Search The Tattler

Sunday, August 18, 2019

Community Benefits Agreement Looming for Controversial Onni Project Says RULE



The Emeryville resident advocacy group known as Residents United for a Livable Emeryville has announced it is considering plans to negotiate directly with the developer of the proposed Christie Avenue Onni apartment tower project, skipping the City of Emeryville, by means of a Community Benefits Agreement to deliver a more resident friendly project than is being proposed.  In an August 17th letter to its members, RULE's steering committee indicated they have requested the City host a town hall type meeting to address resident concerns about the controversial 650 unit Onni project to be followed by a RULE facilitated Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) with the developer, depending on the outcome of the town hall.

A CBA is a legally binding contract signed by the community and a real estate developer that requires the developer to provide certain amenities or mitigations to the proposed project in exchange for the community’s acceptance of the project.  Often, the community forms a coalition with labor organizations and environmental groups.  CBAs are open processes and the whole community is encouraged to attend meetings and engage.  Usually CBAs accompany the largest development projects.
The Proposed Onni Project
At 700 feet, the Onni tower would be
America's tallest residential building
west of the Mississippi River.
RULE, extant for more than 10 years, is open to all Emeryville residents and even out of town residents (in a non voting capacity).  The only group excluded from RULE meetings have been City Council members although they have been allowed in by invitation.  However a RULE facilitated CBA would likely allow out of town groups to have the same legitimacy as Emeryville residents.

The Vancouver-based Onni developer is entangled in a FBI bribery allegation after officials accused a Los Angeles Councillor of accepting money from Onni in exchange in 2018 for a positive vote on a pending LA Onni project.

In Emeryville, Onni plans an all rental 650 unit 700 foot tall apartment tower joined by a bridge with a 200 foot office tower.  The City Council has been working to help the developer, voting to remove existing ‘tower separation’ regulations from the books in July.   Additionally, the Council will seek to overturn existing family housing regulations at the request of the developer who claims he can’t afford build the towers if he is required to build family housing as other developers in Emeryville are.  These regulation rollbacks were chronicled in a Tattler story exposing City Hall of ‘regulatory capture’ and has contributed to a lack of trust among the residents, helping fuel a push for a CBA.

CBAs have a checkered history in Emeryville.  In 2016, a private group of property owning neighbors formed the Park Avenue Residents Committee (PARC) for the sole purpose of negotiating a CBA with the developer of the Sherwin Williams project, a 500 unit development on Sherwin Street slated to begin construction later this year.  The City assisted PARC with the "CBA" and ultimately the City Council used it to justify approving that project.  However, the Sherwin Williams "CBA" turned out to be out of character for a CBA; the PARC group operated behind closed doors and only invited guests could attend their meetings.  No other community members or labor or environmental groups were permitted to take part in the negotiations.  Regardless that the final document produced by PARC and Sherwin Williams didn't fit the description of a CBA, the City proclaimed it as such.
The RULE/Onni CBA by contrast will be democratic and transparent, says members of the steering committee.

7 comments:

  1. the glare of the glass off these proposed buildings at sunset onto the I-80 traffic crawl at its very choke point is huge because it is a blinding glare and HEAT issue, and RULE can't negotiate out sunsets. There are about 490 units coming online in that same area - yet to be occupied - plus a 10 story office building. CalTrans is re-doing Gilman, University and Ashby overpasses . . . 5 year projects - and that is not mentioned . . .
    That RULE is just jumping on a bus trying to negotiate now before that area is examined for safe density is really concerning . . .
    SF just did a fire safety check for the CHASE center and traffic posed a problem. The traffic now in that area is ridiculous and a real hazard . . . Is there some reasons neither RULE nor the City Council nor the Planning Commission object to including the word "safety" from these considerations?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apropos to RULE, I think what you meant to ask is 'Is there some reason.....RULE objects to including the word safety from these considerations?' The answer to that question is NO, RULE doesn't object nor would it object (in my opinion) to including the word safety in any consideration, Onni or not.
      As to RULE 'jumping on a bus', you and everyone should know every landowner has rights delineated in the US and California constitutions. The Onni developer is legally entitled to do a development on his land up to a certain level referred to as "by rights". It's unclear exactly how intense of a development that would be (the Tattler will report this when known) but nobody can stop the developer from building up to that point. Everything beyond that point can and should be up to public debate. A CBA is the best way to do this important work. The community is legally allowed to leverage its will on this or any developer, and that's what they should do. The City of Emeryville has shown it is not up to the task of properly representing the people's interests (look at their history over the years and more recently the moves to roll back regulations specifically for the Onni developer) and so we the people need to take over and press our interests without the City.

