Good afternoon and welcome to the council meeting of Tuesday, March 3rd.
Before I call roll, I will go over speaker card instructions.
If you would like to speak on any agenda item, please fill out a speaker's card before the
item is called or two hours after the start of this meeting.
This meeting was called at 3.34.
Your last opportunity to turn into speaker cards will be at 5.34 p.m. or before the item
is called for discussion.
You can follow speakers card by grabbing a card
at the front table and handing it to a clerk representative.
If you're looking to submit an online speaker card,
that time has passed as they will do 24 hours
before the start of this meeting.
If I can just have everybody's attention
in the chambers please, thank you.
Going into roll call, Council Member Brown.
Present.
Council Member Fyfe.
Council Member Gallo.
Is he online?
What's your turn to?
I do not okay councilmember guy-o.
Councilmember guy-o please unmute yourself for roll call.
President.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councilmember Houston.
Present.
Councilmember Ramachandran.
Present.
Councilmember Unger.
Present.
Councilmember Wong.
Present.
And Chair Jenkins.
Present.
Showing eight members present at this time.
Going to item three, modifications to the agenda.
You're on the agenda.
Yeah so we're going to hear item number 6.9 first.
Subsequent to that we will hear item 4.2 and then 4.1
and then we'll go and order the agenda to my colleagues.
Do you guys have any questions for anything on the consent?
If not, we're going to send staff home.
Any question for anything on consent?
consent to
council
Guy oh what to say. Okay. Thank you
guy
On the motion on the motion to move item six point nine from consent to non consent
being the first item councilmember Brown
Hi councilmember five abstain
councilmember Gallo I
Councilmember Houston. I
Councilmember Ramachandran, aye councilmember Unger, aye
Councilmember Wong
Aye
Chair Jenkins aye
Motion passes with a vote of seven ayes one abstention and one more announcement because of potential quorum issues
Speaking time will go from two minutes to one minute today. We will run into quorum issues in this meeting
noting the
Councilmember Kyle
Yes, are you on camera? Is there any other adults in the room over the age of 18? I
Can see everyone?
But you're the one that mutes me and unmutes me, right? No. No as part of
You teleconferencing in the requirements are
That you are on camera and yes, you state if there are any adults in the room with you
No, no, I can see everyone on the chamber, but I there's someone else with me
okay thank you noting the change of order in the agenda we will be starting
with item six point nine it was added at the three-day deadline of the agenda so
it does need an urgency the reason for the urgency is considering this item at
today's council meeting preserves the city council's ability to accept the
clerk certification of results of the examination and submit the initiative
to voters. At the June election ahead of the county's deadline for submission of election
legislation. Election legislation is due to the county by March six. On behalf of the
city administrator's clerk's office is submitting copies of the registrar voters certificate
to the petition. The county ROV submitted the certificate to the petition on Monday
afternoon and therefore the information the document was not available known to the city
at the time of the filing deadline.
And I'd like to make a urgency motion upon consideration of the facts and circumstances
as stated by the clerk.
It was not reasonably possible to notice requirements under the sunshine ordinance and the need
to take immediate action on this item is required to avoid substantial adverse impact that would
occur if the action were deferred to a subsequent meeting in that the city, the council would
not have the option to submit the initiative petition to the June 2nd special election.
all we have to do is.
Addition the information in the
R. O. B. certificates petition.
Was not known to the city
administrator or city clerk at
the time of the agenda filing
deadline and the council
accepts this certification the
certificate pursuant to the
sunshine ordinance.
I'll entertain a second.
I'll second it.
On the motion by council
president Jenkins saying about
councilmember Houston.
To approve the urgency.
I have a follow up.
I have a follow up.
I have a follow up.
I.
Council member Houston.
I.
Council member Ramachandran.
I.
Council member Unger.
I.
Council member Wong.
I.
And chair Jenkins.
I.
Urgency passes with a vote of eight ayes.
I will now read the item into record.
Adopt a resolution accepting the certification of results of the examination of initiative
petition proposing an ordinance entitled Oakland Public Safety Cleanliness and Community Accountability
of the act of twenty twenty six proposed ordinance calling and giving notice for the holding of a special municipal election on June 2nd twenty twenty six for the purpose of submitting the proposed ordinance to the voters requesting consolidation of the special municipal election with the statewide direct primary election to be held in the city of Oakland on June 2nd twenty twenty six and directing the city clerk to take any and all actions necessary under law.
to submit the measure to voters at the June 2nd election.
And if I could, through the chair,
to the members of the public who signed up for this item,
on the consent calendar, I have pulled your cards
and you will be able to speak on this item
at the time the council president calls for speakers.
Proponents of an initiative petition proposing an ordinance
entitled to the Open Public Safety Cleanliness
and Community Accountability Act of 2026
to impose an annual parcel tax filed.
The proposed ordinance with the office of the city clerk
and subsequently with the Alameda County Register of Voters
within the statutory time limit for verification.
A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached
to the exhibit to this resolution.
Yesterday afternoon, my office received the certificate
to petition from the Alameda County Register of Voters.
The registrar conducted a random sample examination
under elections code section 9115
determined that the petition contained 887 valid signatures of qualified
registered voters in the city of Oakland based on the random sample
examination and that this number represents 113.47 percent of the total
number of signatures needed to qualify the initiative. The registrar therefore
found the petition to be sufficient to require the City Council to take
appropriate action under the state law. Under state law if the petition is found
sufficient. The elections official must certify the results of the examination
to the legislative body at the next regular meeting of the body. If an
initiative petition is signed by the requisite number of voters, the state law
provides that the City Council may call a special election to submit the
initiative to the voters provided that the special election is less than 88
days, no more than 103 days after the order of the election. As a city
in favor of a resolution before
you will call it special
municipal election for the
purposes excuse me for the
purpose of submitting the
proposed ordinance of the
voters and will consolidate
with the special election with
the statewide primary.
Election I believe the city
attorney has been signed by the
establishment of a number of
voters and to accept this
certification a petition a vote
in favor of the resolution
before you will call a special
municipal election for the
purposes excuse me for the
You can't believe the city attorney has some amendments
and for your viewing all reports are attached to this item
via LegaStar.
Yes, through the chair to the body,
our office is proposing some amendments
to the ballot question, which you will see
in the third resolved clause
in the resolution for this item.
I'll ask K-Top to please share on screen
both the red line version and the clean version
and I will read the clean version into record.
So what will now appear in that box
in the third resolved clause is as follows.
Shall the measure to prevent increased 911 response times,
maintain fire stations, fire protection services,
police patrols and investigations,
and gun violence and crime prevention services,
address homelessness and remove illegal dumping and trash
by imposing a parcel tax of $192 annually
for single family parcels and other parcels as specified,
exempting certain low income and senior households
and others, raising approximately $34 million annually
for nine years with oversight audits
and public disclosures be adopted.
Thank you.
I have no questions from the council.
We're gonna go to public comment
and I'm gonna wish Ms. Josephine Goodrich a happy birthday
who turned 93 years young.
Stand up and say hello.
Happy birthday.
as I call your name please approach the podium in any order please state your name for the record before beginning if you are participating on
Zoom please raise your hand so I can easily identify you if you still wish to speak through this item and again
This is item six point nine as the agenda was taken out of order
Annette blue gay my CS
Veronica Garcia
Elizabeth stage
David boat right, Missus out of allah bala
Seth Oyer
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you, Derek Barnes.
Mr. Hazard, when the clock is
shown on the screen behind me.
All right.
Good afternoon, Council.
My name is Antoinette Blue.
I also have ILA here with me.
I'm the president of SEIU Local
10-2-1, City of Oakland Chapter.
We have over five to eight
thousand open voters who signed
the petition to fund core city
services such as nine one one
of the fire house there's and
other public safety resources.
Right now given the fact that
we are living in World War three.
At the very minimum we need to
ensure that the Oakland
community has its most basic
needs met.
And that's all I got today thank
you you guys.
Hello good afternoon my name is
I work in KLCB and address illegal dumping throughout the city.
I am here to ask the council to prioritize addressing illegal dumping in Oakland.
As a resident and also born and raised here in Oakland, we approve the revenue measure
to ensure that we are funding these vital services.
As a city worker, I know that illegal dumping and trash hurt public health and the quality
of life neighborhoods.
We asked this council to stand with their consultants, their residents and vote to place
this revenue measure in our June 2026 ballot.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Council.
This is Seth Ollier, President of Oakland Firefighters, Local 55.
I'll make this quick since we only have a minute.
I just want to give a huge shout out and thank you to the near 30,000 registered Oakland
voters that came out and chased us down the street corners to say, yes, we want to keep
Oakland firehouses open.
