. The Proposed building at 1431 Franklin will have to drill deep into the bedrock to secure the foundation of the structure. In drilling within a few feet of 410 14th Street, the possibility of the vibration and rock displacement causing colossal damage is massive.
Damaging this historical building would be an irreversible disservice to the Black Arts Movement and Business District as in an instant we could lose a historical building and registered National Resource along with eleven (11) businesses of which nine (9) are Black owned.
Loss Of Sunlight and Bay Windows in the Main Banquet Hall
Alteration of light and air are not protected by the building code but should be considered in this respect due to the historic and architectural prominence of the windows in the 3rd floor ballroom and the impact on the economic viability of the room and a registered National Resource.
With an emphasis that the room is used for both day and evening events, it is greatly enhanced by the natural light (sunlight and moon light), and the view of the city skyline rendered by the large windows.
This will be completely lost with the development proposal in question (residential or commercial).
The Loss of The Egress, Danger of Exiting Through Tidewater Capital’s Proposed Building
An existing emergency exit access facility currently serves two buildings: 410 and 420 14th St. both of which are live music venues with a combined patron capacity of nearly 3000 people. This egress is attached to and owned by Lamumba Inc dba Geoffrey’s Inner Circle The proposed development is recommending a new exit access facility that serves both 410 and 420 14th Street and enters and exits out of the Tidewater proposed structure.
In the event of a fire or disastrous emergency happening within the proposed building at 1431 Franklin St, how then would we safely and effectively exit the buildings with nearly 3000 patrons who would now have to compete with the innumerable number of tenants and or residents of Tidewaters proposed 27- 42 Story building who would be attempting to exit the structure simultaneously? The egress is the property of 410 14th Street as well as the land below. Tidewater Capital is proposing to occupy the property on the 410 14th Street section of the property line, without formal request or permission from the 410 14th Street property owner.
Please see attached map of their design that has zero indication of consideration of the above.
Additionally, would they be proposing to cut a new door to access this emergency exit into a registered National Resource and historical building presenting a new possibility of damage? This was not addressed in their current design (please see attached map of the proposed egress from the applicants’ design)
Proposing that two different buildings with a high patron capacity exit through a third, 27-42 story, residentially occupied building is dangerously unrealistic (as well as a commercially occupied building).
The design presented has not taken this into consideration and in failing to do so has caused the potential of harm to patrons attempting to flee to safety during an emergency to skyrocket.
Lastly, any changes, alteration or additions to the registered national resource building located at 410 14th Street must be permitted by the City of Oakland. The only person who can apply for a permit for any type of construction on this building is Geoffrey Pete. How does Tidewater aim to alter any part of the egress, building, fire escape, add a walkway into their building or link the two properties in any way without a permit initiated by the owner of the historical building? Why wasn’t this required by the Planning Commission? How did the design pass the design review board without satisfying this requirement?
We Dispute the Findings of the 1431 Franklin Street Residential Project CEQA Analysis
The California Environmental Quality Act - CEQA - was enacted to protect the health and safety of Californians. CEQA law is a hard fight for a lay person, but this CEQA report is deficient. It provides no substantive analysis - such as that provided by an Environmental Impact Report - but is based upon the boilerplate CEQA exemptions that have come before it. This report is inadequate and glosses over important facts. It is dangerously negligent.
One important feature of Geoffrey's Inner Circle, located at 410 14th Street, is its fire escape, which exists on an pre-existing easement. The project applicant - the adjacent landowner - does not have the right to unilaterally dispense with Geoffrey's fire escape or its easement. This property is that of Geoffrey Pete.
The fire escape which exists on this easement was brought to the attention of the Planning Commission at their Design Review Committee Meeting on 9/28/22. As Mr. Geoffrey Pete explained, this fire escape also serves the neighboring nightclub at 420 14th St. In the event of a fire, earthquake or other disaster, it would be used for the potential evacuation of 2000+ legal patrons - many of whom may not be his own. Mr. Geoffrey Pete, in fact, extends an informal easement to accommodate the safe escape of his neighbors.
The 1431 Franklin Street Residential Project CEQA Analysis provides only a clandestine mention of this easement. The term "easement" appears on only one single page of this 402-page report: page 28, Figure IV-8 Ground Floor Plan. The easement previously granted to the property owner of 410 14th Street is hidden within that diagram in fine print. While we have little guarantee that the dimensions of the easement are plotted correctly, we are certain that the rights and intentions assigned to this easement will be violated during the 3-4 year construction period and have no assurance they will maintained after that.
If the 1431 Broadway project applicant wishes to encroach upon that easement, they must reach an agreement with the Oakland Fire Department and Mr. Geoffrey Pete. If not, the lives of the patrons of 410 and 420 Broadway will unjustly be put at risk.
looks dangerous.
Geoffrey's Inner Circle, 410 14th Street, is referred to as 1411 Franklin Street on page 56. There it is classified as a historic resource. Pages 92 and 93 of this CEQA report reinforce these crucial omissions its easement and fire escape. On these two pages, the report makes reference to its neighbors:
1411 Franklin Street, Athenian Nile Club Building (1901-1902, Local Register, OCHS Rating B+a1+)
That is somewhat correct. That was Geoffrey's Inner Circle's previous name and address, before Mr.
Geoffrey Pete liberated the building to become the cornerstone of the Black Arts Movement and Business District. But no mention of the easement or fire escape is provided. That is a fatal omission. This puts the health and safety of Californians at risk.
There is no mention of Geoffrey's Inner Circle's elevator door, located directly adjacent to the 1431 Franklin Street Residential Project, nor how access to that door will be maintained, during construction and after. The 1431 Franklin Street Residential Project has no right to impede Geoffrey's methods of ingress and egress.
The term "fire escape" appears only once in this document, following that, pertaining to the project's other nearest neighbor, 1441 Franklin Street. In this case, the CEQA report mentions "a metal fire escape at the center bay has been removed." The methods of ingress and egress from other fire escapes in adjoining buildings must also be questioned, on all sides of the proposed project, including the scary "Emergency Egress" corridor, as previously mentioned.
On page 108, the CEQA report claims:
"The side and rear facades of five of these contributors (1411 Franklin Street, 420 14th Street, 1440 Broadway, 421 15th Street, and 1441 Franklin Street), which date between 1901 and 1929, do not contain any features which are important to the character of the Downtown Historic District and API."
How will the patrons of these buildings escape in case of an emergency? This fire escape is an important feature. The applicant's claim is preposterous.
On page 145, the CEQA report claims:
"The nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are: 1) apartments at 1411 Franklin Street adjacent to the project site to the south"
While Geoffrey's Inner Circle, 410 14th Street, is zoned for both residential and business use, anybody with any reasonable working knowledge would know that this is not an apartment building. The construction noise (and other pollutants) will adversely affect all of the occupants of this building, which is primarily daytime business usage.
On page 153 the CEQA report again inaccurately states 1411 Franklin Street is residential. We would like to see proof of the vibration data presented there, and on page 156.
1411 Franklin Street is referenced again in the Shadow Studies pages 225-242 The loss of natural light created by this 1431 project will directly affect the establishments of their neighbors. The developer has demonstrated that a north side structure will not cast "shadows" on a building to its south. This is completely untrue. The loss of loss of daylight and the intrinsic value of the building that would subsequently be affected is egregious and could forever modify the value and core characteristics of a historical landmark such as the former Athenian Nile Club damagingly.
410 14th Street - the current address of Geoffrey's Inner Circle - is not mentioned once in this entire 402-page CEQA document. Geoffrey's is not mentioned once. That omission could be considered racist.
It's like the Athenian Nile Club rolled back into town, in an attempt to reclaim their headquarters.
For these reasons, we encourage the Oakland City Council to reject the 1431 Franklin Street Residential Project CEQA Analysis.
Design Reflects Parking on the First Levels of The Build
To begin, it is simply irresponsible to build another high rise for high end luxury living or office space when the existing builds covering downtown are most times less than half occupied. The developers are simply constructing these building in opportunity zone to defer capital gains. If the units in the building are rented is merely a plus when your focus is millions of dollars in capital gains deferment and tax incentives.
Per the applicants design the first five levels of the building will be reserved for parking. The toxins from exhaust are dangerous and undoubtedly there would have to be ventilation for this, although this was not shown in the applicant’s design. Rendering the benefit of the doubt that there will be ventilation, 410 14th Street is a four-story building. That ventilation will unquestionably be expelled directly into our building via the large bay windows that cover the entire side of the buildings wall facing 1431 Franklin Street. The sheer number of fans or effective HVAC systems needed to be able to circumvent that actuality is immeasurable.
Carbon Monoxide is an odorless, tasteless, highly toxic gas. We are a live music facility and this design proposal from the applicant will impose us to unwillingly expose our patrons to high levels of carbon monoxide poisoning.
This refers to the previously mentioned 2023 draft of the Oakland General Plan Historic Preservation Element that spoke of the event power that wealthier, predominantly white residents have and the populations without similar event power or adaptive capacity must deal with the consequences of that action, often with limited to no resources. This design fatality renders this project a major health risk and a glaring violation of CEQA.
LIVE MUSIC VENUE AND TENANT RETAIL SPACE
Transitioning to the topic of residential or commercial space, 410 14th Street has been a live music venue for over thirty years and houses a live jazz venue and comedy club. Having residential housing or commercial workspace built a stone’s throw away from the stage where live entertainment is being performed using state of the art sound equipment will undoubtedly cause ceaseless and relentless complaints to the city from the new tenants of the proposed Tidewater Capital building. This could in turn further strain the city services budget (police etc.) and hinder our business revenues as taxpayers. 410 14th Street houses multiple minority-owned businesses, eleven to be exact. These store fronts are rented at a subsidized and authentic Below Market Rate. The businesses housed here pay a lower rental fee to sustain black owned small businesses in the district at the expense of Geoffrey Pete. The compromise that is possible if the proposed building is approved will affect the entire complex, not just Geoffrey’s Inner Circle
Geoffrey’s Inner Circle is a Community Anchor Business that is the crux of live performance arts. This is a cultural hub and community betterment establishment. To put this business in jeopardy is a direct violation of the DOSP and the mission of the BAMBD.
Proposing Patron Parking on 19th and Franklin
New legislation for bike lanes on 14th Street will remove the vast majority of street parking available for patrons and merchants of this district alike. With the remaining sporadic parking spaces currently being metered by the city at 30-minute intervals, it has become increasingly difficult for customers to park and patronize the businesses housed in this district.