      Delete
  2. Sorry for doing 3 things at once.
    Are there some reasons that neither RULE nor the City Council nor the Planning Commission includes the word "safety" in these considerations?

    RULE is not where I am going just yet. if the density from what is already built but not yet occupied (almost 500 residential units) OR approved but not yet to built (10 story office building) plus the Caltrans overpass ramp constructions (5 years worth of construction) are truly showstoppers, then few possibilities exist to add anything more SAFELY to that one area, ONNI or no ONNI.

    It is impossible to negotiate without knowing this as RULE is attempting to do. Negotiations with ONNI legitimize their project and that is entirely premature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RULE has not opined on anything about Onni yet as a group. There has been one meeting where Onni was discussed and individual RULE members expressed concerns about the project but that's been it up til now. The Steering Committee has surmised from the one meeting plus concerns of their own, that RULE as a citizen activist group, should start paying attention to the Onni project more seriously. Ideas such as you've been expressing are certainly welcome both here and also at future RULE meetings.

      As I have said, this developer can build what the State says he can by rights. There is nothing you, me, the Tattler or RULE can do about that other than yell and scream into the void. We are going to find out and report what the by rights point is. Anything this developer wants to build on his site beyond that point will be vigorously debated and ultimately negotiated with the developer. We the people need to leverage our power to the maximum extent to get the most out of our negotiations. Your ideas add to our power and we need them forcefully expressed. Please keep informed and please attend future RULE/ City meetings. The whole idea of RULE is to consolidate and express resident (people) power (as opposed to corporate developer power). Your ideas fall into the people side of the equation and it is hoped you join with us to help tip the scales in our favor. We should not trust the City to represent our interests but rather we should use our democratic collective power via the RULE facilitated CBA. We will get to vote among ourselves how we should negotiate. Your vote will be as powerful as anyone else's.
      The Tattler will report and I hope you will stay engaged.

      Delete
  3. Sorry for doing 3 things at once.
    Are there some reasons that neither RULE nor the City Council nor the Planning Commission includes the word "safety" in these considerations?

    if the density from what is already built but not yet occupied (almost 500 residential units) OR approved but not yet built (10 story office building) plus the Caltrans overpass ramp constructions (5 years worth of construction) are truly showstoppers, then few possibilities exist to add anything more SAFELY to that one area, ONNI or no ONNI.
    The whole idea of planning is not this exhibit of a city council and planning department/commission free for all. RuLe doesn't represent everyone. It will be curious,to see what they try.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, for purposes of a CBA it facilitates, RULE represents everyone except the City Council and Onni. If by your using the word "they" you mean to indicate you will not contribute to the CBA process, you are free to try to advocate for changes to the Onni project on your own of course. If history is any judge, that decision would likely mean your ideas would not be taken up. We remember how the City Council, in their approval of the Sherwin Williams project two years ago, paid no mind to individuals outside the PARC group. It could be different with the Onni project, but probably not.

      Delete
  4. Just exactly why is Emeryville, its council, planning commission and planning department so OUT of step with the region and its own citizens?

    https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/08/21/oaklands-newest-highrise-lennar-lmc-1640-broadway.html?ana=emailafriend

    ReplyDelete