We want core city services to be maintained and we believe in Oakland.
Your Oakland firefighters believe in Oakland too.
That's why I'm here.
We all saw the devastating effects of wildfire and fires in general in the city of Oakland,
especially when it comes to the incident, the Keller fire a couple of October's ago.
That is an example of what a fully staff fully funded fire department looks like and how we can operate and
Unfortunately at the beginning of last year
We also saw what it looks like here in town with a couple firehouses closed and Los Angeles fires and how devastating that can be
so I just want to say thank you to all of you for
Hearing this item and thank you to all the Oaklanders that came out and really want to invest in the infrastructure
That is public safety. Thank you
Good afternoon
Elizabeth stage d4 resident active in the Oakland Fire Safe Council and North Hills Community Association
Speaking for myself in favor of the parcel tax to fund essential services
With the leadership of Mayor Lee and the City Council Oakland has started to move in the right direction again
Yet our 911 call center and the availability of sworn officers to take action need to have predictable and stable revenue
We need the 9-1-1 response time and 25 firehouses to increase the likelihood that lives are saved and
Fires are contained before they turn into
conflagrations
It's going to take some time for the council's economic development measures to turn around our budget woes and to rebuild
residents trust and city government in the short term
We need to use ballot measures to make sure that our priorities are addressed
Apart from the people who never met a tax that they would vote for there's an argument that this is a sweetheart deal with the unions
Why divide the town along?
At some point we have to stop this practice
where you allow people to go out into the public and
Ask them to sign a petition saying that this is going to help illegal dumping
This is going to help homelessness with no details and people unknowingly sign
with no
credibility of what they're actually signing about. That has to stop. And I don't sign
anything unless I fully read it. But this practice is not legitimate. You have another
tax, partial tax, of $192 that are going to go on the backs of property owners. Unfair,
another partial tax. You have taxes, measures, for which you just gave a financial report.
You are unable to fulfill the mandates of measure Q, measure W, measure N, N, measure
H, and that's just some of them.
You don't need to...
There should be somebody stepping in to say, until you are in full compliance with all
of your measures currently in place.
Both know on all taxes that this body sponsors because you lied to the voters.
You did it on measure A that I'm currently in court for now.
When the city attorney did not answer nor demurr,
he sent me through 280 days of procedural BS.
And now it's in the proper department 24,
when I filed a writ on May 19, 2025.
280 days later, now I'm gonna get my day in court
because 4.26.130 and joining the voter
from filing agreements for relief,
you can't have that in a ballot measure.
But all of you sit here with your head.
Thank you, Mr. Hazard, your time is up.
Veronica Garcia, Mr. Boatwright, Mr. Barnes,
you'd still like to speak to 6.9 please raise your hand or step to the podium
we're ready David Bill right district 4 I'm sorry I thought I was gonna get
three minutes because I signed out for three consent items and now it's down to
one that's pretty interesting the big thing about this measure in all measures
for that matter is the public doesn't know what the process is what has been
Authorized by these signatures is a bare bones type information. The city gets to fill in all the allocation
Pockets in this thing so there needs to be more transparency on that
I've never heard of any of that being discussed with the public before
Thank You mr. Boatwright Veronica Garcia or Derek Barnes. I see mr. Barnes
Please unmute yourself and begin your comments
I'm Adam speaking. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Thank you. Good afternoon city council members
I just want to say something real quick other cities got and read the Trump administration memo began taking decisive action
Last year as we've seen
You know the tip of the spear of legist pieces of legislation like HR won't
And the complications are that you know dwindling businesses and less revenue increased property taxes and ballooning cost
You know in this new economic environment doing more with less is and will be the blueprint
Without more revenue greater efficiency is crucial and will mean lower wing overhead cost expenses and none of this will be easy
Please vote no
I want advancing this measure without guardrails on any of these measures and how the money will be ultimately allocated. Thank you
Thank you, mr. Barnes that was the last speaker for this item unless Veronica excuse me
Veronica Garcia is in the chambers or on zoom
Cards for this item had been called move approval as amended a moment
On item 6.9 moved by council president Jenkins second by councilmember Houston
to
adopt the item as amended
Yeah, yeah
Yes, I I do want to say that I wanted to clarify council president Jenkins at this item is to put
this
Measure in front of the voters in June, correct? That's correct
It's not us in our opinions on the validity of the measure. No the citizens initiative
It was gathered it gathered enough
Signatures, so our role and responsibilities to place it on the ballot. Okay
I just wanted to clarify that because council member Houston and I were having that sidebar
And so this is not about our opinions
I this that's not what's being discussed today, but I do have some concerns that we will discuss at a later time. Thank you
There was a motion back
On the motion by Council President Jenkins seconded by Councilmember Houston to adopt this item as amended Councilmember Brown
I councilmember five aye
Councilmember Gallo
councilmember houston hi councilmember ramachandran hi councilmember under I
remember Wong I chair Jenkins motion passes with the vote of eight ayes
Going still staying out of order going to item four point two next
Will need a motion to open the public hearing
some of
say second
On the motion to open the public hearing moved by councilmember ramachandran seconded by councilmember five
I believe I heard Councilmember Brown aye councilmember five aye councilmember Gallo
Hi
Councilmember Houston
Okay
Councilmember
Unger, aye
Councilmember Wong
aye
Councilmember Ramachandran I motion passes for the vote of six ayes to
Absent Houston and Jenkins. I will now read the item into record
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopt an ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission
Admitting the title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code to add chapter seventeen point eight six
S dash eight abundant and affordable homes near transit
Combining zone regulations identifying sites eligible and ineligible or excuse excluded from the Senate bill 79 property development standards
the state's state's state's state.
to designate parcels within the S. A. Combining Zone. And to identify whether such designated
parcels are eligible for or excluded from the Senate Bill 79 property development standards
and making appropriate sequel findings. Do have about 15 speakers. Thank you Director
Gilchrist. We have eight minutes on the clock is that sufficient. Eight minutes. We had
for the information that we
request it when we spoke with
the president to you- with the
president that we might have
fifteen is that liable. Yes
thank you appreciate that to the
council thank you for
appreciation. We'll go Chris
director of planning and
building and I shall defer to
Laura Kaminsky who has a
strategic planning manager. To
do this presentation and again
thank you council for your time.
So this is Senate Bill 79, the Planning Code Implementation Ordinance.
So for some background, Senate Bill 79, the Abundant and
Affordable Homes near Transit Act was assigned by the governor in October of last year.
It affects areas that are within one half mile of each of Oakland's designated transit stops.
That would be designated as Transit-Oriented Development or TOD zones.
And any parcels within these zones could best for development using higher density standards for housing.
Oakland has a total of eight BART stations and 38 BRT, or
bus rapid transit stops within that along International Boulevard that qualify.
In addition, there's another BART station which is the Ashby, which is just outside of Oakland, but the half mile buffer goes within Oakland.
And then also an additional BRT stop that's just outside of Oakland that has boundaries
within Oakland.
So what SB79's requirements are is that areas that are within the BART stations, which are
the Tier 1 BART stations as classified by SB79, or Tier 2 BRT stations, require for
or higher densities and this would start as of July 1st of this year is when this Senate bill would go into effect.
So any areas that are within the tier one which is the BART station has higher height limits.
If you're within 200 feet it's a 95 foot height limit, 160 dwelling units per acre.
If you're within a quarter mile it's 75 foot height limit, 120 dwelling units per acre.
acre, and a half mile is 65 feet foot height and a hundred dwelling units per acre.
For tier two, which is along the BRT, along International Boulevard,
within 200 feet it's 85 foot height limit, 140 dwelling units per acre,
65 foot height limit within a quarter mile or 100 dwelling units per acre, or
within half mile 55 feet height or 80 dwelling units per acre.
So SB 79 allows cities to temporary exclude some parcels from the SB 79 requirements during the development of an alternative plan.
The alternative plan would need to accommodate the overall required density of SB 79 within the TOD zone.
But could replace default density and height increases and allow for
a more tailored density in height based on local land use conditions such as historic districts and lower density neighborhoods.
An exclusion would suspend these densities in height allowances SB 79 and
allow substitution of existing Oakland zoning until an alternative plan is developed.
SB 79 will take effect if no alternative plan that meets the same overall density requirements has been adopted by 2032.
Exclusions cannot be in place longer than 2032 and
SB 79 densities would be effective after that date.
So the rationale for adopting these exclusions
is that existing zoning densities already often exceed
SB 79 standards and many of the designated TOD zones
as a result of prior upzoning.
So in 2023, the city through its housing element upzoned
a large number of areas of the city.