This is in stark contrast to the waterfront loft area with zero parking meters to date and neighboring Chinatown with restrained metered parking at a 2-hour limit. Bike lanes reducing public on-street parking will undoubtedly serve to further hinder the growth and economic capabilities of African American businesses located in this area.
Additionally, the impact on parking in the Black Arts Movement and Business District, which houses 410 14th Street, due to the proposed Tidewater buildings attempts of occupation of one of the last public parking lots in this district is disquieting. We’ve lost the largest parking facility in our district to the Atlas Building. Losing this option to park and patronize this district is deleterious to revenues and viability.
When asked by the Planning Commission if there would be the option of shared parking within the proposed structure at 1431 Franklin St, the developer who presents himself as a culturally competent and community minded individual who is attempting to operate within the borders of a cultural district stated he didn’t want to promise that offer to us and went on to further recommend that patrons of the twelve businesses housed at 410 14th Street park on 19th Street. Five blocks away from their destination during a crime wave of vehicle vandalism that is plaguing the entire city of Oakland, including the Black Arts Movement and Business District. This is on record.
In our last Planning Commission meeting on 5/17/2023 the applicant stated that he had indeed offered after hours parking in the building. This falsity is also on record. To date the applicant has never offered afterhours parking to 410 14th St and in fact he adamantly stated he would not do that. In an attempt to present our grievances as ill based he falsely stated that he offered Geoffrey Pete parking. We would like to go on record and state that we have never has a conversation with any of Tidewater’s representatives regarding afterhours parking. Their statement of this on 5/17/2023 is complete propaganda and a simulated attempt to appear amiable.
This level of displacement violates the mission of the Black Arts Movement and Business District and the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan (DOSP).
Satisfying The Minority Workforce Requirement on New Development
During the most recent Planning Commission meeting on 2/15/2023, the developer grandly stated that they planned on dedicating 20% of the workforce on the proposed building at 1431 Franklin Street to minority unions and workers. The City of Oakland has a minimum requirement of 50% of the workforce being of minority decent. This incorrect percentage was presented to the Planning Commission, and yet they continued on to approve the project with a unanimous vote.
Additionally, and historically minority construction companies, specifically of African American decent, are unilaterally excluded from gaining access to large commercial developments due to a plethora of reasons such as racism and nepotism. Without having the resume to show the prior experience needed to garner these new development contracts, these skilled contractors are often promised these positions during the permitting process to only later be disqualified from the vetting process due to the lack ability to prove commercial construction competency. This is a well-known loophole wealthy developers exploit to achieve their permits, having zero intention of hiring these workers.
Please find below excerpts of a recent article dated 1/2/2023 referencing Black contractor being designed out of commercial construction and their concerns:
Here are our Heroes standing strong and proud in our community – hyper local Black contractors, truckers, etc., fighting to be included in the redevelopment of the city they and their families have called home for generations.
“I’m a contractor, I want to be a contractor. I do an excellent job. In spite of the fact that I’m small, I’m growing every day. But everything is a fight, and it shouldn’t have to be.” LaSonia Mansfield owner of Mansfield Construction Clean-up Co. is a brave woman – brave enough to own her own business in an industry that’s nearly all owned and controlled by white men, the old boys’ club, and brave enough to turn out at 7:00 a.m. on a cold Dec. 14 morning with other Black contractors and truckers to shut down a construction site on Potrero Hill at 26th & Connecticut to demand a fair share of the work. “We can’t feed our families and we can’t support our community if we’re not working. It’s Christmas time. We should be working too,” declared Keith Smith, owner of Global Team Corp., a trucker since 2005 and one of the Black truckers whose big rigs were blocking the entrance to the Potrero Hill jobsite.
The white contractors and truckers hired by the general contractor, Cahill, were lining up wondering if they’d be going to work.
“We can’t feed our families and we can’t support our community if we’re not working. We should be working too,” exclaimed Keith Smith, a trucker and owner of Global Team Corp. “I’m here supporting my local truckers, my local contractors,” asserted HVYW8 Trucking’s Michael Gregory, who also heads the African American Construction Collective, which organized the shutdown. “This has been a brewing situation. Local contractors have been at the table with Cahill letting them know that when you come into this community, it’s important that you hire Black contractors; it’s important that you hire Black truckers. This is our community, and if we can’t go to work in our community, how can we let others come and funnel the money out of the community?” As depicted, the above issue of White developers not contracting with Black contractors is obviously cyclic and regularly occurs.
Public Art Requirement
During the Oakland Planning Commission meeting on 2/15/23, at the 2 hours 54 minutes time mark, there takes place a discussion of the Public Arts component read by the City Attorney regarding public art.
Michael Branson, City Attorney, reads it as transcribed: "The applicant has proposed and by this condition shall be required to distribute 20 percent of the project's Public Art Requirements to the Malonga Casquelourd Center for the Arts Theater and the African American Museum and Library at
Oakland (City-owned Arts Facilities or Facilities) to be split equally between the two facilities. It would be the responsibilities of the facilities to obtain City Approval for the capital improvement project and satisfy any City requirements for the for the application of the contributed funds. The remaining portion of the Public Art Requirements shall be met through the means provided in the ordinance."
According to Chapter 15.78 PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.docx:
Chapter 15.78 PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
15.78.070 Contribution Requirements.
C. Alternative Means of Satisfaction of Public Art Requirement.
2. The developer and/or owner may by special application to and approval by the City make a contribution to the City, either in the full amount of the in lieu contribution or a percentage thereof (with the remainder of the in lieu contribution placed into the Public Art Project account), for the purpose of capital improvements to a specified City-owned arts facility or facilities within one-half (1/2) mile of the development.
I. The City Administrator may approve such a contribution if he or she finds that:
1) the city-owned Arts Facility or Facilities are in need of capital improvements --Definition of Capital Improvements- A capital improvement is the addition of a permanent structural change or the restoration of some aspect of a property that will either enhance the property's overall value, prolong its useful life, or adapt it to new uses. 2) the facilities once improved will create greater opportunities for the exhibition of visual or performing arts, and provide enhanced opportunities for city residents and visitors to experience visual or performing arts; and
3) the project will not create unbudgeted costs for the City.
The Planning Commission exceeded its authority by adding this requirement, mere seconds before taking their final vote. The Planning Commission does not have the power to determine how the funds from the Public Art Requirement are disbursed. This is the purpose and within the purview of the Public Art Advisory Committee. The project developer/owner is entitled to make a special application, but approval can only be granted by the City Administrator - not the Planning Commission.
The primary purpose of the Public Art Requirement is to maintain Oakland's art and culture for generations. The City must not imperil the vitality of an adjacent historic privately-owned arts facility (410 14th Street) to transfer funds to City-owned projects which will suffer no similar immediate threat from this project. The Planning Commission cannot add conditions to this project in a manner intended to buy its support.
-Transcribed Language of Randolph Belle at The Planning Commission meeting 2/15/2023 1:50 Randolph Belle reading a statement from Bamidele Agbasegbe-Demerson Chief Curator of the African American Museum and Library at Oakland - AAMLO
[1:50:37]
Hello …. Randolph Belle. I’m actually calling in for Bamidele Demerson, Chief Curator of the African American Museum and Library at Oakland, who is having computer problems, and he asked me to read his comments, and they go like this:
Good afternoon, my name is Bamidele Agbasegbe-Demerson. I serve as Chief Curator at the African American Museum and Library at Oakland, better known by AAMLO, located at 659 14th Street. AAMLO is a branch of the Oakland Public Library. Tidewater Development Initiative at 1431 Franklin will certainly benefit the African American Museum and Library at Oakland. Supportive funding will underwrite a wide range of dynamic efforts at AAMLO. Such efforts include changing exhibitions, public programs, and educational offerings that provide an understanding and appreciation of African- American culture, history, and aesthetic expression. Unmistakably, these efforts give prominent attention to Blacks, their achievements, and their contributions toward building the great City of Oakland. This is indeed important to Americans of African ancestry, but equally significant, Tidewater’s supportive funding of AAMLO’s installations, speakers, film screenings, poetry, useful programs, children’s story hours, and learning tours, among other efforts, supply all citizens with opportunities to engage and grow in the important task of creating cross-cultural competency. In this way, Tidewater, by way of its development initiative at 1431 Franklin, is therefore helping Oakland realize a goal of creating a vibrantly thriving community that values ethnic diversity, equality, and inclusion. He also asked me to read a part of the letter that you have in your record, in letters of support. In moving forward, this company will support two arts facilities owned and operated by the City of Oakland, more specifically …. [Time alarm] ….Tidewater will allocate ten-percent of its public art budget to capital improvement initiatives at African-American Museum and Library and the Malonga Casquelourd Center for the Arts Theater. Thank you.
[1:53:07]
This is another example of Tidewater not meeting its requirements for the Public Art Requirement section. All the culture related activities Randolph Belle discussed in that clip are just that, activities.
Not an iota of what Mr. Belle inventories are capital improvements. (please refer to the page previous for the definition of capital improvements) This speaker and the preceding Planning Commissions misuse of power in relation to the Public Art Requirement further underscores the fact that this dialogue was purely a disingenuous attempt to satisfy a requirement needed to streamline the permitting process for Tidewater Capital.
This scheme was fastened together in less than ten days (2/1/2023 BAMBD is first spoken of by the Planning Commission-2/10/2023 when the Planning Commission posted their updated agenda). This is ushered in during that brief time period, after overlooking the existence of BAMBD being a cultural district throughout this entire permitting process, spanning well over multiple years’ time.
The Public Art Requirement and it’s subsequent funding cannot be used for the stated purposes. This verity has been explicitly stated. In addition, this very speech points to a duplicitous agreement that was settled upon in a clandestine fashion in the mere days between the botched 2/1/2023 meeting, where the Planning Commission first acknowledged the fact that the Black Arts Movement and Business District is in fact a cultural district throughout this lengthy process, and the 2/15/2023 favorable decision for Tidewater Capital.
Randolph Belle is renowned as a close affiliate of Tidewater Capital and having him read this letter reportedly on the behalf of the Curator of the African American Museum and Library at Oakland (AAMLO) must be a conflict of interest in this matter. He is an affiliate Tidewater Capital.
Lastly, the Public Arts Requirements allotment is to be donated to private arts businesses or organizations in good faith. The Malonga Center and AAMLO are both owned by the City of Oakland.
