23rd Avenue Corridor Action Team

23^rd Avenue Corridor Action Team
Planning Meeting
April 4, 2001
Volunteers of America Office

Attending:

Agenda

I. Introductions
II. Background on the 23^rd Ave. Corridor Project
III. Presentation by Lewis Cohen, OUSD
IV. Question and Answer
V. Debriefing
VI. Next Steps
VII. Corridor Boundaries

I. Introductions

II. Background on the 23^rd Ave. Corridor Project

David Kakishiba gave a brief history and overview of the 23^rd Ave. Corridor Project and its evolution out of the work of the Lower San Antonio Collaborative.

III. Presentation by Lewis Cohen, OUSD

Lewis began with an overview of the OUSD’s small school initiative. Woodland is the first small school in 40 years. The Oakland school’s are severely over-crowded. There is a need for 18 new schools. The most over-crowding and greatest need is in the Fremont attendance area. 60% of the city’s school-aged children live in this area.

One of the biggest challenges facing the school district is building new schools in urban settings where land availability is limited. Inevitably, the construction of new schools will involve taking and abolishing homes.

The District has identified 20 potential sites for new schools. However, many of those sites have been knocked off the list because of toxic contamination.

Two sites that appear to be promising are 14^th Avenue for an elementary school and the 23^rd Ave. Corridor, which includes International to E. 16^th between 23^rd Ave. and 24^th Ave., for a middle school. They do not plan to touch the Youth Employment Partnership’s building on the corner of 23^rd Ave. and International.

The District is currently in the middle of the Phase I environmental analysis which includes: gathering information on land uses in the area; a survey of historical structures; survey of utility lines and hazardous materials. The intent of Phase I is to get a preliminary sense of whether it is worth proceeding on this site.

It looks probable that they will move to Phase II, which includes geo-technical and seismic studies and additional hazardous waste analysis. If they receive approval from the State that there is no toxic contamination, they will proceed with an environmental impact report (EIR). They anticipate that the EIR will be complete approximately 12 months from now. By the end of the summer they will have a formal public meeting with the community to announce the process.

In terms of acquiring the property they need for the school, they will negotiate sales with property owners first. If they are not able to come to a negotiated settlement, they have eminent domain power. The District is obligated to pay relocation assistance to property owners and tenants, both commercial and residential. OUSD must find residents an alternative place to live. They provide moving expenses and a lump sum differential if they relocate to a more expensive property. They pay property owners fair market value, plus they receive a tax benefit. For commercial owners, they are not obligated to find a replacement site, but they must provide relocation assistance. They provide some compensation for loss of business and costs of relocation. The District will hire a relocation consultant whose job it is the oversee the relocation effort.