We also with the downtown Oakland specific plan
in 2024 upzoned a lot of the core areas.
And there's been other specific plans
such as the Central Estuary, the Broadway Valdez, Pacific Plan, West Oakland,
Coliseum, and Lake Merritt that have all increased densities along these tier one and tier two TOD zones.
SB 79 standards are a blanket increase in density and height that would override prior planning and input from the community.
Also, there is insufficient time for the city to prepare and review an alternative plan prior to the SB 79 effective date of July 1st, 2026.
So that is why staff is proposing these exclusions.
So exclusions may be adopted prior to the effective date of SB 79 as an interim step
to allow time to develop this alternative plan.
The city is already engaged in the general plan update phase two that includes the update
of the land use and transportation element with anticipated adoption in late spring of
2027.
City staff wants to develop this alternative plan that will meet the overall densities
is required by SB 79 in a comprehensive manner
as part of the general plan update process
and not as a separate standalone process.
Exclusions would give the city time
during the general plan update
to analyze which areas within the TOD zones
have potential for more density
in which areas do not,
as well as receive valuable community input.
In addition, the environmental justice element policy,
EJ 8.1, specifically what we heard a lot from the public
during the environmental justice element process
was then want to have meaningful relevant engagement
for design and implement public engagement processes
and events that emphasize participation
from low income communities and communities of color
that are driven by resident priorities
that are easily accessible and understandable.
And most of Oakland's TOD zones are in
what the state defines as low resource areas.
So an alternative plan would give us the city time
staff time to have that meaningful community input and just trying to look
at for an alternative plan still meeting the overall density what SB 79 requires
but in a more tailored way. So the allowed exclusions exclusion one is any
site that the zoning of that site meets at least 50% of the density required by
SB 79 can be excluded.
Exclusion two allows for areas that are TOD zones,
the whole zones that are primarily in a low resource area.
If the aggregate zoning in that area meets at least 40%
required by SB 79,
then those entire TOD zones can be excluded.
Exclusion three also allows for exclusions
of historic resources,
properties that are designated as historic resources.
So, for exclusion two, I'll start off with,
these are areas that are primarily low resource areas
that have a zoning density that allows at least 40%
of the aggregate of SB 79.
So, in Oakland, all of the TODs,
all of the TODs that fall under SB 79
are within a low resource area,
except for the MacArthur Bart, the Ashby Bart,
and the Rockridge Bart stations.
Otherwise, all the other areas in Oakland
are in low-resource areas, and all of those low-resource TOD zones meet this requirement
of having the at least 40% aggregate density required by SB 79, and many of them actually
exceed that by quite a bit.
So one example of that is for the 12th Street Bart Station.
You can see in this area, the way this works out with what the state law is doing is the
the area that's in the center, the bubble shape that goes,
that's in purple, those parcels, are the areas that are within the 200 feet of the 12th Street BART station.
And then the areas in, the parcels in yellow are the areas that are in our quarter mile, and the areas in blue are in the half mile.
And we, when we look at the aggregate density in that area,
we're actually at 307% of what SB 79 would require.
And that is really a result of the downtown specific plan that has already been adopted
two years ago.
But what we did in that area is that areas such as old Oakland, which is a historic
district has lower densities and lower height allowances than what SB 79 would require,
but it also then has higher areas along like Broadway spine as an example has higher heights
and densities than SB 79 would require.
So if we did not exclude this area, really, again, a lot of the effort that went into
the downtown Pacific plan to have a more tailored zoning would essentially be overridden by
that state law.
And then just as an example here, here is the Rockridge Bart Station area.
So in this area, because it is not a low resource area under this exclusion, it could not be
excluded.
So also to summarize for all the BART stations, which are the tier one that are in the low
resource areas, almost all of them actually exceed what SB 79 requires.
And again, this is a result of the specific plans that have been adopted.
So the 19th Street BART station is at 287%.
The Lake Merritt is at 254%.
The Coliseum is at 190%.
And then the Fruitvale and West Oakland BART stations are actually fairly close.
around 70%. So for the Tier 2, these are all the stops along International
Boulevard for the BRT or Bus Rapid Transit. And you can see if you're
closer to uptown or downtown, the uptown station as an example has 380% of what's
required of SB 79. As you get sort of further away, still around, you know, Fifth
Avenue, we're still at 142 percent. If we get to even 48th Avenue, we're at maybe 91
percent, and then as we get further east, we get lower. So if we're at 90th Avenue,
we're around 47 percent of what SB 79 would require. So Exclusion 1 is for any
parcels that meet at least 50 percent of the zone density requirement of SB 79,
and so I will start here first with looking at essentially all the other
areas have been excluded that are low resource in their entirety so I'll only
look at the areas that are in the high resource areas that were not had count
be able to use that exclusion so this is the MacArthur Bart station and under
this exclusion any of the areas that are shown in pink which are the commercial
zones or the high density residential zones meet that 50% or often exceed or even are
the same as what SB 79 densities would require.
And so those areas can be excluded while the areas that are shown in white, which is really
your much smaller parcels of your lower density residential zones, cannot be excluded under
the state law because they do not meet that 50% requirement.
similar this is for showing the Ashby Bart station and the Rockridge Bart
station so again it only be the areas in pink that could be excluded in this
provision and the areas in white cannot be excluded. So for the historic
resources again this is for any local register property can be excluded and
we're proposing as you can see here it's all the parcels that are shown in
purple on these particular maps again highlighting the areas that are in the
high resource areas that cannot meet the other exclusion. It's all the areas that
are in purple the parcels in purple are the local register properties that can
be excluded under exclusion 3. And then you can see here versus from the
MacArthur Bart the areas that are in purple are the parcels that meet that
local register property. And then for the S8 combining zone is the other thing
that's part of this package.
So this would be a new zoning chapter in the planning code
that would define sites that are eligible for SB 79,
which are any sites that are zoned for residential,
mixed, or commercial development.
It also defines what sites that are ineligible,
so these are sites that are zoned as industrial
or open space activity or within a right of way.
It also defines what is a covered site,
which is essentially are any sites that are eligible
that are residential, mixed, or commercial,
but have not been excluded and then it also would apply
the exclusions that I just went through
of the one, two and three exclusions
of the 40% mean the density of 40%,
the historic resources and the meeting the 50% density.
And this also would amend the zoning map.
So there would be a zoning map GIS layer
that would show the public any of the parcels
that are actually within the half mile boundary
of these areas for SB 79,
and if someone from the public were to click on a parcel,
it would show whether it's ineligible
because it's an industrial zone,
whether it's eligible, but it's been excluded,
or whether it's still covered,
meaning it's eligible and has not been excluded.
And it would also,
these would all be applied comprehensively,
so any parcels in any of these three,
if they're excluded on any one of these exclusions
would be then excluded.
So the Planning Commission had a recommendation
for a couple of changes.
Two of the changes have been already incorporated
into the Council's package.
So the first one of those was they wanted to make it clear
that these exclusions would expire either in 2032,
which is when the state law only allows
these exclusions to be in place or until the adoption of a local transit oriented development
alternative plan, whichever comes first. So at the time that a local alternative plan
is adopted, then these exclusions would go away. The other change is that they want to
recommend, and this is in the ordinance, that the city council direct the city administrator
to present a local alternative plan to the city council within one year of adoption of
a comprehensive amendment to the city council.
So that would make sure that these exclusions
are only done within a timely manner.
And then the other proposal that staff did not include
within this package was to not include the sites
that are within the half mile of the Ashby,
MacArthur and Rockridge Bart stations
exclusions for the meeting the 50% density requirement. And staff the
reason why staff disagreed with that is that again these exclusions provided an
SP-99 give cities a time to develop an alternative plan they're not permanent
exclusions the proposed exclusions for these rock these stations include a
small portion of parcels that are already zoned for density that achieves
at least 50% and sometimes the same as SB 79 requirements and the general plan
update work is underway right now and we're looking you know at bringing this
in spring of 2027 and we want to we're getting you know public input and
wanting to have that process and look at this comprehensively when we're doing
these changes and ultimately you know we as a city are going to have to in all of
these areas meet the overall densities of SB 79 no matter what.
This is not an option, we are going to have to do that.
But the Senate bill allows the opportunity to create an alternative plan and
have it more tailored to a particular area instead of just anything that's within a quarter miles,
a certain height, and anything with a half mile is another height and density.
Regardless of the situation of what is in that particular neighborhood,
regardless if it's a historic property,
regardless if it's very small, narrow streets
that may not accommodate some of this higher heights
and density that could potentially even be an issue
with fire regulations.
So these are all reasons why we wanna do
this more tailored approach.