Donating to these organizations are not supporting the conditions of the Public Arts Requirements
Mural on the Wall is of Significant Importance Culturally
Located on the left wall of the historical building at 1441 Franklin Street is a mural of Derrick Hayes. Mr.
Hayes, now deceased, was a well know and beloved community member and hero. He was a man of humble means but highly respected. Please find an excerpt from an article written about him:
Walking down Franklin Street in Downtown Oakland you’ll see a larger-than-life mural of a man in a baseball cap. With gentle eyes and a wide smile, he looks east over the city, watching over the people passing by. Small businesses line Franklin Street to the left and right. Below the mural is a parking lot, and shiny office buildings tower above. In between lies the portrait of Derrick Hayes, a 59-year-old homeless resident of Oakland who has been selling Street Spirit for almost 20 years.
Hayes—known to many as Brother Hayes—was manning one of his usual posts, outside the Peet’s Coffee on Piedmont Avenue, when he caught the attention of Jerry Smith—the president of a commercial real estate firm that revitalizes historic buildings. Like many of the things that make Hayes a staple of Oakland, the mural’s origin story begins with his contagious spirit. “He had this huge smile, he was unbelievably engaging,” Smith says. “He just seemed like a good person.”
… the moment when he saved two little boys from being run over by a driver who rolled through a stop sign. “How do you go from a gangster to a cry baby?” he asks. “But I did, and I’m glad about it.” This metamorphosis didn’t happen overnight. To explain how he transformed into the person he is today, Hayes recalls an afternoon when he was selling Street Spirit on Piedmont Avenue, and noticed an 11- year-old girl being bothered by an older man. Hayes watched this man follow and then assault the girl— so he stepped in to help. He threw the man to the ground and held him until the police came.
The next morning the girl came back to the same street corner with her mother and asked, “Mommy, when I go back to school, is the bad man going to be there?” Her mother shook her head. The girl looked at Hayes. “When I get back to school, is the good man going to be there?” As Hayes remembers the story, his eyes fill with tears. “Ain’t that something?” He pauses, then says, “I’ve done a lot of bad in my life, but the good things should be accounted for.” -According to the bylaws of the Oakland City Council adopted Resolution 85958 regarding BAMBD:
“…and this designation aligns with Oakland's existing policy codified in the historic preservation element of Oakland's general plan which states a desire to "preserve, protect, enhance, perpetuate, and prevent the unnecessary destruction or impairment of properties or physical features of special character or special historic, cultural, educational, architectural or aesthetic interest or value”.
Under this bylaw, this mural is determined as a special historic, cultural and aesthetic interest and/or value that must be preserved protected and prevented from unnecessary destruction or impairment.
This mural is invaluable to our district and community. The beloved Derrick Hayes’s memorial is a cultural treasure and deserves to be protected.
3-5 Years of Constant Construction Debris, Dust and Zero Street Parking
The proposed building is projected to be completed in three to five years after its proposed beginning.
This translates to road closures which would further exacerbate the parking crisis currently experienced by the Black arts Movement and Business District. Its proposal will limit access for patrons and business owners which has the large potential to offset revenues offset revenues. The constant and ever-present changes to the quality of life due to noise, dust, and debris contamination can prove to be insufferable.
What is being proposed is essentially three years or more, due to these projects rarely being completed on schedule, of constant drilling and machinery. Cranes, oversized load trucks, dump trucks and a multitude of contractors and crews littering the street and hampering entrance to the small businesses accommodated here. The amount of income loss for all businesses located on this historical block and its adjacent streets will be detrimental and insuperable if permitting granted.
As we know from the construction of the Atlas Building across the street, built on the former two-story parking lot that served most downtown businesses and patrons, these construction crews work loudly and insistently for 24 hours a day. This form of noise and space pollution will undoubtedly prove to be harmful to businesses and their patrons. To enact this level of imposition on a National Resource Building and District, a protected cultural district, loyal Oakland business and property owners and taxpayers twice within a five-year period is massively unethical.
The businesses in the Black Arts Movement and Business District current have at least two other massive developments being constructed in our cultural district, and we still haven’t overcome the setbacks we encountered during the Atlas Building’s lengthy construction. The applicant proposed in a recent meeting with the Planning Commission that his contractor crews would not park their personal vehicles on 14th Street or Franklin when construction is taking place. That comment does not mention where his multiple cranes and large building construction equipment will be. It would have to be located on Franklin, therefore claiming more space that personal vehicles. This action has the enormous potential to impede and obstruct the business processes of the longstanding businesses of this district.
This is yet another example of using selective language to achieve their goal, without care or concern for the surrounding neighbors.
Tidewater Capital
Throughout this process Kyle Winkler and Ross Stackhouse, both representatives of Tidewater Capital have been extraordinarily misleading. When the notion of the building was proposed they came to the office of 410 14th Street and spoke with Mr. Pete. They promised to make sure he and his building were well taken care of relative to consultant fees. They extended an offer of a partnership with their proposed building and his legacy performing arts business, 30 years in operation. They offered (verbally) to restore his façade and install a state-of-the-art elevator. They ensured him that they were courteous and trustworthy businessmen with cultural sensitivity.
Although from the onset, Mr. Pete was not in agreeance with the proposed oversized, less than architecturally harmonizing and dangerous structure, he entertained their offers with great professionalism. Once Tidewater representatives felt they had convinced him to comply, they quickly reneged on the offers of the partnership, elevator installation, fair consultant compensation and façade upgrades without an afterthought. Very soon after they delivered a letter from their lawyers stating that the maximum for consultant fees would be $5,000.00 in total.
Please see verbatim language from the Pete Construction and Logistics Agreement from Tidewater’s legal counsel REUBEN, JUNIUS & ROSE, LLP:
Neighbor’s Consultants. Project Sponsor agrees to reimburse Neighbor for the cost of Neighbor’s attorney’s fees in reviewing and negotiating the terms of this Agreement, and for the cost of Neighbor’s architect and engineering and other consultants in reviewing the proposed Project plans and other related Project materials up to the amount of $5,000.
This a far cry from the aforementioned offers. Mr. Pete, of his own volition and expense secured legal counsel, Clinton Killian of Killian and Fannyan APC, who are largely a real estate and probate firm. They were instrumental in negotiations during the beginning of this process.
Again, I must note, when this information was address in the recent city Planning Commission meeting on 2/15/2023, the applicant did rebut, stating that $5,000.00 was a starting figure of negotiations. Once more, this statement was untrue. When the applicant’s counsel addressed Mr. Pete’s counsel they were clearly unwilling to move further to obtain an more respectable agreement.
During this time the Planning Commission meetings for the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and The City Planning Commissions Design Review were well underway. Mr. Pete and other were vocal in their objection to this proposal and its lack of seamlessness into the Black Arts Movement and Business District, as well as his concerns for his registered National Resource, historic building.
The emails sent thereafter, originating from Tidewater Capital, were nothing more that a mere formality to present a landscape where Geoffrey Pete is painted as unresponsive and unsympathetic to city and business processes. This could not be further from the truth. What dialog can occur when Tidewater Capital has taken a position of a stoic intimidator?
During this time, Kyle Winkler and Ross Stackhouse embarked on what can only be described as an underhanded payola campaign. Tidewater Capital representatives approached African American business owners, and institutions such as the Oakland Black Chamber of Commerce and many others offering donations for endorsements. They constantly approached Mr. Pete’s personal tenants of 410 14th Street and rendered checks of $1,000.00 and $2,000.00 to ensure their support of the 1431 Franklin Street proposal. Joyce Gordon Gallery is among these tenants whom Kyle Winkler of Tidewater Capital would regularly disturb with the goal of phishing for supporters of his proposal in the Black community.
This ideal of ‘culture for purchase” behavior is additionally shown in their late efforts to include the African-American Museum and Library and the Malonga Casquelourd Center for the Arts in their contributions ten days after being informed of this being the Black Arts Movement and Business District.
Before 2/1/2023 they had conducted this entire permitting process without knowledge of our cultural district’s existence (established in 2016).
Tidewater Capital has zero interest in the betterment, advancement and preservation of the Black Arts Movement and Business District.
Their singular orientation is achieving the construction of their gentrification. By any means necessary.
The Black Arts Movement and Business District (BAMBD)
The 1431 Franklin Street project is located in the Downtown Historic District Area of Primary Importance, the Downtown Oakland Historic District - a registered National Resource - and the Black Arts Movement and Business District (BAMBD). Geoffrey's Inner Circle Club, located at 410 14th St. (formerly the Athenian Nile Club Building, previously addressed as 1411 Franklin) is a significant cornerstone of the Black Arts Movement and Business District, through its transformation in 1993 until this current day. It maintains the safety and vibrancy of 14th and Franklin and promotes the daily activity of the other black and minority-owned businesses that operate there today. Surrounded by a sea of vacant street-level storefronts, it thrives and survives as a 100% Oakland community, embodying Love Life, the City's official motto.
The importance of these districts is expressed in official city documents such as Zoning Regulations, the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan, the Oakland General Plan, and City Council Resolution 85958, which created the BAMBD. Due to the heightened importance of this location, the 1431 Franklin Street application must be held to the highest standards that these city regulations require. Oakland's general plan states the desire to "preserve, protect, enhance, perpetuate, and prevent the unnecessary destruction or impairment of properties or physical features of special character or special historic, cultural, educational, architectural or aesthetic interest or value." This appeal addresses all of these desires. This location is the heart of Oakland.
On January 7, 2016, the Oakland City Council adopted Resolution 85958, which designated The Black Arts Movement and Business District (BAMBD) as a cultural district on the 14th Street corridor. This designation is intended to support a critical mass of arts and entertainment establishments in the area, and to promote and celebrate the significant current and historical black leaders, arts, political movements, enterprises, and culture in the area. The resolution also calls for the City's Downtown Specific Plan to include the BAMBD.
On January 8, 2021, the Planning Commission issued a Zoning Code Bulletin which provides specific direction on the implementation of the Black Arts Movement and Business District, the City's first formally adopted cultural district. The bulletin states that the goals of the BAMBD are to be considered in the review of development applications by:
- Providing applicants with a copy of Council Resolution 85958
- Encouraging applicants to ensure their proposal is consistent with the goals of the BAMBD
- Ensuring consistency with draft policies in the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan related to BAMBD, through architectural design and detailing, through consideration regarding future commercial tenants; and other strategies the city deems appropriate
- Encouraging applicants to consult with nearby business owners in the BAMBD
In addition to the partial list of requirements above, the Zoning Code Bulletin concludes by stating "conformance with the BAMBD goals should be included in any project narrative describing the project, for example in public notices (including newspaper notices and yellow project information signs) and staff reports." This was never done.
