17:49:38 From John Promani : Project website: https://www.5212broadway.com/ 17:59:17 From Stephen Coles : Anything posted to chat before participants join will not be visible to them. So just a good idea to post again at 6. 17:59:54 From John Promani : Thanks for the recommendation Stephen. We will post it again at 6. 18:02:49 From John Promani : Project website: https://www.5212broadway.com/ 18:04:31 From Tracy Craig : Tracy Craig 18:04:56 From Tracy Craig : Tracy Craig, 510/334-4866, tracy@craig-communications.com 18:12:25 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : Thank you everyone for hosting and attending tonight’s meeting! 18:14:46 From janklingelhofer : Sound problems with Clawson for anybody else? 18:14:55 From Cody Little : Not for me 18:15:40 From Cody Little : I don’t want to interrupt, but what is the parking/housing unit ratio in the updated proposal? 18:15:58 From Tracy Craig : That will be answered shortly. Also noted for Q&A. Thx. 18:16:54 From Cullinane : Developers response to Kalb effort fot affordable option for dormitory. 18:17:52 From Tracy Craig : Cullinane - comment noted and will make sure it is asked. Thanks. 18:18:46 From Cody Little : @tracy, I would like to know if there is any way to bring back the tower in order to get more permanently affordable units on site. 18:20:01 From Tracy Craig : Cody - Noted and will be asked. Thx. 18:21:38 From nheyden : Old facilities building would seem to be a historic priority too 18:22:03 From Tyler B : do we really need any parking? 18:22:39 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : @nheyden I agree. The facilities building would be great to save. It is small and I believe was the first building constructed for the campus. 18:23:03 From Chia Hamilton : Excellent question, Tyler. But if no parking, folks will park on the street. That would create issues with current residents. 18:23:41 From Cody Little : +1 to Tyler’s comment. If a substantial amount of parking can be replaced with housing that would seem to reflect the needs of an area with so much adjacent transit 18:23:48 From Tracy Craig : Tyler - noted and will ask. Thx. 18:24:05 From garyyabrove : How many parking places are planned? Concerned about traffic light at Broadway and access flow of traffic to and from the site. 18:24:14 From Tracy Craig : NHeyden - Noted and will ask. Tjx 18:24:17 From Maria Giudice : +1 about parking options available 18:24:42 From Stephen Coles : What happened to the nonprofit arts component along Clifton? Is that lost due to the loss of the tower? I felt that added a lot of community value. 18:25:08 From Tyler B : if we provide parking, people will use it. if we provide transportation alternatives, people will use those. we shouldn’t be encouraging more car use 18:28:59 From SonjaKT : I would rather spend money on affordable housing than preservation 18:29:38 From nheyden : All #s so far assume are pre-covid? 18:30:19 From Tracy Craig : Sonja - noted comment. Thx. 18:30:34 From Tracy Craig : NHeyden - all numbers are pre-covid. Thx. 18:31:41 From Charles : What association are John Clawson and Marc Babsin? - I missed when you announced. 18:32:26 From Tracy Craig : John is with Equity Community Builders and Marc is with Emerald Fund. they are the developers for the project. More info on website: 5212broadway.com. Thx. 18:32:26 From nheyden : preservation vs affordable housing is not an either or; they can complement each other 18:33:16 From Tracy Craig : NHeyden - comment noted. Thx 18:34:07 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : Agree. @nheyden There are several alternatives. Plus many in the neighborhood are interested in helping fund raise to get more affordable units constructed. 18:34:59 From Chia Hamilton : Isn't the carriage house in the redwood grove? Moving it would destroy or put at risk all the trees there. 18:35:57 From Tracy Craig : Chia - noted and will ask Q. Thx. 18:35:58 From Cody Little : Seeing all the current options, it seems like none of them are actually feasible to develop even without any money going to CCA for the land. Can someone confirm that? 18:36:03 From Tracy Craig : Nicole - comment noted. Thx. 18:37:30 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : @Tracy what’s the difference between hard costs and soft costs? Is Hard the materials and Soft is the labor? 18:38:12 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : Thank you! 18:39:41 From nheyden : soft costs includes affordable housing requirements? 18:40:15 From SonjaKT : can you show us the numbers for the proposal with the tower? is that feasible? 18:40:48 From Tracy Craig : . NHeyden -one moment and i will ask. Thx. 18:40:53 From Cody Little : +1 to Sonja’s question. What would be feasible if the tower came back? 18:41:18 From Tracy Craig : Sonja - Q noted and I will ask. We can likely do at second community meeting if not tonight. Thx. 18:43:08 From myrnawalton : Would you consider making the park an “art park.” 18:43:44 From Tracy Craig : Myrna - Q noted and will ask. Thx and hi! 18:44:52 From myrnawalton : Is there a mechanism by which we could bring in a non-profit to assume some of the costs for affordable buildings. 18:46:19 From Stephen Coles : yup 18:47:43 From Stephen Coles : I think residents are unaware of the community benefits the tower provided. Thank you for coming back later with how these options compare in the numbers. 18:47:49 From janklingelhofer : But it’s also about the long term value of this Oakland asset and what that means to the Rockridge community. 18:48:13 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : Is it possible to say where people live or work? 18:48:30 From SonjaKT : yes, for the long term value in the community, we should have more housing on the site, including the tower 18:49:08 From nheyden : Is it all a moot point if we have to wait to see what post-covid #s settle out to be? Is that why vacancy is probable? 18:49:17 From John Promani to Tracy Craig(Privately) : I just emailed you my list of Qs and comments that came in during the presentation 18:49:29 From Chia Hamilton : Can we leave John Clawson's screen? 