And so staff recommendation is that staff request
the City Council conduct a public hearing
and upon conclusion adopt an ordinance
recommended by the Planning Commission
amending Title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code
to add chapter 17.86, S8, abundant and affordable homes
near transit, Senate Bill 79, combining zone regulations,
identifying sites eligible and ineligible
or excluded from Senate Bill 79 property development standards
and making related Oakland zoning map amendments
to designate parcels within the S8 combining zone
and to identify whether such designate parcels
are eligible for or excluded from the Senate Bill 79
property development standards
making California madam quality act findings and this concludes my
presentation thank you colleagues we will hear any potential amendments first
go to public comment and then discuss as a reminder we have eight minutes per
councilmember this includes the questions that you're posing to staff
But the clock will stop when staff is responding. Thank you
Councilmember under then wonk
Yeah, I'd like to propose an amendment. It should be on the table k top
I believe you have a copy of it if you could put it up on the screen for us. That'd be great
This is the same amendment that I proposed at committee the other day with no changes
You know, I want to thank our planning staff for the work. They've done on this already
It's tricky stuff with tight deadlines and you know for everyone in the audience and my colleagues
I apologize on behalf of the state and behalf of lawyers everywhere for all the double negatives in this thing
It is incredibly hard to understand where
Exclusion means inclusion and you know means yes and we're through the looking glass, but I want to be clear
I am arguing for full speedy compliance with SB 79
Which whatever you think of it requires greater height near transit?
I believe in density along our commercial corridors near transit. That's why I'm proposing this amendment
so all the double negatives aside that's what my amendment is doing and it's taken me a long time
to fully understand all of this um and and what our options are as a city and as a district and
i believe that the approach that we're taking is to manage sp 79 since that's the only choice we
have and i want to be clear because we're going to hear a lot about alternative plans
in the high resource district there is no true alternative sp 79 is the law and we are bound to
to follow it, so love it or hate it,
we are bound to understand that it is our new reality,
and I'm advocating for, in a sense,
fully coming to grips with that reality right now,
rather than spending a year providing people
with the false idea that we can somehow
exempt ourselves from state law.
You know, people are writing us to say,
don't allow high rises along College Avenue,
and that, respectfully, is not a decision we get to make.
This ship has sailed on that,
and the state has set that ship afloat.
District one BART stations do not qualify
for these so-called exclusions.
We are considered high resource.
I wanna repeat that.
The areas around the BART stations in district one
do not qualify for the exemption.
In district one, there is nothing the city can do
to avoid upzoning most of the neighborhood.
We can press pause on the sites around the historic,
sites on the historical register and we're doing,
but that's very few sites.
The only real question before us is whether we press pause
on the minority of sites which already have high enough
zoning to qualify for this temporary exclusion.
We are allowed to temporarily pause the upzoning
of college, telegraph, Claremont, 40th,
big streets like that, but there's nothing we can do,
nothing we can do to pause the upzoning
of the interior residential neighborhoods.
So the question is, do we press pause on the big streets,
which would mean in some cases that we might end up
with zoning in the residential neighborhoods
that is higher than the ones on the corridors,
that doesn't make sense to me.
And if we trade density away on the corridors,
the big streets, then we have to make it up
on the interior residential neighborhoods.
And it's been city policy for years and my belief,
and I think most people would agree,
that the big streets are where we should develop.
And I see no reason to keep the corridors low
while we can do nothing in the core residential neighborhoods
and let those increase in height.
And this is why I support letting 79
take effect on the corridors.
And I want to point out,
the amendment that I'm proposing
was advanced six to nothing by the Planning Commission.
It was not controversial at the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission recommended six to zero
to go with the amendment that I'm suggesting.
If you rather see development on the corridors
compared to the interior neighborhoods,
then my feeling is that this amendment
is the wiser approach.
You know, we got lucky.
happen to be working on a general plan update, which we only do every 20 years, this allows
us to use this process that's already in progress to conform. And hopefully, the new general
plan will be finished in the next year, and the actual long-term zoning map of Oakland
will be determined then. We can move some of the density of SB 79 around so long as
we meet certain standards. But around the stations, we have to have a certain amount
of density. We can move some of the density from the interior residential neighborhoods
to the corridors, which is what we ought to be doing, not the reverse, which is what will
happen if we vote down this amendment. I'm committed to developing on the corridors as
much as possible in D1. I'm committed to prioritizing the density we are required to have and having
it be on the big streets. I imagine given the choice, most people would take that approach,
regardless of what you think about 79 in general. And I understand that some people feel this
approach is crazy or overreach by the state or some other adjective that we
could use but I also wish things had been done differently but that would
mean that we would have done things differently in the past. Had D1 and the
rest of the city done more to provide homes for more Oaklanders and had more
neighborhoods like ours, high resource neighborhoods done so across the state,
we wouldn't be in this situation you know but the housing crisis is as old as
am and that's pretty old despite how good I know I look but it's not getting
any better on its own and that's why so many of our leaders on the state and
local level myself included have supported state intervention so my hope
is that we can put these debates behind us and focus on our shared belief in
affordable affordability and opportunity in district one and that is why I am
committed to adopting SB 79 in district one and making sure that we can build
with the density that we need in order to provide housing. That's it.
Thank you. Councilmember Blanc. We can put the amendment up on the screen. So this staff
proposal, and I really do respect the expertise, but I do take issue with it.
This staff proposal, it essentially seeks broad as broad exclusions to the state
bill that is allowed for. It does not, in my opinion, meet the moment of where we
are with our housing affordability crisis. We have a housing shortage and we
have not been permitting enough homes across all affordability levels to meet
our regional housing needs assessment. We know that we do not have enough both
market rate housing nor affordable housing. San Francisco rents are rising
extremely quickly and that will soon ripple over to Oakland. And yes, SB 79
Plan allows for localities to adopt alternative plans as long as overall density is required
by SB 79 or MET, but keep in mind that those density minimums in SB 79 were designed to
get even suburban areas across the state on board.
So in an urban area like Oakland, we should be far exceeding the density minimums in SB
79.
Adopting SB 79 plus the anticipated up zones that we would get from the general plan update
will allow us to far exceed those density minimums,
which should be what we are doing here in Oakland
to meet the affordability crisis that we're seeing.
SB 79 furthermore has affordability provisions
where 7% of total units in SB 79 projects
need to be for extremely low households,
10% for very low income households,
13% for lower income households.
So adopting the full-throated version of SB 70 now
not only ensures more market rate housing,
but also affordable housing that we so need in the city.
Evidence and studies show that areas that build
actually reduce the displacement
and the addition of units actually show lower rents.
Given that I expect that this ordinance
will be adopted by this body,
I want to author some amendments that will ensure
that the full-throated version of SB 79
is at least adopted in District 2.
And this is particularly important to me
for the International Boulevard
where the AC Transit, BRT is.
My residents are fighting for a BART station,
but the impediment to achieving that
is that it doesn't have the necessary density.
This area is experiencing blight, abandonment,
and lower quality of life.
And I also see that this up-zoning
is going to result in necessary investment
to improve the quality of life, public safety,
with more eyes on the ground.
It's also the area where there is naturally affordable rent.
You go there and there's,
you actually see a one bedroom apartment
that goes for $1,600.
And that sadly goes for affordable in the city of Oakland.
But on Zillow, I see that there's only a handful
of these units available for rent.
There should be many of these available.
This is exactly the area that we should be building
so working class families have a place to live
and thrive in Oakland.
And this is why I have the amendment going before us.
Thank you.
Read it out loud.
It's on screen, right?
It's on the screen and council has a copy.
have you provided a copy to the public as well?
I have not.
I'm happy to put these copies on the dais.
Through the chair to Councilmember Wong,
please give them to the clerk's staff to pass down.
Thank you.
OK, if there's no other amendments,
we will move to public comment and then start discussion.
Thank you.
As I call your name, please support support him
in any order.
Please state your name for the record
before beginning.
If you are on Zoom, please raise your hand
so I can easily identify you.
Paul Maldonado, Naomi Schiff,
Jennifer McElrath, Sarah Rowley,
Mrs. Ada Olabala, Gordon Douglas, Joe Johnston,
I see your ceding time to Jay McElrath,
Mr. Hazard and Jules Brugler.
Sorry if I said it incorrectly.
Was that you, Mr. Hazard?
Thank you.
You got it, you got it though, Hamama.
That's okay, you got it, right?
Okay, now when this item went to committee,
the motion or amendment that Unger
is sharing with us today failed in committee.
two to two it failed. So why did it fail? Somebody needs to explain. Uh, this would allow for
more housing to be available. It allows for nine stories near major rail areas and five
stories of density near rapid bus route. Why is it only being identified as BART
stations when the initiative says that you can consider near rapid bus routes?