The Planning Commission Has Consistently Ignored the Existence of the BAMBD
The Planning Commission and the project applicants have consistently ignored the Black Arts Movement and Business District, through every project narrative of any description. The Planning Commission has approved multiple permits for high-rise buildings to be developed within this district. Not one of their notices have indicated that this is a cultural district. The established guidelines have been consistently ignored.
The BAMBD conditions and even the existence of this district was not listed in any document provided by the Planning Commission prior to their decision on February 15, 2023. The BAMBD was never mentioned any single occasion or listed on any notice or sign.
On September 28, 2022, the Oakland Planning Commission was informed of the project's location within the Black Arts Movement and Business District (BAMBD) and Resolution 85958 at their Design Review Committee hearing. This information was clearly provided by Tina Muriel during the Public Hearing, along with its significance and relevance to the project application. It is not the duty of members of the public to provide this knowledge. Once again, it was ignored.
Prior to the Planning Commission meeting on February 1, 2023, the prescribed policies for processing planning applications in the BAMBD had not been met. The owner of 410 14th Street informed the commission once again. Finally, this was recognized, but the requirements were not fully understood, which prompted the project applicant to ask for a continuance of the hearing. The Planning Commission granted this continuance, and the hearing was postponed to February 15.
In addition, we would like to emphasize the illegitimacy of the entire process as a result of the Planning Departments non-recognition of the BAMBD. Their refusal, as well as the Planning Commission and developer, to acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality of the BAMBD is of primary concern and continues to be so. In the last meeting on 5/17/2023, case planner Michelle Morris again refused to mention the BAMBD in her introduction of the project. This continued lack of acknowledgement of Oakland's first and only cultural district is disrespectful, negligent, and unacceptable. The developers refusing to respect the district is supported by the official handling of the application by Planning staff. The developer has not presented in any meaningful way how they intend to embody the goals of the BAMBD.
The Planning Commission Has Failed to Adhere to the Requirements of the BAMBD During this time, the project applicant responded with a letter from its legal team, which was attached to its documentation as Supplement-Report-to-Item-4-PLN20125.pdf. This February 6, 2023 letter from Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP fails to substantiate the project applicant's compliance with the aims of the BAMBD. Much of this letter is boilerplate, merely a copy-and-paste of City documentation. Some of the information it purports is erroneous and misleading.
This letter also to points to the "solution" it would propose at the February 15 hearing: diverting a portion of the project's mandatory Public Art fee to the Malonga Casquelourd Center for the Arts Theater and the African American Museum and Library of Oakland. As noted, prior in this appeal, the Planning Commission does not have the jurisdiction to approve this diversion of City funds. Nonetheless, this diversion was approved and attached in the project's Conditions of Approval. This was the only additional condition that was attached. Every other issue expressed by the appellant and concerned members of the public was ignored.
Following the decision issued on February 15, the appellant made multiple requests to receive the Planning Commission's Decision Letter, Findings for Approval and Conditions of Approval. These documents must be referenced before an appeal can be filed. These documents were finally supplied on February 22, a full week after the decision, near the end of the 10-day window in which an appeal must be filed.
Once again, within this entire 67-page package, the Black Arts Movement and Business District is not mentioned once. There is not one single reference to the BAMBD. The word "Black" appears zero times, and "African American" mentioned only once, in reference to the museum designated to receive improperly diverted funds. This is shameful at this point due to the Planning Commission being previously made aware of their omission in prior meetings and documents. For their actions to persist in spite of prior notification of the BAMBD status, it becomes clear that this is not an omission of ignorance of information. They are making a transparent statement of exclusion.
The city has yet to map the BAMBD, develop implementation strategies, or create a procedure for processing development applications within it. Development Manager Catherine Payne admitted on the record that the city has not done this essential work, and further falsely stated that there is conflicting direction on what the mapping boundaries should be. She erroneously stated that the district might be, and I quote: "two blocks on either side of 14th Street". This is in direct conflict with the clear and concise language in the council resolution and the departments own Zoning Bulletin that states that the district is "four blocks on or within 14th Street".
Adherence to Resolution 85958 Requires Additional Scrutiny
In addition to upholding our appeal, we request that the City Council conducts an additional review to ensure that future projects within the Black Arts Movement and Business District adhere to the requirements of Council Resolution 85958.
Our letters and testimony have documented in detail how this application falls short of meeting city planning requirements. We have revealed how the review process completely ignored policy direction to address the BAMBD goals in the project noticing and narrative. The Planning Commission's approval of this application eviscerates the spirit of the Resolution 85958. Its decision renders mute the efforts of countless city staff, elected officials and citizens who invested tirelessly to create and maintain a district where cultural institutions would thrive.
The appellants and other members of the public have asked the planning department and planning commissioners to hold a meeting to discuss how it can better serve the Black community, a community rapidly being displaced from the city due to a plethora of less than qualifying reasons. These requests have not been granted. We were told the Planning Commissioners had no time to do so. The status of our district was continuously dismissed, nor is it listed in city districting maps. The Planning Commission acknowledged at its February 1, 2023 meeting that it had no idea that this was a Black Cultural district. The fact that the Commission either did not know and/or disregarded the status of the district has harmed our district significantly and the potential benefits which the designation of the district was intended to create for the Black community in the city of Oakland. The entire approval process was conducted without consideration of the cultural district status as well as the National Resource status of the historical building located at 410 14th Street.
We respectfully request that future projects proposed within this district begin with expert testimony on the appropriate overall design of a district intended to promote Black culture and business. We ask that Planning staff and Commissioners display full knowledge of the status of this cultural district and provide this information to future project applicants. We must inquire if 400-foot towers of high-end housing and/or office space enhance the cultural aspects of the Black Arts Movement and Business District. We ask for necessary amenities for the public, such the replacement of lost public parking. We request a review with local residents and business owners to address how the Planning Commission and future developers will act in a culturally competent manner in a diverse city like Oakland.
PROTECTIONS UNDER THE BAMBD STATUS
Oakland City Council adopted Resolution 85958 calls for the City’s Downtown Specific Plan to include the BAMBD, and to consider policies that animate the public space, rejuvenate the streetscape, improve local business viability, improve public safety, and bring diverse people together in celebration of this Cultural District.
Types of Planning Bureau Actions of Interest in the BAMBD The following actions should consider the goals of the BAMBD (outlined above). Further, conformance with the BAMBD goals should be included in any project narrative describing the project, for example in public notices (including newspaper notices and yellow project information signs) and staff reports.
1. Temporary uses and pop-up activities;
2. Conditional Use Permits/Variances;
3. Design Review.
The Black community is inclusive of multiple distinct communities of color including but not limited to African Americans, Afro-Caribbeans, and Africans; and
WHEREAS, there exists a congregation both historical and contemporary of Black owned businesses and artistic or cultural spaces focused on Black expression in the 14th Street corridor on or within four blocks of 14th Street from Lake Merritt to 1-880 defined as from Oak Street to Frontage Road; and
WHEREAS, a congregation of Black owned businesses and artistic or cultural spaces focused on Black expression currently exists in the 14th Street corridor and includes but is not limited to the Malonga Casquelourd Center for the Arts, Joyce Gordon's gallery, Geoffrey's Inner Circle Club, the Oakland POST Newspaper Group, OCCUR, Oakland African-American Chamber of Commerce, Oakland Cultural Center, Bissap Baobab, The Hatch, Venue Nightclub, U'NEXT Barber Shop, Unique Braids, Imagine Affairs Lounge, Quick Bite, Crossburger, Feelmore, A City Obsession, New Karibbean City, Uncle Willie's BBQ, Black Arts Movement co-founder Marvin X's Academy of da Corner, and the Betti Ono Gallery; and
WHEREAS, public or historical buildings and public art in the 14th Street corridor exemplify the historical legacy of the Black community in Oakland including but not limited to the African American Museum and Library at Oakland, the Oakland Main Library, the Ebony Museum, the 16th Street Train Station, the Rene C. Davidson Courthouse, the Calvin Simmons Theater, the C.L.
Dellums Apartments, the Elihu M. Harris State Office Building, the Byron Rumford Post Office, the Lionel J. Wilson Building, the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, and the bust of John B.
Williams; and this designation aligns with Oakland's existing policy codified in the historic preservation element of Oakland's general plan which states a desire to "preserve, protect, enhance, perpetuate, and prevent the unnecessary destruction or impairment of properties or physical features of special character or special historic, cultural, educational, architectural or aesthetic interest or value"; and WHEREAS, the designation of the Black Arts Movement and Business District is captured by the historic preservation element of Oakland's general plan
Loss of Sunlight and The Unique Historical Aesthetic of Oakland
The intense beauty of a summer sunset at the Lake could be gone. Relative to the sunset, nothing beats the east side of Lake Merritt. The city planning commission is pushing for the City Council to adopt a new set of regulations promoting very high, very dense development along Franklin Street the northwest side of the Lake. This action would place much of the Lake in shadow before the golden hour, as the setting sunlight comes in from the northwest in the summer.
The Downtown Oakland Specific Plan aims to create an enormous zone from the Estuary to 27th Street, from Brush St to the lake (excluding Chinatown, they have been protected from this development), in which the harmful impacts of development would be ignored as insignificant. The sunlight has always been a part of life in Oakland. The very placement of City Hall in 1868 established a connection with Lake Merritt. The sunset shadows of tall buildings near this intersection swept back and forth across the lake from winter to summer solstice, like a giant yearly sundial. Downtown Oakland abounds in monuments to the remarkable effects of sunlight since the early 20th century. The huge chandelier in this very building is a gigantic sun, surrounded by allegorical figures of the planets. The Scottish Rite Temple on Lakeside Drive features a huge, bronze sun on its façade, which glows golden when the rising sun first hits it on the morning of the winter solstice. At that same moment, the shadow of the 100- foot-wide Central Bank building (built that same year) perfectly overlaps the 100-foot-wide trunk of City Hall, which sits framed in a stately manner for the viewer. All this can be viewed from across the lake at the specially built, massive viewing platform called the East 18th Street Pier.
