Uncategorized

Fight for Army Base Jobs Linked to Audit Issues

Published

13 years ago

April 5, 2013

Oakland Post

Courtney Ruby

Phil Tagami

By J. Douglas Allen-Taylor

One of the key issues in Oakland City Auditor Courtney Ruby’s recent Non-Interference in Administrative Affairs Performance Audit involves a contract to demolish a structure known as Building 6 at the Oakland Army Base.
The contract was originally awarded by staff to Turner Construction of Oakland in 2009 following a competitive bid.
But according to The Oakland Post, the Turner contract was thrown out after intervention by Oakland developer Phil Tagami, who was negotiating to become the Master Developer of the Oakland Army Base project.
“(We) must insist that the bid soliciation be rejected and the process significantly revised with our direct involmvement before being re-started,” wrote Tagami in an email dated Oct. 15, 2009 to Walter Cohen, then director of Oakland’s Community and Economic Development Agency.
Following Tagami’s selection as Master Developer for the project, the Building 6 demolition contract was awarded to Top Grade Construction company of Livermore by city staff on a no-bid basis. Top Grade was reportedly Tagami’s choice for the job.
City staff has said that the dropping of the Turner contract and the reopening of the Building 6 demolition contract was required because the “scope” of the demolition changed following the contract award.
But asked by then-Councilmember Jane Brunner at a Council Community and Economic Development Committee meeting in mid-October of 2011 why the revised contract went out on a no-bid basis, Redevelopment Agency staff member Al Auletta admitted that “We were working on that on the spirit of working together with the Master Developer. We’ve been told and we now understand that this was an incorrect way to handle it.”
The no-bid Top Grade Building 6 demolition contract went to Council Rules Committee in the summer of 2011 to be scheduled for discussion at the CED Committee—the first step for possible full Council approval—but after a meeting between Reid and staff members of the city’s Community and Economic Development Agency (CEDA), the Top Grade contract was dropped by staff and never revived.
Instead, at that October 2011 CED meeting, Brooks and Reid introduced an ordinance to reopen the Building 6 contract to open bid, but with new rules that would mandate that only Oakland-based firms with an existing workforce that was 33 percent Oakland residents could bid, with the further stipulation that the winning firm would have to employ 50 percent Oakland residents to work on the actual Building 6 demolition.
That Oakland-firm/Oakland-hire Building 6 demolition contract ordinance was eventually passed by the full City Council in the fall of 2011 by unanimous vote. The contract went out to bid and three Oakland companies qualified—Turner Construction, JH Fitzmaurice, and Downrite Corporation—with staff eventually picking Downrite and the full Council approving.
The Non-Interference audit lists only two instances alleging that Councilmembers Reid and Brooks improperly interfered with city staff in the Building 6 demolition contract negotiations.
The first allegation is listed at an unspecified date or dates in the month of June, 2011, during the time the Council Rules Committee was putting off discussion of the Top Grade contract.
The audit alleges that Reid and Brooks told staff that the Top Grade contract would not clear Rules, and that Brooks said she was “negotiating a portion of the contract with Turner Construction.”

Barbara Tingary holds a copy of the Oakland Post, which featured Ruby’s flawed audit, at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting. Photo by Ken Epstein.

The second allegation is listed as taking place between July and September of 2011, after the Top Grade contract died, when Reid and Brooks are said to have directed city staff to work with Turner Construction “to establish a bid proposal for the project.”
The audit produces no documents to support the allegations, stating only that they occurred “according to” the Redevelopment Agency staff handling the contract.
No improper interference in favor of Turner Construction by Brooks or Reid in the Building 6 contract was alleged in the audit after mid-September, when the two Councilmembers first introduced the proposed new Oakland-firm/Oakland-hire procedures for the Building 6 demolition project.
Instead, when the full Council first considered the proposed new procedures in November of 2011,
Brooks introduced an amendment that would reopen the contract bidding to non-Oakland firms if no more than two Oakland firms qualified in the first round of bidding, thus making it more likely rather than less likely that Turner Construction would have sufficient competition in the bidding.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Uncategorized

Oakland Housing and Community Development Department Awards $80.5 Million to Affordable Housing Developments

Published

6 months ago

June 17, 2025

Oakland Post

Special to The Post

The City of Oakland’s Housing and Community Development Department (Oakland HCD) announced its awardees for the 2024-2025 New Construction of Multifamily Affordable Housing Notice of Funding Availability (New Construction NOFA) today Five permanently affordable housing developments received awards out of 24 applications received by the Department, with award amounts ranging from $7 million to $28 million.