That's the question. It also says projects over 10 units must include
affordable housing. Now that's real important. Y'all supposed to be about the
business of affordable housing so this measure says or bill says projects over 10 units must
include affordable housing no discussion about that okay now what we have going on we have
it going on all the time city of Oakland do what you have to do but just don't come in
my neighborhood to do it that's what this is about so if you have just like Rock Ridge
doesn't want to turn that former Red Cross office into homeless housing. They object
to that. They object to anything, Rock Ridge, that's going to bring low-income or people
that they feel are not the people they want in their neighborhoods. So when you got Montclair,
Rock Ridge and all of the people in the hills, they're going-
thank you miss Ola bala your time is up just to clarify it's one minute right
alright I'll start now good afternoon my name is Raul Maldonado district three
I put an online comment but today I'm representing East Bay Yimbee we support
the SB 79 and SA combined zone framework but we urge you to reject exclusions one
and two number three is okay these exclusions delay SB 79 until 2003 to
like just cause rent stabilization are in tact they're baked into SB 79 as well.
So if there's any upcoming arguments for that, that just doesn't hold.
If there people say there are no temp protections,
there are in SB 79 state has vetted that.
This is very brief, got a little bit of time,
but it's also worth noting that in the planning commission meeting last time,
it wasn't a strong support behind this exclusion requirements.
There was just like because the analysis was done,
And so we had to look at it
and see what kind of analysis
was done.
They just added it on from
planning commission from staff.
I really want to get down to
very quickly is there's an
equity problem exclusion one
and two together give every
neighborhood and out low
resource neighborhoods and
high-resource neighborhoods.
Hi, my name is Sarah rally.
I represent San Antonio Station
Alliance.
We're fighting for Bart station
at 14th Avenue, which is in
councilmember Wong's district.
And we are in support of Council Member Wong's amendment.
In order to build a station, we need to prove that there's ridership and plan to build ridership
in the coming decades, right?
Like we need to really think about what Oakland is going to look like in the future and not
just now.
Council Member Wong is proposing an amendment to make the San Antonio quarter eligible under
the attendance of SB 79.
And the ridership is coming from our residents.
Our residents are a highly transit dependent community.
We're one of the most diverse of codes
in the entire Bay Area.
And most importantly, there is a 2.8 mile gap
between the Lake Merritt and Fruitvale stations,
which is the longest in the urban corridor built.
Thank you, your time is up.
Good afternoon, Council.
I'm a long time Oakland resident,
homeowner of a historic home in District 2 and a big fan of SB 79 and
Increasing density in our city. I think the chair before you go on. Could you please state your name? Yes. Sorry Gordon Douglas
Sorry, I thought you guys had that I'm
resident District 2
And I'm here just speaking in favor of both of the amendments by the council members
Wong and Unger
These are prime areas for development and greater density in our city and that is the future
of our city and up zoning I think done with
strong affordability protections and
Tenant protections which are existing within sp 79 and which we can add to these
to our planning around these areas
serves both the goal of increasing density and
Increasing the availability of affordable housing in our city. Thank you for supporting those amendments
Thank you.
Kevin Daly, I appreciate the work that the staff has done
in producing these documents.
I encourage you to adopt the amendments of Councilmember
Unger and Wong to allow increased housing today
while we continue to work on the general plan.
And while we're working on the general plan,
I encourage every one of the councilmembers
of building more dense housing
now, every district, but my own district
D4 has transit stops that qualify under SB 79.
But just because we don't have stops,
council member Ramachandran, I'm hoping that we can look
at places where we do have transit
that doesn't qualify as rapid transit.
that doesn't qualify as rapid transit
and allow for housing there too.
Thank you.
Please adopt the amendments.
Hello, I'm Jules Brier.
I'm a West Oakland resident, District 3,
public school teacher and homeowner.
And I ask you to fully implement SB 79
and adopt both of the amendments.
I'd also like to see if there were more amendments
for the rest of the city to be included
and remove those exclusions from there.
We, as a homeowner, I'm not allowed to,
zoning law prohibits me from building,
adding another unit to turn my duplex into a triplex,
and others have similar issues.
My neighbor, Crystal, she is unable,
was disallowed from building four units at her property,
so she could only build two.
I have another person who's a new resident
and she would like to have more affordable housing
near transit.
18 neighbors in Oakland,
throughout five council districts,
have signed a petition to support them.
Before you begin, I'm guessing you're Jennifer.
Yes.
Joe, are you in the chamber?
Thank you.
I, Jennifer McElrath of Oakland,
and speaking for upper Broadway advocates,
a group of neighbors interested in development issues,
citywide, particularly in Council District 1, North Oakland.
SB 79 recognizes there can be unintended negative
consequences from a broad brush law,
despite its good intentions.
That's why the state gave cities an opportunity
to exclude properties temporarily,
until the city can fine tune an alternative plan.
and the state can make their amendments.
Planning staff proposes to exclude all 48 TODs.
In Oakland, the Planning Commission proposed only 45.
The three TODs excluded were in North Oakland.
We do not ask to be treated different
from any other district.
North Oakland fulfills two of the three criteria
when only one is needed for exclusion.
We were not aware of this issue until recently.
At the CED, we spoke and we're glad
that the council members there approved
the staff recommendation in supporting the planning staff.
We ask for fairness.
Ultimately, the council may recommend different density
and height rules for North Oakland,
but at least they could do so after allowing staff
to investigate local land use issues
allow the members of those communities to be heard. Those are my official
remarks. I would like to add a few additional comments. At present Oakland
has a few thousand rentals available compared to what was a few years ago a
few hundred. Many newer market rate developments are largely empty. Some are
underwater. The need is for affordable housing in the three TODs to promote
economic diversity, excluding the three TODs as approved by the...
There was two minutes. Your time is up.
Naomi Shipp for Oakland Heritage Alliance. I'm very concerned about the commercial
areas along College Avenue which are a sales tax generator for the council
which many years ago voted to really support small retail and locally owned
business. SB 79 is one size fits all but our large and varied city has been
upzoning. I've been going to meetings since 2009 and each one has resulted in
upzoning along corridors. Managing it is not so much about exemption. It is that
when you manage 79 provisions you should be able to, for example, make one area
We support the planning staff
proposal to request those
exclusions coordinating 79 with
the general plan update.
Thank you.
Thank you all night.
Excuse me all names were called.
Thank you.
Colleagues Councilmember Brown.
Excellent.
Well thank you so much.
Thanks to the members of the
public for coming and speaking
on behalf of this item.
I also want to thank the
planning staff and staff for
receiving the approval of the
planning staff.
the planning and building team for all of their due diligence
and hard work on this item, as was stated,
the item was considered in CED just a week ago,
and we did move forward with staff's recommendation.
And so just a couple of things that I want to highlight,
of course, for my colleagues and members of the public,
and then I'll ask a few questions as well.
So I think first off, kind of starting with an analysis,
very quick, of SB 79, where currently right now
in the state legislature, there are amendments
being brought to this legislation,
because, you know, the goals around SB 79
was to ensure that all cities within the state
of California were actually building more housing.
And so in the report that you see,
you see that the city of Oakland
is far exceeding the proposed density,
whereas we know that that is not the case
in other cities throughout the state.
So that's kind of the first thing that I wanna highlight.
This conversation around transit,
building more housing around transit-oriented development,
we know that it is, I guess I'll put it this way,
it's very hot topic right now, right?
We know that transit oriented development
and building housing, that is our future.
And I think in this moment as you look at this report,
our planning and building staff is saying,
please allow us to complete something called
the land use and transportation element,
which is a tool for local cities to plan.
And so I believe that in the report,
I think it has been called into question a couple of times
that based on staff's recommendation,
we are not trying to move forward with SB 79,
but I guess I wanted to get some clarity
from the planning and building team
that kind of as was written in the report,
we will be completing the land use
and transportation element in the spring.
and that has a element of what type of planning.
Yeah, so the land use and transportation element
is really the overriding constitution
for the growth of the city,
and so it sets the ceiling of how much density
can happen in particular areas.
And then I also read in the report
that kind of our current density,
Like, based on how, like our current density,
we are far exceeding maybe like two to three times
what the goal is, is that correct?
So, in the number of the transit stops,
because there's 48 different stops,
so most of the BART station stops are exceeding
what's required by SB 79,
and a lot of the areas along International Boulevard
are as well, although there are some areas
that are lower than that,
And there could be some nuances as well
with SB 79 requirements.