The 40-story Atlas building, approved by the planning commission in 2017, blocks its neighbors’ sunlight and denies a view of the Tribune Tower along the entire northern half of Lake Merritt from Hanover Avenue to Fairyland, and from all points northeast of the lake. The iconic view of the Tribune reflected in the Lake from the grassy park along Lakeshore, has now been lost. Per the planning commission’s report, the Atlas “would not obstruct views of existing scenic vistas.” This has proved to be false. The building proposed at 1431 Franklin, would block the framed view of City Hall from the East 18th Street Pier and replace it with a nondescript super-high rise. This building poses a grave danger to the historic building next to it, arguably Oakland’s most meaningful historic building, the former Athenian Nile Club and the now home of the revered cultural center and event venue, Geoffrey’s Inner Circle. 410 14th Street is a protected, registered national resource with the State of California Parks and Recreation Department and located in the heart of the Black Arts Movement and Business District.
Closing Remarks
In closing, small businesses in Downtown Oakland should not be caused to suffer revenue losses and possible liquidation at the expense of ushering in larger, richer yet, less than culturally connected new development proposals.
What is the benefit of being registered as a National Resource building such as 410 14th Street, a National Resource District such as The Downtown Oakland Historic District, labeled a Downtown Historic District Area of Primary Importance and have Oakland City Council adopt Resolution 85958 designating this area The Black Arts Movement and Business District only to have to spend countless hours arguing the protections granted by the above statuses, pay high legal counsel fees and over $5,200.00 in appeal fees to ensure those very statuses and rights aren’t demolished by well moneyed, opportunistic developers who are incentivized to monopolize us due to our areas being greenlit as Opportunity Zones.
What this really is, is an opportunity for a mutually beneficial outcome between the City of Oakland and protected areas. An opportunity that cannot occur when the existence of historical businesses, districts and structures are not afforded the consideration due them.
City of Oakland Website
https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/designated-opportunity-zones
Pages 3-6, Conditional Use Permit Criteria
Oakland, California - Planning Code Chapters 17.134 - 17.136 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCEDURE City Of Oakland Website
https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/planning_code?nodeId=TIT17PL_CH17.134COUSPEPR
City of Oakland Website
https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/historic-preservation-element-for-the-general-plan
Oakland Ca
National Resource District - The Downtown Oakland Historic District (attached)
410 14th Street Oakland Ca 94612
National Resource Building Documentation (attached)
California State Parks- Office of Historic Preservation Website https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1077
Historic Preservation Chapter 3 - Identifying Historic Properties (Attached)
California State Law & Historic Preservation Statutes, Regulations & Administrative Policies Regarding the Preservation & Protection of Cultural & Historical Resources Manual (Attached)
City of Oakland website
http://gisapps1.mapoakland.com/planmap/planmap.html?apn=008%20062100900
Pete Construction and Logistics Agreement from REUBEN, JUNIUS & ROSE, LLP Number 11, Page 6 (attached)
Pages 11-12 and Page 19 Downtown Oakland Specific Plan (DOSP) City of Oakland Website
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/downtown-oakland-specific-plan
Regarding Egress (attached)
Chapter_15.78___PUBLIC_ART_REQUIREMENTS_FOR_PRIVATE_DEVELOPMENT.docx City of Oakland Website
https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT15BUCO_CH15.78PUA
RREPRDE
Investopedia Website
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalimprovement.asp
Pages 22-24 Black Contractors
Black contractors: ‘We want to put our community to work’- January 2, 2023 The Bayview Newspaper
https://sfbayview.com/2023/01/black-contractors-we-want-to-put-our-community-to-work/
Pages 25-26 Article on Derrick Hayes
The Street Spirit
https://thestreetspirit.org/2019/10/01/derrick-hayes-street-spirit-vendor-community-member/
Black Arts Movement and Business District Resolution
Pete Construction and Logistics Agreement from REUBEN, JUNIUS & ROSE, LLP Number 11, Page 6 (attached)
Killian and Fannyan APC
https://www.killfannlaw.com/
City of Oakland Website
https://www.oaklandca.gov/meeting/planning-commission-meeting-13-3
Lack of Acknowledgement of Cultural District Status (attached)
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
RECORDING REQUESTED BY ANDWHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:REUBEN, JUNIUS & ROSE,LLPOne Bush Street Suite 600San Francisco, CA 94104Attn: 7810.20.JCK _____________________________________________________________________________ (Space above line for Recorder’s use only)CONSTRUCTION LOGISTICS AGREEMENT This Construction Logistics Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered by and between , a Delaware limited liability company (“Project Sponsor”) and Lamumba Inc., a California corporation (“Neighbor”), effective as of the date of recording (“Effective Date”) with reference to the following facts:RECITALSA. Project Sponsor is the record owner of the real property commonly known as 1431 Franklin Street, Oakland, California, which is more particularly described in Exhibit A, appended to this Agreement and incorporated herein by this reference (“Project Site”). As of the Effective Date, the Project Site is improved with a public parking lot. B. Neighbor is the record owner of the real property commonly known as 1415 Franklin Street, Oakland, California, which is more particularly described in Exhibit B, appended to this Agreement and incorporated herein by this reference (“Neighbor Property”). The Neighbor Property is improved with a four-story commercial building (“Neighbor Building”). C. Project Sponsor is in the processing of seeking entitlements to construct a new building at the Project Site. A dual entitlement is being sought, which would allow for the construction of either a 27-story office building or a 38-story, 350-unit residential building(“Project”). D. The Project Site and the Neighbor Property share a common boundary line (“Boundary”). E. Project Sponsor and Neighbor seek to enter into this Agreement in order to govern certain construction logistics issues while protecting Neighbor from any potential impacts of the Project construction. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and the mutual promises and covenants contained in this Agreement, the Parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:
AGREEMENTThe Recitals set forth in the introductory paragraphs of this Agreement constitute a material part of this Agreement, and are fully incorporated herein by this reference, as if set forth in their entirety.1.Licenses and Rights of Entry to Project Sponsor. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Neighbor grants to Project Sponsor and its authorized agents, employees, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, and their respective employees (“Construction Personnel”) the following licenses (collectively, “Licensed Activities”): a. a license to enter and access that portion of Neighbor Property and Neighbor Building, on reasonable notice to Neighbor, to the extent reasonably necessary to perform the Pre-Construction Inspection (defined below); b. a license to enter upon and access the Neighbor Property as reasonably necessary to perform the Shoring and Tie-Back Work (defined below), and related construction and clean-up activities (“Shoring License”); c. a license to complete and perform the Settlement Monitoring Activities (defined below), as contemplated by this Agreement (“Settlement Monitoring License”), with any interior access to the Neighbor Building to be permitted on reasonable notice to Neighbor; d. a license to operate a tower crane over the vertical airspace above the Neighbor Property, for the duration of the construction on the Project (“Crane License”); e. a license to install the Flashing (“Flashing License”) f. a license to enter upon and access the Neighbor Property and Neighbor Building in order to fill in lot line windows on Neighbor Building (“Lot Line Window License”). The Project Sponsor’s right to conduct the Licensed Activities shall commence three (3) business days after Project Sponsor provides written notice to Neighbor (“Commencement Date”), and shall terminate upon issuance of the final certificate of occupancy (“CO”) for the Project by the City of Oakland, California (“City”). On or before the termination of this Agreement, Project Sponsor shall, at its sole expense, remove the Tower Crane, and all other property and equipment used in connection with the Licensed Activities. 2. Sharing of Geotechnical and Structural Documentation. Project Sponsor will have the draft Geotechnical Report finalized prior to the start of construction. Upon completion of the final Geotechnical Report, Project Sponsor shall provide a copy to Neighbor. Project Sponsor shall also provide Neighbor a copy of the Project’s foundation and structural drawings prior to filingthem as part of a building permit application.3.Pre-Construction Inspection. a. Prior to the commencement of construction of the Project, the existing conditions of the Neighbor Property and interior and exterior of the Neighbor Building shall be documented by a photographic survey (“Pre-Construction Survey”) obtained by Project Sponsor, at its sole cost and expense.
b. Upon at least two (2) business days’ prior notice, Neighbor shall provide Project Sponsor with reasonable access to the Neighbor Building to conduct the Pre-Construction Survey of the interior of the Neighbor Building, and the installation of such equipment as be reasonably necessary to perform the settlement monitoring activities outlined in this Agreement. c. The Pre-Construction Survey shall be used to conclusively determine whether any damage is caused to the Neighbor Property and/or Neighbor Building by the Licensed Activities and/or construction of the Project. d. A copy of any report or other documentation generated in connection with the Pre-Construction survey shall be provided to Neighbor within fifteen (15) business days after completion of the Pre-Construction survey. 4.Shoring and Tie-Back Work. a. Construction of the Project will require excavation and the installation of certain shoring and tie-back elements to support the Project and/or the improvements located on the Project Site (“Shoring and Tie-Back Work”). b. Project Sponsor shall provide Neighbor plans and specifications of such work (“Shoring Plans”). Neighbor shall review Shoring Plans and shall not unreasonably withhold approval of such plans. c. In the event that City requires Neighbor to execute documents confirming its approval of the Shoring Plans for issuance or permits or otherwise, Neighbor shall promptly execute and return the required documents to Project Sponsor for submittal to City. d. The Shoring and Tie-Back Work shall be performed by Project Sponsor at Project Sponsor’s sole cost and expense, and shall be performed in substantial conformance with the Shoring Plans, subject to non-material modifications to account for field and other conditions, and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. e. To the extent that material modification to the Shoring Plans is necessary or advisable, due to field conditions or other circumstances, such modifications shall be presented for Neighbor’s approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. If Neighbor notifies Project Sponsor of its disapproval, Neighbor shall also advise Project Sponsor of the reasons therefor and any specific changes that Neighbor requires for its approval. f. Project Sponsor shall cause the Shoring and Tie-Back Work to be performed by licensed, bonded, and insured contractors in a professional and workmanlike manner. g. Neighbor acknowledges and agrees that the tieback elements that are installed under the Neighbor Property as part of the Shoring and Tie-Back Work shall remain in place in accordance with standard industry practice. Legal title to the components of the tieback elements located on the Neighbor Property shall pass to Neighbor upon substantial completion of the Project. 5.Settlement Monitoring. a. In connection with the Pre-Construction Survey, Project Sponsor shall establish survey measurements on the exterior elevations of the Neighbor Building in relation to the Project Site and/or Project.