IV. Question and Answer Session

• The community meeting is after Phase I and before the EIR. At that time the District will unveil a conceptual site design.
• How far can relocation be from the neighborhood? Lewis didn’t know the answer to this question, but believed that it has to be reasonable. He didn’t think they would relocate residents to cities many miles from Oakland.
• Concern was expressed about relocating residents in the immediate area. Some of the tenants are young people who are rooted in the neighborhood. Lewis assured the group that tenants have to be satisfied with where they’re relocated.
• According to OUSD, there are 84 individuals (property owners and tenants) who reside within the proposed school site area.
• In terms of the land acquisition process, the District is not allowed to acquire land until the State certifies it as suitable for a school. After that certification, the District will proceed with negotiations with property owners and then eminent domain proceedings, if necessary.
• Concern was expressed about the notification process for property owners, People are hearing about the process through the back door. According to Lewis, a "notice of interest" should have gone out to property owners informing them that OUSD is contemplating the property.
• Property owned by not-for-profit organizations is classified as commercial.
• The former Ward’s site will have two elementary schools. They will open in September in portables while construction is underway.
• The District is responsible for cleaning-up toxic contamination.
• The proposed site for the middle schools is 7.12 acres.
• There will be a maximum of 800 students enrolled in the new school.
• The District’s preference is not to take residential properties, but it’s unavoidable. They will do everything in their power to minimize displacement.
• The Lower San Antonio and Fruitvale have the highest population densities and the most over-crowded schools.
• 14^th Ave. site for a new elementary school. The Phase I was completed. They have now moved to Phase II. They are 8-9 months out on the EIR. There will be a public hearing next Thursday, April 12 at 6pm at Garfield. The site is 2.9 acres.
• Question about whether they will disclose information about potential sites knocked off the list because of toxic contamination. Lewis thinks they will not, but will raise the issue with the school board.
• Question about whether OUSD would partner with a CDC to build new housing. According to Lewis, OUSD does not develop housing. District can’t come-up with anything to add to the mix around new housing development in the neighborhood.
• Question about employment opportunities for people who live in the neighborhood. OUSD has a program targeted to priority hiring of city residents, but it is not neighborhood-specific.
• The point was made that the LSA Collaborative supports school development, however, there is concern that if people are forced out because of displacement, it will lead to gentrification.
• On the issue of building replacement housing: the Lower San Antonio has gotten the short end of the stick regarding schools. The District’s position is not to build more affordable housing because OUSD does not have the capacity to support more students. This community is losing out because the District is not providing adequate education. OUSD is finally trying to provide the kinds of facilities that kids deserve, they don’t want to encourage more people coming into the neighborhood which will only increase over-crowding issues.
• Question about whether the community has an impact on the site design. Community will have some opportunity for input into the design process.
• Lewis reiterated that OUSD will not build new housing. OUSD is not a housing developer.
• Question about whether OUSD has considered partnering with the City around relocating residents. The District and City are holding monthly meetings to coordinate their efforts.
• Currently, Oakland has 54,000 students in schools built for 27,000 students.
• Question about whether the community could have input into selecting the relocation consultant. The District using an RFP process and gives the contract to the relocation firm with the lowest bid.
• There are a number of points along the line for public input. The District will lay out the calendar at the 1^st community meeting in about 6 months. Opportunity for public comment on the EIR and design process.
• If the group wants additional information about the process, they should contact: Patricia Rafael or Ineda Adeysana, Facilities Manager, in the District’s office.
• Bart Lubow pointed out that the District’s position appears to be in opposition to the concerns of the community. The District may want to position themselves not in contradiction to the community, but in terms of seeing opportunities. For example, could OUSD get the City to create bonus programs so that contractors draw workers from the neighborhood.
• Lewis ended by impressing upon the group that the District has enormous capacity issues. They’re struggling to do what their meant to do, which is classroom construction. They simply cannot add more to their mission.

V. Debriefing

• We should be talking to the residents who will be affected by displacement.
• We haven’t done an adequate job of raising issues with the City.
• We need a mechanism to leverage opportunities. Perhaps look at how other cities have dealt with similar situations.
• The target around the replacement housing issue should be the City, not OUSD.
• The Mayor has been resistant to addressing housing issues. How much are we willing to organize on this issue. The Housing Working Group should work with the Outreach Working Group on this issue.
• Will the relocation consultant be appropriate to this population (i.e., language, cultural sensitivity, etc.)?
• Will replacement packages affect residents eligibility for public assistance?

VI. Next Steps

• Get a list of the relocation consultants who are likely to bid for the OUSD contract. Make sure there is a progressive one on the list. If not, seek one out.
• Darryl Hamm found pro-bono legal assistance for the Collaborative. A lawyer from the San Francisco law firm McCutcheon & Doyle is available to meet with the group. Agreed that she will attend the next LSA Collaborative meeting on April 12^th.
• Data Needs: David Kakishiba suggested looking at voting patterns in District 2 and District 5 and doing a voter analysis in the LSA.
• Concern about too many Collaborative meetings. Agreed to combine the next 23^rd Ave. Corridor Team meeting with the Outreach Working Group. Next meeting on April 19.

VII. Corridor Boundaries

• David Kakishiba suggested that we may want to look at precinct maps and conduct outreach around 4-5 precincts around the 23^rd Avenue Corridor. Use the concept of precinct organizing to inform outreach efforts.
• Some people feel that focusing on a smaller area is better.
• We agreed to revisit this discussion at the next meeting.