But really, a lot of our higher density
is concentrated along international boulevard itself,
the major boulevards.
And then as soon as you get off of the major boulevards,
because we do have a lot of existing single-family homes
that have been there for quite some time,
there are a lot lower densities.
But those are areas that we're looking at
in our land use and transportation element
to increase those densities and we've already increased
them some with the housing element
and we are looking at increasing them a lot more
during this process mainly because we will have to do that
in order for the alternative plan.
We still have to meet the overall densities required
by SB 79 in these areas.
So we will have to be increasing these lower density
residential areas that are close to the corridor
to be higher.
And then I just want to call attention
just from my colleagues that when you read the report
and you look at some of these transit stops,
really starting in like district five,
district six and district seven,
all of the percentages are quite low
as far as like where we need to be focusing
and building new housing near these
transit-oriented developments.
And so would that be something that the land use
and transportation kind of element would be also addressing?
Yes, and a lot of the reason that is the case right now
is one is we've had higher densities closer to downtown,
and we've also had higher densities.
As a result, there were specific plans
that happened at the Coliseum BART station,
but we did not have a specific plan
for the Fruit Rail BART station as an example,
and we have not had specific plans for other areas
along International Boulevard.
So that's why, as you get further east,
or further away from downtown,
that is why the densities are currently lower.
And then I guess maybe my last point
that I wanna highlight is,
I guess like in the past decade,
what has been like the key role of like planning
and how we've been able to like really like supersede
so many of our housing goals?
Yeah, so we actually during,
This was starting when we still had redevelopment.
There was actually a number of planning grants we got
through the redevelopment agency,
from the state to plan, do these specific plans.
And they were geared around really transit
oriented development and especially around the BART stations.
So we did the, you know, West Oakland specific plan
was a grant that we got from the redevelopment agency.
The Lake Merritt BART station was another grant
we got from the redevelopment agency.
the Broadway of all this specific plan,
we got through the transit for redevelopment,
as well as the Coliseum BART station.
So we as a city have realized the importance
of having more of that growth around those areas.
Also, the bus rapid transit is newer
than those BART stations.
So that is also why that area we haven't,
we did not already do specific plans around those areas,
but that is the priority as part
of our land use and transportation element.
And we actually got another grant through MTC
that was required for our priority development areas
to look at increased development around these areas
during the land use and transportation element.
And so as all the areas that we don't have specific plans,
they're actually being required to be more detailed
in this loop and that also included specifically
obviously the Rockridge BART station is part of that and also MacArthur BART station and
And the Fruitvale and then all of the BRT
So that has been our intent really is you know, looking at how we can increase the the densities in those areas
But you know, I think what we see is yes, we have these half-mile buffers
But often when you get to the very edges of these half-mile bar buffers
It's getting harder for some residents to really be walking that distance to a station
And so really by having the higher densities even close closer
That to the stations and maybe a little bit lower density as you go further out is
What you know we'd be looking at when we're doing this alternative plan. I see it and then I guess my last question is I
if you don't pass these
amendments today we're looking at not doing this planning until
twenty thirty two is that accurate.
Yes I know that is is not so the intent so what is written
there is what the state allows is the the maximum so the state
basically by state law if if no alternative plan is adopted
basically by state law, if no alternative plan is adopted
before 2032, then those exclusions would go away.
But that is not the intent of staff to wait till 2032
because we are doing this general plan update now
and we intend to bring that to council in spring of 2027.
And then soon after would be the implementation action
would be the actual zoning that would then implement
those densities and creating an alternative plan.
We also, I think as part of even the land use
and transportation element itself,
we have to be making changes
to the general plan allowances,
especially in what we have right now is detached residential
as one of the lowest density residential land uses we have.
And we are planning on, at least the proposal
will be to actually eliminate that as a category
and only have mixed housing type residential
as the lowest density, and we're also implying
to increase those densities allowed
within that general plan category.
Because by doing so, then we can increase the zoning.
But if we don't do that first in the general plan
to allow those higher densities,
the zoning cannot be higher
than what the general plan densities allow.
So that is sort of the process,
as we first have to increase the ceiling
of what's allowed in the land use categories.
And then at that point, we can also increase the zoning
to go along with that.
Thank you.
Councilmember Houston.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Good evening.
I want to thank Councilmember Unger and Wang for this.
I just my questions is basically answered.
I just wanted to find out what if it doesn't happen by 2032?
Help me out with that.
What if it doesn't happen by 2032, please?
So the state law said that the SB 79 density would automatically
to go to effect if the city has not adopted an alternative plan that's been approved by
the state because even the alternative plan we have to present that to the state to make
sure that we're meeting the same overall densities in these areas. So if we don't have that approved
by the state before twenty thirty two then we can no longer have exclusions according
to the state law. Got it and this is for the city attorney I want to move both of these
of these amendments, but I wanted to make sure they mesh.
Do they work with each other?
Through the Chair to Council Member Houston,
my understanding is the two amendments currently
on the floor are legally consistent,
and if my colleague has anything to add,
I'll defer to him, thank you.
This is Michael Branson, Deputy City Attorney.
I concur the two amendments speak to different maps,
And we're going to go back to
different sections and the
language can be adopted
together.
Okay, good.
You wanted to share something to
me or to the group?
To the group.
Okay, go ahead.
All right, if I may, through the
president, to the council, and
also through the chair, to
councilmember Brown.
I did want to emphasize a few
things, and we will work with
the disposition of the council,
but the idea of having the land
use and transportation element,
nature, it works off the presumption of these elements being connected. You do not have
a strong land use development without a strong transportation plan, and you do not have a
leverage transportation plan without good land use. So the whole idea, and quite honestly,
irrespective of whether this bill had passed, this was something we were going to look at
in terms of how the land use transportation element was combined.
I will just, on a point of quick personal privilege, when I first arrived and I got
on International Boulevard my first time.
I was quite excited to see the bus rapid transit development
finishing out.
It wasn't operational yet, but you
could tell what it was by the construction.
And everywhere else I had worked,
when you see something like that,
there was a land use plan to go with it
that looked at the leverage, the density, what you could capture
because you had a fixed transit system installed.
So that was definitely something we had focused on, the loot,
even before the SB 79 was coming down the pipe.
Well, I think we're dealing with fundamentally,
it's no dispute over outcome.
We are absolutely committed as city planners
and urban planners to leverage transit
and land use and vice versa,
meeting specific needs around housing,
meeting the needs for employment-based development as well,
all those demand drivers.
I think it really comes down to a question of when and how.
So we will work however we need to
to get to the positive outcome.
As far as the 2032 deadline that the state has imposed,
We were gonna be way ahead of that no matter what.
Now again, our plan without SB 79 even on the horizon
was to get this phase two.
Those of you who've been around for that
know that we had phase two already scheduled out
as we had phase one.
And again, to just point to some of the work
in phase one around the housing element,
that was a very deep dive that the staff made as well,
was able to get a very effective element
and one that's been recognized by the state.
So we are devoted to doing this work
and doing it correctly.
We also will have an opportunity to come back before council.
Obviously the general plan update has to be approved by this body as well.
So you will be able to have the words to see the final word to see that we have
achieved the goals, not just of the densities around SB 79,
but all the other aspects of land use and transportation that we need to focus
on. But again,
I just want to dispel any thought that somehow what we were proposing was
going to dislodge the overall goals of SB 79. Not at all.
It seems to me to be more an issue of timing
in terms of when these might go into effect
or what the opportunity cost may be over the window.
We've got intense zoning now as was cited
in many instances several percentages
or multiple percentages above what SB 79 would require.
So we are well positioned.
We will work forward as we need to
in order to get the best phase two
land use transportation element before the council,
including whatever leverage around transit,
oriented development is associated with that.
TOD has been a very big part of my work and my career,
so we definitely will lean in.
But I wanted to dispel any notion
that somehow that was not part of our intention moving forward.
We had to get that done.
Thank you, Mr. Gilchrist.
Thank you, Ms. Laura.
I wanted to move the two amendments.
I want to move them with this item.
I'll second that.
I wanted to include Coliseum Bar 2 even though it's not in my district and councilmember
president is not here, I wanted to include that because that's a huge piece to our district.
It's okay.
All right.
We're good.
Now, let's just move it the way I just said it.
It's good.
On item 4.2, the motion by councilmember Houston, second by councilmember Wong to move both
the Unger and Wong amendments.
councilmember brown.
Abstain.
Councilmember five, councilmember Gallo,
councilmember Huston.
Aye.
Councilmember Unger.
Councilmember Wong.
Aye.
And councilmember Ramachandran.
Aye.