In a statement released on Jan. 16, Oakland’s HCD stated, “Five New Construction Multifamily Affordable Housing Development projects awarded a total of $80.5 million to develop 583 affordable rental homes throughout Oakland. Awardees will leverage the City’s investments to apply for funding from the state and private entities.”

In December, the office of Rebecca Kaplan, interim District 2 City Councilmember, worked with HCD to allocate an additional $10 Million from Measure U to the funding pool. The legislation also readopted various capital improvement projects including street paving and upgrades to public facilities.

The following Oakland affordable housing developments have been awarded in the current round:

Mandela Station Affordable

238 Affordable Units including 60 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $15 million + previously awarded $18 million
Developer: Mandela Station LP (Pacific West Communities, Inc. and Strategic Urban Development Alliance, LLC)
City Council District: 3
Address: 1451 7th St.

Liberation Park Residences

118 Affordable Units including 30 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $28 million
Developer: Eden Housing and Black Cultural Zone
City Council District: 6
Address: 7101 Foothill Blvd.

34th & San Pablo

59 Affordable Units including 30 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $7 million
Developer: 34SP Development LP (EBALDC)
City Council District: 3
Address: 3419-3431 San Pablo Ave.

The Eliza

96 Affordable Units including 20 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $20 million
Developer: Mercy Housing California
City Council District: 3
Address: 2125 Telegraph Ave.

3135 San Pablo

72 Affordable Units including 36 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $10.5 million
Developer: SAHA and St. Mary’s Center
City Council District: 3
Address: 3515 San Pablo Ave.

The source of this story is the media reltations office of District 2 City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Housing and Community Development Department Awards $80.5 Million to Affordable Housing Developments

Published

11 months ago

January 30, 2025

Oakland Post

Rebecca Kaplan, interim District 2 city councilmember. File photo.

Special to The Post

The following Oakland affordable housing developments have been awarded in the current round:

Mandela Station Affordable

238 Affordable Units including 60 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $15 million + previously awarded $18 million
Developer: Mandela Station LP (Pacific West Communities, Inc. and Strategic Urban Development Alliance, LLC)
City Council District: 3
Address: 1451 7th St.

Liberation Park Residences

118 Affordable Units including 30 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $28 million
Developer: Eden Housing and Black Cultural Zone
City Council District: 6
Address: 7101 Foothill Blvd.

34th & San Pablo

59 Affordable Units including 30 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $7 million
Developer: 34SP Development LP (EBALDC)
City Council District: 3
Address: 3419-3431 San Pablo Ave.

The Eliza

96 Affordable Units, including 20 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $20 million
Developer: Mercy Housing California
City Council District: 3
Address: 2125 Telegraph Ave.

3135 San Pablo

72 Affordable Units including 36 dedicated for Homeless/Special Needs
Award: $10.5 million
Developer: SAHA and St. Mary’s Center
City Council District: 3
Address: 3515 San Pablo Ave.

The source of this story is media reltations office of District 2 City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Alameda County

Oakland Acquisition Company’s Acquisition of County’s Interest in Coliseum Property on the Verge of Completion

The Board of Supervisors is committed to closing the deal expeditiously, and County staff have worked tirelessly to move the deal forward on mutually agreeable terms. The parties are down to the final details and, with the cooperation of OAC and Coliseum Way Partners, LLC, the Board will take a public vote at an upcoming meeting to seal this transaction.

Published

11 months ago

January 11, 2025

Oakland Post

Alameda County Board of Supervisors Chairman David Haubert. Official photo.

Special to The Post

The County of Alameda announced this week that a deal allowing the Oakland Acquisition Company, LLC, (“OAC”) to acquire the County’s 50% undivided interest in the Oakland- Alameda County Coliseum complex is in the final stages of completion.

Oakland has already finalized a purchase and sale agreement with OAC for its interest in the property. OAC’s acquisition of the County’s property interest will achieve two longstanding goals of the County:

The Oakland-Alameda Coliseum complex will finally be under the control of a sole owner with capacity to make unilateral decisions regarding the property; and
The County will be out of the sports and entertainment business, free to focus and rededicate resources to its core safety net

In an October 2024 press release from the City of Oakland, the former Oakland mayor described the sale of its 50% interest in the property as an “historic achievement” stating that the transaction will “continue to pay dividends for generations to come.”

The Board of Supervisors is pleased to facilitate single-entity ownership of this property uniquely centered in a corridor of East Oakland that has amazing potential.

“The County is committed to bringing its negotiations with OAC to a close,” said Board President David Haubert.