b. Project Sponsor will take periodic measurements to determine if settlement has occurred on the Neighbor Property during construction of the building foundation. c. If settlement of the Neighbor Property occurs in amounts greater than industry standard, Project Sponsor shall cease construction activities and shall promptly notify Neighbor. Project Sponsor and Neighbor shall jointly develop a plan to respond to such settlement, reasonably and in good faith. 6.License to Operate Tower Crane Over Neighbor Property. a. Construction of the Project will require the use of a tower crane. The tower crane will be mounted within the Project Site and is expected to swing over the Neighbor Propertyduring use and when the Tower Crane is not in operation. b. Project Sponsor and Crane Operator shall be permitted to operate the Tower Crane over the Neighbor Property, as generally reflected on the Crane Schematic. The crane shall be permitted to pass over the vertical airspace above the Neighbor Property provided that (i) the crane shall not pass over any point less than fifteen (15) feet above the height of the Neighbor Building; and (ii) no live loads shall pass over Neighbor Property. c. Project Sponsor shall require Crane Operator to comply with all laws and regulations in connection with the installation and operation of the Tower Crane, to use due care to avoid causing physical damage to the Neighbor Property, and improvements located thereon. 7.Construction Hours/Activities. a. Project Sponsor will use commercially reasonable efforts to avoid undue disruption to the Neighbor Property, taking into consideration that the construction of the Project will result in some amount of inconvenience, noise, dust, and vibration. Provided that Project Sponsor uses such commercially reasonable efforts, Project Sponsor and its authorized agents, including without limitation Project Sponsor’s contractor and Crane Operator shall have no liability to Neighbor or its building tenants, for such inconvenience, noise, dust, and vibration. b. All excavation and construction work in connection with the Project shall be performed during such hours as are permitted under the municipal codes or other regulations of the City, or as otherwise approved by the City; provided that if, in the reasonable opinion of Project Sponsor, a hazardous condition exists or is imminent, Project Sponsor may temporarily extend its excavation and construction activities beyond such hours to the extent necessary to correct such hazardous condition, consistent with applicable laws and regulations. c. The Project’s contractors, agents, guests, etc, shall not park on the Project Site nor in any on-street parking spaces along the block of Franklin Street between 14thand 15thStreets nor in the surface parking lot located at 1424 Franklin St. d. Project Sponsor will make commercially reasonable efforts to minimize construction staging, safety, and logistical barriers along the frontage of the Project Site. e. Project Sponsor will undertake a noise reduction plan with a licensed acoustical engineer. f. Project Sponsor will undertake a vibration reduction plan with a licensed acoustical engineer. 8.Flashing/Waterproofing
a. Project Sponsor may, at its sole cost and expense, construct or have constructed flashing, gutters, expansion joints, and related improvements at the intersection between the Neighbor Building and the Project (“Flashing”) in substantial conformance with the plans/specifications for the building flashing appended to this Agreement as Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by this reference (“Flashing Detail”). b. Subject to reasonable access being provided by Neighbor as described herein, Project Sponsor shall at its sole cost and expense be responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the Flashing, as reasonably necessary or prudent during the term of and subject to the provisions of this Agreement. c. Project Sponsor shall cause all work incidental to the installation, maintenance, repair, removal, and/or replacement of the Flashing (collectively, the “Flashing Work”) to be performed in accordance with sound and generally accepted engineering and construction practices and procedures, and in accordance with any standards and specifications which may be prescribed by any governmental or quasi-governmental body or authority having jurisdiction. d. Project Sponsor shall be responsible for obtaining and maintaining any and all required permits and approvals for, and shall pay all fees and expenses assessed in connection with, the Flashing Work. e. Neighbor hereby acknowledges and agrees that the Flashing is not intended to and will not prevent the intrusion of all water between the Neighbor Building and the Project, but is intended, but not guaranteed, to prevent excessive water from being drained or directed from the Project onto or adjacent to the Neighbor Building. f. The installation of the Flashing does not mitigate or excuse either party from its obligation to maintain the exterior envelope of its own building. g. Project Sponsor makes no representations or warranties regarding the Flashing, the sufficiency of the Flashing to minimize or reduce water intrusion, or the performance of the Flashing. h. Neighbor hereby grants to Project Sponsor a permanent easement with respect to the presence of the Flashing over the Boundary, once installed (“Flashing Easement”). i. Project Sponsor shall not be obligated to reconstruct the Flashing if the Project is materially damaged or destroyed or if Neighbor revokes the license(s) and/or easement(s) conferred by this Agreement. j. The rights and obligations of the parties concerning the installation of Flashing and the Flashing Work shall survive the expiration of termination of this Agreement. 9.Neighbor Building Lot Line Windows. The Neighbor Building contains three potentially non-compliant windows at the ground and second floor along the Boundary (“Lot Line Windows”) which may need to be closed upon construction of the Project due to non-compliance with the fire separation requirements of California Building Code Section 705.8. If such closure is required for one or more of the Lot Line Windows, as determined during the building permit reviewprocess, Project Sponsor shall, at its sole cost and expense, be responsible for the work involved with closing the Lot Line Windows (“Lot Line Window Work”). Project Sponsor shall be responsible for obtaining and maintaining any and all required permits and approvals for, and shall pay all fees and expenses assessed in connection with, the Lot Line Window Work. It is Project Sponsor’s understanding that Neighbor windows located on the 3rd floor set back from the
Boundary would still be compliant with California Building Code Section 705.8 after the Project is constructed. In the event it is determined these windows require additional protection, Project Sponsor will perform fire upgrades (i.e. increasing the fire rating of Project Sponsor’s exterior wall)on Project Sponsors new development to eliminate any required modifications of these windows. 10.Affirmative Support for Project. In consideration for Project Sponsor’s performance of the obligations assumed by this Agreement, Neighbor shall affirmatively support the Project, and shall provide City with a support letter prior to the Planning Commission’s hearing on the Project. Prior to construction, Neighbor shall also provide a letter to the City indicatingapproval of the Project and incorporated herein by this reference. Neighbor shall take no action to oppose the Project, including communicating opposition to staff or the Planning Commission or filing any appeals of a Project approval, or filing an action in any California Superior Court challenging any aspect of the Project, Project approvals, or Project’s environmental review.11.Neighbor’s Consultants. Project Sponsor agrees to reimburse Neighbor for the cost of Neighbor’s attorney’s fees in reviewing and negotiating the terms of this Agreement, and for the cost of Neighbor’s architect and engineering and other consultants in reviewing the proposed Project plans and other related Project materials up to the amount of $5,000. 12.No Obligation to Construct Project. Nothing in this Agreement shall impose on Project Sponsor any obligation to construct or complete the Project.13.Repair and Indemnification.a. In consideration for the rights conferred by this Agreement in connection with the performance of the Licensed Activities, Project Sponsor shall indemnify and hold Neighbor harmless from and against physical damage to the improvements located on the Neighbor Property, and shall be responsible for repair of such damage, to the extent caused by the Licensed Activities which are the subject of this Agreement. Project Sponsor’s obligations shall not, however, extend toany of the following: (i) minor settlement cracks in buildings or other structures, for which Project Sponsor has no liability under California Civil Code section 832; (ii) damage caused or exacerbated by Neighbor’s conduct, including without limitation, Neighbor’s failure to disclose material information concerning improvements located on the Neighbor Property known to Neighbor; (iii) Neighbor’s failure to follow the recommendations of Project Sponsor’s contractors, structural engineers, or other consultants to protect the improvements located on the Neighbor Property; (iv) improvements on the Neighbor Property to the extent that damage directly or indirectly relates to a pre-existing condition or latent defect on the Neighbor Property, (v) damages caused by the gross negligence, willful misconduct, or breach of this Agreement by Neighbor; and (vi) damages arising from or related to a natural disaster. b. Except as limited by this Agreement, Project Sponsor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Neighbor and its principals, members, shareholders, managers, agents, and employees (“Neighbor Indemnitees”), from and against all third party claims, damages, losses and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees, but excluding claims for lost profits and/or other consequential damages, arising out of or resulting from or against all claims, actions, suits, liabilities, bills, attorneys’ fees and costs made by any party against any of the Neighbor Indemnitees to the extent arising out of or resulting from (i) the Licensed Activities; (ii) work performed by contractor(s) and/or any subcontractor(s) employed by, or on behalf of, Project Sponsor; (iii) entry onto the Neighbor Property and/or Neighbor Building by Project Sponsor or its agents; and/or (iv) mechanics’ liens recorded against the Neighbor Property in connection with the construction activities permitted by this Agreement (“Neighbor Claims”). Project Sponsor shall have no obligation to indemnify or hold harmless Neighbor to the extent any claims, demands, losses and expenses result from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Neighbor or its agents.
11.Neighbor’s Consultants. Project Sponsor agrees to reimburse Neighbor for the eighborProject Sponsoagrees to reimburse Neighbor for the cost of Neighbor’s attorney’s fees in reviewing and negotiating the terms of this Agreement, and for cost of Neighbor’s attorney’s fees in reviewing and negotiating the terms of this Agreemen, and for the cost of Neighbor’s architect and engineering and other consultants in reviewing the proposed cost of Neighbor’s architect and engineering and other consultants in reviewing the proposed Project plans and other related Project materials up to the amount of $5,000.