With the absence of councilmember Jenkins,
to one abstention, to absent the motion.
was a vote of three ayes with Houston, Unger, Ramachandran,
two absent Jenkins, and five, one abstention Brown.
Is Councillor Agai on the Zoom?
He did not answer his roll call vote.
He is present.
But he did not say anything.
His camera is on.
I wasn't on mute.
I couldn't unmute it.
Can you hear me now?
Can you hear me?
We need another motion and a second.
I'm going to remotion that I accept the both amendment
proposals to this item.
You got to be on mute.
We can hear you, Council Member Gail.
Just you can stay off mute when the roll call happens.
You can vote in a minute.
But I was on mute the last time around.
The last time you were on mute, unfortunately.
But there's another motion and a second,
so the roll will be called again.
Okay.
On the motion by Council Member Houston,
seconded by Council Member Wong,
to adopt the item with both the Wong and Unger amendments.
Council Member Brown?
Abstain.
Council Member Fyfe is absent.
Council Member Gallo?
Oh, I just wanted to, for the record,
state that I had the opportunity
to meet with the planning staff
and here the commission on this subject alone.
So I'm gonna be at this point
I'm gonna be supporting our staff's recommendation.
So I'll be voting no.
I'm sorry, could you please clarify your vote?
Okay, so the vote that I'm taking on this item here
is I'm gonna vote no and vote.
Thank you.
Council member Houston.
Council member Ramachandra.
I'm sorry, not you, I'm sorry.
councilmember anger.
Give me a second.
I remember anger.
Council member along.
Council member warmer chandrum.
Motion still fails with the vote of three eyes to absent one
abstention one now.
And some of the brown.
So at this time at this.
At this time I would make a motion to adopt staffs
recommendation.
I'll second that. I'll second the motion. Thank you Councilmember Gayo. We have a motion
by Councilmember Brown, seconded by Councilmember Gayo. I apologize. If we can take 20 seconds
while we consult with the City Attorney about the last motion. Through the Chair to the
Clerk, can you restate the vote on the first motion? The first motion... Yeah, the one
that you just called right now.
Okay, abstention by Brown, five Jenkins, absent,
Houston, aye, Unger, aye, Ramachandran, aye, Guy, oh no.
Yeah, Houston, Unger, Ramachandran, Wong, aye.
Okay, so through the chair to the body, that is a tie.
we can move on to another item and see if the mayor is present too and willing to break
the tie.
So pausing on item 4.2 to see if the mayor is available to break the tie.
Going to item 4.1, I need a motion to open the public hearing.
So moved.
Second.
On the motion to open the public hearing moved by council member excuse me council member
councilmember. Councilmember I.
councilmember Rama chondron.
Seconded by councilmember guy or
councilmember brown. Councilmember
brown. I councilmember five. Is
absent councilmember guy L. I.
councilmember Houston. Sorry about
the councilmember Houston.
Councilmember. Hunger. I.
Councilmember Wong. I. In chair
and five now reading the item into record conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion
Adopting the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission amending title 17 of the open municipal code to amend chapter 17 point nine six
section s 14 housing sites
Combining zone to update the definition of development project and to include a conditional use
Permit procedure for non housing developments and update work live and live work residential to non residential unit area as
reference throughout title 17 to correspond with revision to the California Building Code and Oakland Building Code
Regulations and making appropriate sequel findings
You do have three speakers on this item
Thank you to the staff how many minutes do you need for this?
okay thank you. Okay Toph if I can have the presentation okay good afternoon
Laura Kaminski strategic planning manager so this item is on amendments to
planning code chapter seventeen point nine six the S fourteen and also work
live and live work regulations so Oakland adopted chapter seventeen point
nine six S fourteen housing sites combining zone as part of the twenty
2031 housing element, applying to all sites and the housing sites inventory.
While the S14 zone streamlines review, concerns have emerged that it may constrain activation of vacant or underutilized sites.
Staff committed to review and update this chapter based on the results of its implementation.
So for the definition section in S14 includes definitions of what constitutes a development project.
amendment would clarify the definition and enable limited expansion for businesses within existing buildings.
The following project types are now clearly defined to not be included in the definition of a development project.
Development project does not include the making of improvements, renovations, or updates to an existing building,
adding floor area to an existing building that is occupied by business established in that building on or
before January 1st of 2026, or the placement of temporary structures.
and the following project types are clearly defined to be a development project.
Adding floor area to an existing building that is occupied by business established in
that building after January 1st of 2026 where the square footage of the building is increased
by 50% or more than 30,000 square feet, whichever is less.
Additional non-residential expansion could be allowed via a proposed conditional use
permit process.
So also in 17.96040 it talks about required majority residential use.
Currently all development S14 sites must be majority residential or meet one of four exemptions.
Existing regulations limit non-residential development, constraining activation of vacant or under-utilized sites.
Repose amendment would add a conditional use permit exemption for non-housing development.
This CUP would be granted only if the project meets general conditional use permit criteria
and meets the following.
Provide substantial community or economic benefit to the surrounding neighborhood and
the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the city's
remaining share, its regional housing need for the 2023-2031 housing element cycle.
This finding shall be consistent with the no debt loss finding in the California Government
Code and the finding shall include no debt loss at each income level.
So for work-live and live-work units, there's planning code amendments proposed so
that to align with and not contradict recent updates to the Oakland Building Code regulations and the California Building Code standards.
The building code does not allow for work-live or live-work to be more than 50% of non-residential.
So amendments to planning code work-live and live-work development standards lowers the maximum non-residential unit area for
work live and live work where needed to allow no more than 50% non-residential
square footage. So staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public
hearing and upon conclusion adopted an ordinance as recommended by the Planning
Commission amending title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code to amend chapter
17.96 S 14 housing sites combining zone to update the definition of development
project and to conclude a conditional use permit procedure for non-housing
Developments and update work live and live work residential to non residential unit area as referenced through title 17
To correspond with revisions to the California Building Code and Oakland building regulations and making appropriate California
Environmental Quality Act findings that concludes my presentation
Thank you colleagues any comments or if not we will move to public comment
Seeing then we can move to public comment
as a card name please approach the podium in any order please state your
name for the record before beginning mr. Hazzard miss all of Allah and Kevin
Dally thank you mr. Hazzard there needs to be some clarification why public
hearings appear on the agenda first it has been the standing practice that
public hearings follow approval of the consent agenda oh I know why because
the disparity study is coming up. So what you have done has had these public hearings
with all of these black people sitting here waiting, hoping that some of them will disappear.
If I was in the room sitting up there and introduced this beautiful queen of 93 years
of age, the first thing I would say is, why are you here? And for whatever reason she's
here, let's move that to the top of the agenda. That's called ancestral respect. But you
You got a practice going on right now that you never do.
You never have public hearings as the number one item.
But you had it because you had these white folks who came from Rock Ridge, or they get
to be accommodated.
You see, I can construe that to be some racism going on in here.
So related to the item, is there any evidential data that support the need that you have the
current practice of work, live, live, work, zoning ordinance to be changed so it comes
out of non-residential and can be put into residential.
What's the reasoning behind this?
What data supports that this be brought to counsel?
Nothing.
Why are we doing this?
We spending our wheels on stuff when we got homelessness,
illegal dumping, public safety,
black disparity going on,
and we spending time on this kind of stuff.
That's what you do.
You avoid.
Thank you, Ms. Ola Bala.
Okay, thank you.
Colleagues, is there a council member Wong?
Now, this is a planning staff recommendation
I can get on board with.
all make a motion to approve staff recommendation.
This is the economic development that we need.
Council member Brown.
Excellent, I'll second it and then I'll just kind of state
just for the public that this is a necessary fine tuning.
And so by introducing this type of permit process
for this definition of live work,
it actually helps to, I think one of the projects
that was mentioned during CED,
that there is actually a site in district six
at the Eastmont Mall where based on the current zoning,
where we're unable to kind of honor a potential applicant.
And so by making this change,
we're able to broaden and help improve some of the businesses
that we want to bring to that area,
as well as provide more housing.
the motion. Thank you. On the
motion passes with a vote of six ayes I'm sorry seven ayes councilmember
Jenkins is absent I believe at this time we're going to the regular order of the
agenda is that correct okay is that right going to item 5.2 receive an
information report on the 2024 city of Oakland disparity study prepared by Mason
To many associates pursuant to resolution number 8 9 0 5 8 you have a number of speakers on this item
Is there someone from staff ready to present on this item?
Through the chair demands of the body we have dr. Ramsey here
So we want to provide some space for her to do her presentation and dr. Ramsey if you'd like to use the microphone here
That's certainly fine
Fifteen minutes is what council president Jenkins had let me know you would agree to if that's sufficient
Council president Jenkins informed me that your presentation could would be up to 15 minutes. Is that correct?
