Please help to Save Ruby Meadow by reaching out to any/all of the Alameda County Supervisors to ask them to PULL Agenda Item #29 or to VOTE NO! https://bos.acgov.org/regular-meetings/
Agenda Item 29 (A-C) is about using voter-approved Measure A1 funds to destroy Ruby Meadow. The CA State Constitution says that publicly funded projects must be community approved. We voted in Measure A1 but it was not blind approval--we do not approve of destroying the last bits of urban wildlife habitat when many vacant blighted lots are nearby that could benefit instead.
Please email by Monday Jan10th 3 PM: cbs@acgov.org
Call the Supervisors: District 1: (510) 272-6691
District 2: (510) 272-6692
District 3: (510) 272-6693
District 4: (510) 272-6694
District 5: (510) 272-6695
Attend and Speak Up: AlCo Board of Supervisors Meeting:
Tuesday Jan 11th 10:45 AM, Agenda Item #29 (A-C) https://us06web.zoom.us/j/98271491041
Here is the letter that Grove Way Neighborhoods sent:
Subject: 1/4/2022 BOS Regular Meeting Agenda Item #29 (A-C)
Honorable President Carson and Supervisors Miley, Brown, Valle, and Haubert:
Agenda Item #29 (A-C) should be either pulled or at least continued until the following twelve (12) problems concerning Measure A1 funding and Eden Housing’s project are addressed (Approve Procurement Contract No. 23044 with Ruby Street, L.P. (Principal: Linda Mandolini; Location: Hayward) a California limited partnership created by Eden Housing, Inc., a non-profit housing developer, to develop Ruby Street Apartments, an affordable housing project located in the unincorporated community of Castro Valley, for the term of 1/11/22 - 6/30/26, in the amount of $8,852,351.50).
This community destruction cannot be paid for by Alameda County voters by using Measure A1 funds since the funds seek to be used in a meritless project that does more harm to the community than its potential purported benefit. Overall, there are many legally troubling abnormalities that exist in both the law and spirit of the law that plague a development seeking to pave over and destroy the last urban riparian corridor in the urban Eden Area.
1. All necessary permits have not been obtained, thus precluding County from dispersing Measure A1 funds for the project. The county will be violating its own Conditions of Disbursement if it votes to approve Item #29. In the Procurement Contract No. 23044 Exhibit B Condition for Disbursement (in Agenda Item #29 documents), Condition 3(a)(11) has not been met because numerous project approvals have not been received. The project plan itself was approved with 32 conditions of approval, which have not been met. Several agencies were not even notified of the project prior to the project’s premature approval.
2. Measure A1 project summary is wrong: the Feb. 4, 2020 staff report documentation describes the completely wrong neighborhood while supporting the use of Measure A1 and the “points” that were awarded to the project– describing amenities in a location in a completely different county! To be clear, the use of measure A1 project funds is incorrectly predicated on amenities and infrastructure of a neighborhood in San Mateo County. The error in the Measure A1 project summary is egregious to an extent that it invites litigation. The project summary is explicitly misleading as to the merits of the project that will use millions of public dollars at taxpayers expense to complete.
3. Address of Ruby Meadow in the resolution is incorrect: the Feb. 4, 2020, County Resolution (2020-34) approving Measure A1 funds for this project does not include the correct project address, or even a feasible address, making it invalid. Once again, as in the project summary, the general public is misled by official county resolutions that seek to disburse millions of taxpayer dollars including blatantly incorrect information.
4. Violates General Plan: the Ruby Meadow site is a “highest priority biological resource,” where development should be reduced per the 2012 Castro Valley General Plan, Chapter 7. Several protected species may find habitat there. The San Lorenzo Creek runs through the site in a conservation easement for mitigation of freeway damage done elsewhere. A previously undocumented California Species of Critical Concern was identified at the site, the western red bat. The Eden Housing project would kill 97 trees, many native or large. It is obvious that the project is not the “highest and best use” of our limited biological resources in this time of climate change.
5. Measure A1 funds must be for voter-approved projects: Article 34 of Constitution of the State of California reads as follows: “No low rent housing project shall . . . be developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by any state public body until, a majority of the qualified electors of the city . . . or county . . . in which it is proposed to develop, construct or acquire the same, voting upon such issue, approve such project by voting in favor thereof at an election.” In order to avoid further litigation, the county must include the project scope and plan details at the ballot box in a future election of Alameda County voters.
6. Official Investigation by the Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers has been opened: Ruby Meadow was State-owned public property but Eden Housing determined its own purchase price. The appraiser hired by the developer, Eden Housing inc., is currently under investigation by the California Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers for the undervalued appraisal of the parcels that are included in the project. Other investigations including fraud potentially exist and will occur.
7. Tribal notification was inaccurate: The AB-52 notifications of Tribes had two different wrong project addresses and did not correctly nor adequately describe the project for the tribes. Local indigenous residents opposed the project in public meetings. The Ruby Meadow area is the oldest ephemeral indigenous cooksite documented (site CA-ALA-566), going back ~5000 years, and historical newspapers describe native people’s use of the creek and tree area.
8. No Infrastructure: Ruby Meadow area has no sidewalks and no accessible pathways to transportation; the site is not near major transportation; the site does not qualify for SB-35 infill development; the local elementary school (Strobrige) was just closed and children will need transportation to Fairview Elementary, but Hayward Unified School District has no bussing.
9. Southern Castro Valley is an SB-1000 Environmental Justice Priority Population: this project further degrades our neighborhood health and safety instead of improving it. Residents are already disenfranchised and Eden Housing staff has treated residents as enemies instead of people who want better and care deeply.
10. Public petition: Almost 7,000 people have signed the petition to Save Ruby Meadow. Eden Housing's project is decisively against the will of the general public. The public of the Eden Township Area of Alameda County generally seeks more housing to be built but also correctly believes that it can be accomplished without sacrificing what remains of our very last biological resources.
11. Community opposes building over Ruby Meadow: Seven (7) community groups united to appeal the County's approval of Eden Housing's exemption from an EIR (Environmental Impact Report); the majority of public comments at each and every meeting during the County’s approval process have opposed the project.
12. There are ample blighted places nearby which could be improved by housing, but it is wrong to destroy Ruby Meadow’s oak-riparian woodland to build two parking lots and four-story apartments. Within one-mile there are a multitude of far more suitable sites; two other low-income complexes are already being planned at Redwood & Grove and Foothill & Grove. This project in Agenda Item #29 is not the highest and best use of one of the last riparian corridors that exists in the urban unincorporated Eden Township Area.
This project is not eligible for Measure A1 funds because it is not community-approved per the Constitution of the State of California; it is not the highest and best use of riparian wildland in Southern Castro Valley/Northern Hayward and includes major documentation errors in its project description that invite numerous potential legal challenges. The Grove Way Neighborhoods Association and other community advocates join together to ask that Agenda Item #29 (A-C) be pulled and/or continued until Eden Housing and the County of Alameda correct their numerous errors and address community concerns. Please contact me if I may provide any further information or documentation.
We ask that you vote NO on Agenda Item #29.
Sincerely, Ann E. Maris, PhD
Alameda County Resident, ann@grovewayneighborhood.org