c. Upon notice by any of the Neighbor Indemnitees of a Neighbor Claim brought or threatened against any of them, Project Sponsor (or its insurance carrier) will provide legal representation for the Neighbor Indemnitee(s) at Project Sponsor’s sole cost and expense (or that of its liability insurance carrier(s)) by attorneys selected by Project Sponsor (or its insurance carrier(s)), and subject to Neighbor Indemnitees’ reasonable approval. Neighbor shall reasonably cooperate with such counsel and shall participate in the defense of the Neighbor Claims. d. The defense and indemnity obligations assumed by Project Sponsor in this Agreement shall be deemed satisfied if Project Sponsor has complied with the insurance obligations provided below, and its insurance carrier agrees to defend and indemnify Neighbor from and against Project Sponsor Claims, or otherwise pay damages, losses, and/or expenses which are the subject of its indemnity obligations. Neighbor agrees to look solely to such insurance, and hereby waives its rights to enforce the indemnity obligations imposed by this Agreement beyond the limits of such insurance coverage. e. The indemnity obligations provided herein shall survive termination of this Agreement for a period of three (3) years. 14.Insurance. Prior to commencement of the Licensed Activities to be performed during construction and prior to issuance of the CO, the following insurance coverage shall be procured and maintained by Project Sponsor, at no cost or expense to Neighbor: a. Commercial General Liability insurance for the Project written on an occurrence form with policy limits of not less than $25 Million for each occurrence, and $25 Million general aggregate, and $25 Million aggregate coverage for products-completed operations hazard, providing coverage for claims including (i) damages because of bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death of any person; (ii) personal and advertising injury; (iii) damages because of physical damage to or destruction of tangible property, including the loss of use of such property; (iv) bodily injury or property damage arising out Contractor’s completed operations; and (v) the indemnity obligations assumed by Project Sponsor as provided in this Agreement. Such liability insurance policies shall be endorsed to identify Neighbor and its agents, managers, partners, members, and affiliated entities as additional insureds. b. Project Sponsor may comply with its insurance obligations through an Owner-Controlled Insurance Program, a Contractor-Controlled Insurance Program, or by procuring insurance coverage that includes some combination of liability and excess liability insurance policies.c. All insurance policies shall be issued by reputable insurance companies that are licensed to do business in the State of California. d. Prior to commencement of the Licensed Activities, Project Sponsor shall provide Neighbor with certificates of insurance and additional insured endorsements naming Neighbor and Tenant, and their respective agents, managers, and its representatives as additional insureds. 15.Notices. Any notice, request, demand, or other communication given with reference to this Agreement shall be in writing, shall reference this “Construction Logistics Agreement,” and shall be delivered by e-mail electronic transmission (effective on acknowledgementor receipt of delivery confirmation), personally, by overnight courier or by First Class mail, correctly addressed as follows, or to such other address(es), as a Party may from time to time provide notice, in accordance with this paragraph:
TO PROJECT SPONSOR: TO NEIGHBOR: WITH COPY TO: WITH COPY TO:16.Dispute Resolution. Any claim or controversy between the Parties which relates to or arises from this Agreement, the rights and obligations conferred thereby (“Dispute”), shall be resolved as provided herein: a.Mediation. The Parties shall first mediate any Dispute, before a mediator to whom they shall reasonably agree within ten (10) days after a request for mediation is made. Mediation fees, if any, shall be allocated equally between the Parties. If either of the Parties (i) commences any legal action without first having attempted to resolve the Dispute throughmediation, or (ii) refuses mediation after a request has been made, that party shall not be entitled to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with such Dispute, even if such recovery would otherwise be available in such action. The filing of an action to preserve a statute of limitations, to enable the recording of a notice of pending action/lis pendens, or for provisional remedies (i.e., a temporary restraining order) shall not constitute a waiver or violation of these mediation requirements. b.Judicial Reference. In the event that a Dispute is not resolved by Mediation, either of the Parties may commence litigation in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco which action shall be resolved by a general reference to a referee as provided in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 638. The referee shall be a retired Judge or Justice of the California state court system. The referee(s) shall be selected by mutual written agreement of the Parties. If the Parties do not agree, the referee(s) shall be selected by the Presiding Judge of the Court (or his or her representative) as provided in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 640. The referee(s) shall hear and determine all issues relating to the Dispute, whether of fact or of law, and shall do so in accordance with the Laws of the State of California, and shall report a statement of decision. The referee(s) shall be empowered to enter legal or equitable relief, provide all temporary or provisional remedies, enter equitable and legal orders that will be binding on the Parties, and rule on any motion which would be authorized in court litigation, including without limitation motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, or for summary adjudication. The referee(s) shall also have authority to award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (including the fees of the referee(s)) relating to the judicial reference proceeding, and to any related litigation or arbitration, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The award that results from the decision of the referee(s) shall be entered as a judgment in the court that appointed the referee(s), in accordance with the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 644(a). Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 645, the Parties reserve the right to seek appellate review of any judgment or order, including but not limited to, orders pertaining to class certification, to the same extent permitted in a court of law. 17.Consultation with Counsel. Each signatory to this Agreement represents and warrants that he/she/it has read and understands this Agreement and is readily familiar with and understands its legal effect(s). Each Party represents and warrants that it has had the opportunity to consult with his/her/its independent counsel, with respect to the advisability of signing this Agreement
18.Duty to Cooperate. Each Party hereto specifically agrees to cooperate with each other, as reasonably necessary to achieve the goals and objectives of this Agreement, and agree that they shall execute, file and/or record any additional documents reasonably required to do so. 19.Authority to Execute Agreement. The Parties, and each of them, represent and warrant to the other Parties hereto that the individual signatories to this Agreement have authority to execute this Agreement, on behalf of themselves and the entities on whose behalf they purport to act. 20.Recitals and Exhibits. Any and all recitals at the beginning of this Agreement are accurate and shall constitute an integral part of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall beconstrued in light of those recitals. Any and all exhibits, schedules, and addenda attached to and referred to in this Agreement are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth in their entirety herein. 21.Reciprocal Limitation of Liability. The liability of each Party to this Agreement shall be limited to its interest in the Neighbor Property/Neighbor Building or the Project Site/Project, as applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, no affiliate of either Party or any direct or indirect partner, member or shareholder of either Party or any affiliate of either Party (or any officer, director, agent, manager, personal representative, trustee or employee of either Party, any affiliate of either Party or any such direct or indirect partner, member or shareholder) shall be liable for the performance or non-performance of such Party’s obligations under this Agreement. Neither Party shall look to any other property or assets of the other Party or the property or assets of any of the other Party’s parent, subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, and any of their respective officers, equity holders, direct or indirect partners, directors, principals, agents, representatives, employees (collectively, “Principals”), or to their respective successors or assigns in seeking either to enforce that Party’s obligations under this Agreement or to satisfy a judgment for that Party’s alleged failure to perform such obligations. The Principals of the Parties shall not be personally liable for the performance of the obligations assumed by their respective Parties under this Agreement. In no event shall either Party have liability to the other under this Agreement for lost profits, special damages, consequential damages or punitive damages. 22.Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding on the Parties and each of their respective successors and assigns, including without limitation subsequent owner(s) of the properties identified in this Agreement. This Agreement provides certain benefits and burdens to each of the Properties, and shall therefore be a covenant running with the land for purposes of California Civil Code Section 1468. 23.No Third Party Beneficiaries. The Parties intend that no third party is or shall be treated as a direct, indirect, intended or incidental third party beneficiary of this Agreement for any purpose whatsoever, nor shall any other person have any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or in respect of this Agreement. 24.Time of Essence. Time is expressly declared to be of the essence of this Agreement, and of each, every, and all of the covenants and conditions herein contained. 25.Agreement Jointly Prepared. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been jointly prepared by the Parties, and shall not be construed against one Party or the other in the event of any claimed uncertainly or ambiguity. 26.Entire Agreement. a. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the matters referred to in this Agreement. It supersedes all prior agreements,
understandings, negotiations, and discussions by and between the Parties, whether oral or written. There are no representations or other agreements between the Parties in connection with the subject matter hereof, except as specifically set forth herein. b. This Agreement may not be modified, changed, supplemented or terminated, nor may any of the obligations hereunder be waived, except by written instrument signed and acknowledged (notarized) by the party to be charged. c. Any amendments or modifications of this Agreement, whenever made, shall be superior to any and all liens to the same extent as this Agreement as if such amendment or modification had been executed concurrently herewith. d. If any provision of this Agreement conflicts with applicable law or is declared invalid, such provision shall be severed from the document and the remainder shall continue to be given full force and effect. 27.Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State ofCalifornia. 28.Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and each executed counterpart shall be considered to be as valid as the original executed Agreement and any action in connection with its terms. [SIGNATURES FOLLOW]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date noted below. Date: March___, 2022Date:March ___, 2022 a Delaware limited liability company _______________________________________ By: Its: LAMUMBA INC.a California corporation ____________________________________ By: Its:
Exhibit ALegal Description – Project Site
Exhibit B Legal Description – Neighbor Property
Exhibit C Schematic – Flashing Detail
California State Law & Historic Preservation Statutes, Regulations & Administrative Policies Regarding the Preservation & Protection of Cultural & Historical Resources
From: "TMT Lee" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: 2/2/2023 9:36:15 PM
Subject: Petition
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
2/27/2023
From: "Kareta Williams" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: 2/2/2023 9:49:27 PM
Subject: Petition
Kareta L Williams
2/27/2023
From: Alona Clifton Sent: Sun, 5 Feb 2023 15:50:04 -0500 To: [email protected] Subject: Call to Protect Geoffrey’s Inner Circle from Threatened High-Rise Development Please add my name to the petition.
Thank you,
Alona
Alona Clifton
(510) 472-1480
[email protected]
From: Brent Thibeaux Sent: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 06:35:30 +0000 (UTC) To: [email protected] Subject: Name to the petition Good evening,
Add my name to the petition Brent Thibeaux.
From: Edna Duncan
Sent: Sun, 26 Feb 2023 22:21:39 -0800 To: [email protected] Add my name to petition for Geoffreys and the Black Art district From: [email protected] Sent: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 00:51:57 +0000 (UTC) To: [email protected] Subject: Petition to keep Geoffrey's Inner Circle open I would like to add my name to the petition, Theresa L. Hamilton From: Art Scott
Sent: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 14:28:03 -0800 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PETITION to PROTECT IS ATTACHED! Geoffrey's Inner Circle Integration
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 15, 2023, at 11:04 AM, Geoffrey's Inner Circle <[email protected]> wrote:
AGAIN WE NEED YOU
The Black Business and Historic District, and Geoffrey's Inner Circle, in particular, are threatened by another out-of-town developer who wants to build another residential and/or business high-rise for the rich.
If you would like to oppose this development and support Geoffrey's, you can attend the Planning Commission by Zoom WEDNESDAY, February 15 at 3 PM and express your opinion.
Use this link which will direct you to a the zoom link to attend the meeting and directions on how to raise your hand to speak:
**Last meeting they published the incorrect link in their agenda....
If it doesn't work please use the link below and click to join via the button labeled JOIN THE MEETING.
City of Oakland Link:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/meeting/planning-commission-meeting-14 Points You might Want to Make if you speak
1. The Black Arts Movement and Business District (BAMBD) was designated in 2016 by Oakland City Council and is protected from intrusive development that has no interest in cultural development relative to African American arts and business
2. The city designated the area by 14th Street (from 880 frontage to Oak Street) in 2016 as an area to amplify the history and businesses of Oakland's Black community. No action should be taken which could detract from that, and the city should enhance funding and plans for this.