18:49:37 From Paul Bickmore : I’m puzzled by cutting two stories off of building C. The scale is already mid rise. I wish we could get more, taller towers, but most of the complaints were about the tower, not the midrise next to Mackey Hall. Couldn’t the two stories be restored for more housing? 18:49:39 From Cody Little : Seems like vacancy is probable without the tower, for sure! Good reason to keep it. 18:50:38 From Stephen Coles : 😢 18:51:29 From SonjaKT : I’m still confused about how option 1 is happening if it’s $8 million unprofitable ? 18:52:48 From myrnawalton : UBA requested dedicated space for alternate transportation. Is that included? 18:55:06 From nheyden : Can you explain the criteria for determining the progression of buildings taken out w/each new option? 18:55:38 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : Q: What other levers are available to adjust the project costs in addition to what we’ve covered so far? 18:55:43 From SonjaKT : I have an idea for fundraising, how about build more housing on the site, like, a tower, 19 stories or so, 126 apartments about ...? 18:55:49 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : We do want a great project on the site. 18:56:40 From Tyler Bleuel : don’t want to beat a dead horse but the tower seems like it would solve a lot of the problems discussed — increasing total units and subsidizing affordable units 18:57:05 From Tyler Bleuel : seems like a lot has changed in the world since it’s been ruled out, might merit taking another look at it… 18:58:10 From naomischiff : Tower is based on high rental prices, though. 18:58:12 From paciorek : Are there things the city could do to help move the project along expeditiously? We desperately need more housing in the core of the Bay Area… 18:58:13 From Cody Little : +1 to Sonja’s question about feasibility. How is the project going to move forward if it is 8 million dollars unprofitable? 19:01:26 From myrnawalton : Confusion. Did you say 10% affordable was baked into all 3 options? 19:02:20 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : Q: It looks like we are looking at more than 35 units for affordable now? This current project Scenario 1 looks to build 46 units affordable. So it’s a net win w/o the Tower there are MORE affordable units. We really appreciate the work being done by the developers to add more affordable. Plus we are supporting Dan Kalb’s interest in using the dorm to provide an additional 35 or so affordable units. We like these goals as they would double the amount of affordable units on the site! 19:03:22 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : And our neighborhood 19:04:23 From Cody Little : Q: It looks like we are not getting any kind of project without the tower now? Scenario 1 looks to be infeasible. So it’s a net loss of all housing on the site. 19:04:51 From Joe : I would like the semi-annual; artists' fairs be carried on. There are many artists living close by that would like to display and sell their artwork. 19:05:06 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : 👍 @joe 19:05:21 From Erich Valo : I cannot stay. I just wanted to chime that I’m one of the Oakland home owners who would like to see more housing built in my town. Thanks! 19:06:13 From SonjaKT : +1 to Cody’s comment - let’s look for viable projects 19:06:43 From Tyler Bleuel : agree with Sonja and Cody 19:07:22 From John Promani : If you would like a briefing, please contact Tracy Craig at 510-334-4866 or tracy@craig-communications.com. Thanks! 19:13:09 From Art May : I agree with a prior comment that we need more housing and option 1 has the most units as well as more affordable units. I like that trade off over preserving more buildings as a long term Oakland home owner. 19:13:29 From Taryn Fransen : Thanks to the meeting organizers and presenters. I regret I can’t stay until the end of the meeting, but as a Rockridge homeowner I wanted to voice my support for the greatest possible amount of housing to be built in our neighborhood. I’m disappointed that the tower option that made this project more viable no longer seems to be on the table, but absent that, I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed that option 1 can move ahead expediently. 19:14:51 From John Promani : You can reach Rebecca Lind, City of Oakland Planner, at 510-238-3472 or rlind@oaklandca.gov. 19:15:27 From Evan Richard : I am raising my hand 19:15:30 From Stephanie Beechem : Second Taryn's comment above - I'm an Oakland homeowner and I support building the greatest possible amount of units on this site. Absent the tower, I strongly support proposal #1 and I stand by to help it move forward however I can. 19:15:55 From paciorek : I third Taryn’s comment, as a Temescal resident. 19:17:08 From Diana Dorinson : +1 to Taryn's written comment above & Stephen Cole's remarks just now. I am glad that the most financially feasible option has more affordable housing than the earlier proposal. 19:19:24 From nheyden : Existing gate is gone w/all options? 19:20:01 From nheyden : Private park with public access granted? 19:25:38 From Tracy Craig : Thank you all. If you need a briefing for your organization or self please call me: Tracy Craig, 510/334-4866 or tracy@craig-communications.com. Also, website: 5212broadway.com. You can sign up for project updates on the website if you provide your email. Tracy 19:25:39 From nheyden : Could facade alone of facilities being saved be mitigation 19:28:38 From Diana Dorinson : I agree the tower option needs to be in the EIR. It would be a shame to go through all that effort just to compare the impacts of a bunch of options that aren't viable when other options have been put forward. 19:28:40 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : Thank you everyone! Great to have this conversation together. 19:28:56 From Stephen Coles : For Dan: They made it clear the council opposed the previous plan. What did you oppose? 19:30:07 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : Thought: There’s some interesting tradeoffs on construction costs and per door costs. It would be great to cover what happens to buildings above 7 stories.