3. Geoffrey's Club is of particular historic importance. It originated as the all-white Athenian Club. It was purchased by Geoffrey Pete in 1993 and became a venue that has hosted celebrations, jazz, comedy, and other entertainment. And Geoffrey has also generously donated his building and his efforts to feeding homeless people and hosting community gatherings.
We Look Forward to Seeing You There!
Please click hereto show your support!
Geoffrey's Inner Circle
410 14th Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Unsubscribe [email protected]
Update Profile | Constant Contact Data
Notice
Sent by [email protected]
powered by
Try email marketing for free today!
From: [email protected] Sent: Tue, 7 Feb 2023 21:37:02 +0000 (UTC) To: [email protected] Subject: Petition
Gentrification is just destroying Our community.
Please Add My Name to say NO.
Linda Murray
Thank you
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From: Chia Hamilton Sent: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 16:49:17 -0800 To: [email protected] Subject: Petition
Please add my name to the petition to not endanger the Black Arts district by allowing out of towners to build adjacently.
Thank you
Chia Hamilton
From: TMT Lee
Sent: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 03:36:15 +0000 (UTC) To: [email protected] Subject: Petition
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Yaway Yaway
Sent: Sun, 5 Feb 2023 05:09:34 +0000 (UTC) To: [email protected] Subject: Petition
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Queen Gypsy
Sent: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 07:01:09 -0800 To: [email protected] Subject: Petition
Please add my name to the petition to prevent 14th street (Franklin) high rise development.
Lilliannia Ayers
Peace and Gratitude,
Queen Oracle Lilly Ayers
Founder, Owner, Operator
Queen Hippie Gypsy
337 14th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
www.QueenHippieGypsy.com
From: keela page
Sent: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 16:11:09 -0800 To: Jaimie Harris Subject: Petition
Hello, Please add my name to the petition to keep Geoffrey’s open.
Thank you,
Keela Page
From: Rodger Gilbert Sent: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 09:08:19 +0000 (UTC) To: [email protected] Subject: Sign petition to save Geoffrey's To whom it may concern,
I am interested in signing the petition, that's circulating to save Geoffrey's Inner Circle.
Regards,
Rodger Gilbert
From: Sophia Labeko Sent: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 15:58:16 -0800 To: [email protected] Subject: Sign the petition Hi there, I’d like to sign the petition to reject tidewater plans. Where can I do it? I didn’t see a link in the newsletter.
My info: Sophia Labeko
Address: 308 Jackson st, apt 415, Oakland, ca 94607
Date signed: 01/31/23
Thank you,
Sophia
From: Nannette Walker Sent: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 18:53:49 -0800 To: [email protected] Subject: Want to sign petition Sent from my iPhone
From: Phasasha Pharr Sent: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 15:53:36 -0800 To: Geoffrey's Inner Circle Subject: Re: Your Father Donald Pharr Greetings Geoffrey,
Hope all is well.
Can you please put our names on the petition
DONNAN PHARR
PHASASHA PHARR
DATHAN PHARR
Respectfully,
Don's kids
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023, 2:58 PM Geoffrey's Inner Circle <[email protected]> wrote:
Please enjoy, your father was a dear friend.
Best,
Geoffrey Pete
(510)290-9288
---
For time sensitive matters, please email [email protected].
Geoffrey’s Inner Circle
410 14th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
510-839-4644
510-839-7911 (fax)
www.geoffreyslive.com
https://www.facebook.com/GeoffreysLive/
Join our mailing list HERE.
From: "Kareta Williams" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: 2/2/2023 9:49:27 PM
Subject: Petition
Kareta L Williams
2/27/2023
This petition has collected
59 signatures
using the online tools at www.ipetitions.com
Printed on 2023-02-24
PROTECT Geoffrey’s Inner Circle
About this petition
Petition To REJECT The Proposed Building At 1431 Franklin Ave In The Black Business District The African American community in Oakland has been seriously damaged by developers and public officials who are willing and sometimes eager to see African Americans disappear from the city. Black people were 47% of the population in 1980; now they make up only 20% of the population. In response to this crisis the 14th Street Corridor from Oak to the 880 Frontage Road was established as the Black Arts Movement and Business District by the City Council on Jan 7, 2016, in Resolution 85958.
TIDEWATER, an out-of-town developer, is proposing to build a high rise building at 1431 Franklin which will damage the Black Business District and the businesses in the area including the iconic business of Geoffrey's Inner Circle at 410 - 14 th Street.
We demand that the Planning Commission and the City Council reject this predatory building proposal and proceed with plans to fund and enhance the Black Business District
Signatures
1. Name: Fannie Pettis on 2023-02-01 18:54:30
Comments:
2. Name: Michael on 2023-02-15 19:51:39
Comments: Save the Black businesses on 14th St.
3. Name: William Pettaway on 2023-02-15 20:02:49
Comments:
4. Name: Janet A on 2023-02-15 20:38:46
Comments:
5. Name: Brenda Richard on 2023-02-15 20:59:37
Comments: It is a disgrace to allow an out town developer come in and destroy what’s left of a historical Black business and cultural monument in the Black community. Shame on you to even consider such a proposal, especially during Black History Month no less! Its enough that West Oakland has been decimated by gentrification and now THIS!! Shame on you!!
6. Name: Tammy Robinson on 2023-02-15 21:01:30
Comments:
7. Name: Darryl Hickman on 2023-02-15 21:30:01
Comments: Get Rid of Tidewater
8. Name: C Burnette on 2023-02-15 22:10:07
Comments:
9. Name: Kelvin Curry on 2023-02-15 23:28:20
Comments: Hell naw! Not Geoffrey’s!!
10. Name: DENISE MCCARTHY on 2023-02-16 01:22:53
Comments: Save our community!
11. Name: Danielle Curry on 2023-02-16 04:10:53
Comments:
12. Name: Josiane Stokes on 2023-02-16 04:17:38
Comments:
13. Name: Angela Butler on 2023-02-16 05:43:48
Comments:
14. Name: Kimberly White on 2023-02-16 16:14:09
Comments:
15. Name: Sheila Ponder on 2023-02-16 22:03:49
Comments: Developers shouldn’t be allowed to regentrify the black community by destroying part of its history! They should be made to restore and develop the neighborhood’s and especially if they will impact the lives of the owners and the people who support them!
16. Name: Dianne Clark on 2023-02-17 00:57:26
Comments: Let Black Business Thrive !
17. Name: April Hughes on 2023-02-17 03:26:29
Comments:
18. Name: Bradley Dean on 2023-02-17 03:49:48
Comments:
19. Name: Lavora Harper on 2023-02-17 04:02:58
Comments:
20. Name: Lamar Ray on 2023-02-17 14:32:39
Comments:
21. Name: Cardale McClain on 2023-02-17 17:17:55
Comments:
22. Name: Iola M Lee on 2023-02-17 18:22:59
Comments: Keep our Black-owned businesses alive and viable.
23. Name: Keith Moore on 2023-02-17 23:02:08
Comments:
24. Name: Michael A Sullivan on 2023-02-18 00:13:08 Comments:
25. Name: Rodney Anderson on 2023-02-18 05:00:24
Comments: Power To The People
26. Name: Ramona Pam on 2023-02-18 05:22:24
Comments:
27. Name: morris bird on 2023-02-18 10:33:39
Comments:
28. Name: Brenda Kendall on 2023-02-18 17:14:26
Comments:
29. Name: Kenneth Brown on 2023-02-18 19:25:02
Comments:
30. Name: Kimberly Jones on 2023-02-19 03:05:17
Comments: This Build is and Historically Build for Black People and Gefforey Inner Circle is a pillar of Entertainment for Our Community ( Such as wedding, Anniversary, celebration, feeding of those less fortunate and entertainer of the Bay Area….) stop the push out of Black Business and other minorities businesses who have business in that building.
31. Name: Alfonza X Marshall on 2023-02-19 03:41:04 Comments:
32. Name: Carolyn MCNEIL on 2023-02-19 07:05:55
Comments:
33. Name: Valerie Beaird on 2023-02-19 16:54:30
Comments:
34. Name: Ashanti Brown on 2023-02-20 04:54:59
Comments:
35. Name: Norma Nelson on 2023-02-20 05:57:34
Comments:
36. Name: Rowena Kendall on 2023-02-20 06:07:25
Comments:
37. Name: Cynthia D Thompson on 2023-02-20 12:36:42 Comments:
38. Name: Carlos fortune on 2023-02-20 12:55:32
Comments: This establishment is a pillar in the black community. Alot of black business meetings and fun drives are entertained here
39. Name: Chaundra Satchell on 2023-02-20 14:36:02 Comments:
40. Name: Anita Grayson on 2023-02-20 15:22:02
Comments: Please save this landmark.
41. Name: Lewis Nelson on 2023-02-20 15:45:29
Comments: Leave Geoffrey’s alone as well as our business district!
42. Name: Cherie Jones on 2023-02-20 22:37:49
Comments: I started going to Geoffrey's when he was in Jack London Square
43. Name: Latanya Johnson on 2023-02-21 05:20:23
Comments:
44. Name: Dannel Thompson on 2023-02-21 10:19:20
Comments:
45. Name: HuNia Bradley on 2023-02-21 14:38:37
Comments:
46. Name: Lynda Gates on 2023-02-21 19:55:32
Comments:
47. Name: AFRICA WILLIAMS on 2023-02-21 21:22:19
Comments:
48. Name: Allisa Carr on 2023-02-22 00:08:18
Comments:
49. Name: Pam Dawson on 2023-02-22 03:30:37
Comments:
50. Name: Zelda Curry on 2023-02-22 03:41:10
Comments:
51. Name: Marilyn Waters on 2023-02-22 11:22:47
Comments:
52. Name: Sandra McClain on 2023-02-22 20:41:28
Comments:
53. Name: Michael Bolds on 2023-02-22 21:48:51
Comments:
54. Name: Kenny Morris on 2023-02-22 21:58:13
Comments:
55. Name: Maurice Harper on 2023-02-22 23:59:18
Comments:
56. Name: Odette Thompson on 2023-02-23 15:46:20
Comments:
57. Name: Teresa Cummings on 2023-02-23 19:01:36
Comments:
58. Name: Maureen Jenny West on 2023-02-23 20:58:53 Comments:
59. Name: Keisha Sudduth on 2023-02-24 04:42:52
Comments:
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)