Yeah, it may take a few more if you'd like my comments on the findings. Thank you
So, thank you. And I guess it's good evening at this point. Is it not?
So I'm pleased to be able to come today
to talk to you about the findings of the disparity study.
And if you advance the slides to the first one, please.
So I think it's important to understand
the purpose of this study was to determine
if government, in this case, the city of Oakland
had adopted procurement and equity policies,
and to determine if the departments adhered
to those policies, and if minority and women business
enterprises are underutilized.
And any underutilization, if documented,
is due to discrimination.
That's the basic legal principles under which
this study was performed.
It's important to keep in mind the time period
that we studied, as well as the particular type of analysis
that was performed.
The time period is defined by the city.
And when we were engaged, the study period was 2016 to 2021.
And it was the charge, as defined by the court,
to determine basically if minority business owners were
being utilized at the level that they
are available in the marketplace.
Since Croson made that decision in 1989,
local jurisdictions have added women-owned businesses
to that analysis.
And we studied four of your industries,
basically the industries that you procure
for goods and services, construction,
professional services, architectural and engineering
was treated as a separate industry, and goods and services.
So the study parameters require an understanding
as to who's been utilized, the availability
of those businesses to perform the contracts that you award,
and then to determine if there is a disparity,
whether the available businesses were being used
at the level that they were available in your market area.
And then to determine if there is to be found
underutilization, whether that underutilization
is due to chance, and if it's not due to chance,
then the court says it's due to discrimination.
And then to provide an understanding
of the significance of that underutilization
when it is statistically significant.
The court said that you should perform an analysis
of the anecdotal accounts of businesses
within your market area.
You might want to advance that slide
to the legally sound statistical outcomes, please.
So you have standards by which you can make decisions.
And would you please advance the slides,
whoever's controlling them?
Now you've gone too far.
go back to study legally sound statistical outcomes
so that the public will understand
and follow the presentation.
So in this standard, you have option one
that that analysis comparing the use by the city
of businesses in the four industries
and to their availability,
you can find that the percent spent with MWBEs
is equal to their availability.
That's one possible outcome.
A second outcome is you can find disparity
where the percent of MWBE dollars that MWBEs receive
is less than their availability,
which is not necessarily subject to a remedy
unless that underutilization is statistically significant.
And at that level, the court said
the government has a governmental obligation
to correct the disparity.
And it is not as a function of chance.
So if you move advance please to key statistical findings.
There were some key findings that I think inform the data
that was provided to us in this study.
And I think it's an important piece of information
to bring to your attention.
So if we advance the slides to the contract dollars awarded,
our analysis identified $486 million
was spent by the city during the study period
in the award of prime contracts.
And so in addition, we found that the policies,
you had equity and procurement standards were in place
that should have guided the decisions made
in the award of contracts,
and also made a finding at the statistical level
that the department's procurement practices
deviated from policy.
And these deviations, our study found,
produce statistically significant underutilization
of minorities and women.
And administrative practices were linked
to those discriminatory outcomes.
So, the disparity we found was systemic
and not simply driven by market conditions.
Systemic as in practices that existed
in the performance of the procurement process.
So if you look at the next slide,
there's information that I think is particularly useful,
informative, and hopefully will guide decisions
that the city makes going forward.
And one very significant finding
is the size of the contracts awarded,
where roughly 71% of the contracts
the city awarded during that study period
were under $100,000, which means that businesses small as well as medium and large could perform
most of the contracts.
And I think that's an important perspective to keep in mind when sharing with you the
data that we did identify that you had an overwhelmingly number of contracts which were
small contracts, did not require a considerable capacity to perform them.
And most contract dollars, small and large, were awarded to few contractors.
We want to go to the next slide, please.
Fifty-nine businesses were awarded 50 percent of the dollars in each of the industries.
And you can see here the number of businesses.
We define them in the studies that we do as highly utilized businesses.
And I might note, highly utilized businesses exercise a great deal of control over the
The cost of projects, they exercise a great deal of control over the businesses that afforded an opportunity to be subcontractors because they have those relationships that are built with repeated contracting and sizable contracts.
So I think it's important to be mindful of the fact that you do have or had during the
period that we studied a few contractors which controlled much of the money that was spent
in each of the industries.
Also had a practice in place at the time of the study that we would call discretionary
procurement and that discretionary procurement enabled the process to circumvent some of
core competitive activities and we please advance the slide.
So this process is one in which contracts could be awarded without public advertising
and for those of you who have been following the events in this state, following the passage
of Proposition 209, you are aware that we have a constitutional amendment that says
is that you cannot engage in preferential treatment.
And our findings indicated that there is preferential treatment.
But as you can see from these findings, that preferential treatment is afforded to those
non-minority contractors that received the majority of your contracts.
And the way the preferential treatment works is that you have optional ways of procuring your goods and services.
One, emergencies, and I'm sure that some of the members of council have had the experience
being asked by staff to advance the procurement,
because there's an emergency, and then time passes,
and there's no evidence that there was an endangerment
to the city or to the city's residence or its property,
and that that emergency didn't appear to materialize
after the contract was awarded.
There's another practice in procurement,
and it's not unique to the city of Oakland,
in which you can have on-call contracts,
where you actually advertise, identify a number of vendors
to whom you award a contract with no specified task,
and then over the course of time,
those contractors are afforded an opportunity
to select vendors to perform the work
that the city requires,
and those vendors that perform that work
do not do it under competitive conditions.
There's also the cooperative agreements,
which is another practice that's used in procurement
in various places around the country,
in which a manager can go to a vendor who is engaged
in the contract in some other jurisdiction.
It's basically used as a similar
if not the same procurement process.
And that vendor can be selected by the manager
and in turn awarded a contract with no further competition.
So those are practices.
They're not unique, but they do, in fact,
have a very profound effect on who does your work
And it gives a considerable amount of authority,
and power is vested in the hands of managers
who are making those decisions.
Disparity also was highest where oversight is weakest.
So you have informal, no bid contracts.
In the city of Oakland, at 50,000 or under,
you do not have to bid a contract.
And 58% of all of those contracts,
58% of all contracts awarded were in that dollar level.
Again, small contracts, no competition required.
You also have informal contracts,
where 3.68% of all of the informal contracts
represent 4.3% of the dollars.
So not a lot of dollars, but a lot of opportunity.
Opportunity builds relationships,
relationships makes people more competitive.
And then you have goods and services,
where 74% of all the awarded contracts
and 63% of the dollars were in this smaller contract.
So informal contracts produce the highest disparity rates
and you can see from the next slide what that finding was.
But again, you have availability.
In the case of African Americans, 13.31% were available
and they received 1.35% of the contracts that were awarded
for informal goods and services valued at 50,000 and under.
The Asian businesses had a similar pattern
with 6.91% of the available businesses,
and they got 5.2% of the dollars that were awarded
on these smaller contracts under 50,000.
Hispanics had the similar pattern as did women-owned business.
And on the other hand, non-minority male businesses
represented 68% of the available businesses.
And they received 82% of all of the dollars.
So again, small contracts, no competition required.
And you have an issue with the decisions
that are being made, despite the procedures
that you have in place.
So the informal contracts received
the highest disparities.
The also advancing the slides, please,
to informal prime contracts under $50,000,
as a consequence, one slide further,
that there are dollars that are lost.
And noted in red are the groups that
that lost dollars as a result of the decisions that were made in the award of contracts under $50,000.
Go to the next slide.
On formal contracts, you see a similar pattern of contracts where the award
of contracts with less than the availability and the net result is that you had
businesses and business communities that lost the opportunity to receive contracts at the level that they were available.
If you advance it one further, we can look at subcontracting disparity where you see
a similar practice and pattern, and again, this is where the prime contractor makes the
decision as to who gets to participate in the contract as a subcontractor.
So to the next slide, the total dollars lost by ethnicity and gender, you see that in the
in formal contracts, the dollars that are lost,
as well as in the formal subcontracting
and in combination you can see the dollars
that each group lost.
So let's talk about availability.
It is often said that the reason that ethnic groups
do not receive contracts at the level that is expected
is because they lack the capacity to perform
or not present in the market.
Given the fact that we know that the majority
of the contracts are under 100,000,
we don't have a capacity issue.
And the finding was in assessing the capacity
of those businesses identified using statistical tools
that the capacity of the minority and women businesses
comparable to the capacity of non-minority
in terms of a percent of differences.
And that there was a less than $15,000 difference
when we compared those capacities using the tools available.
I think it's important to look at federally assisted contracts,
because in this regard, currently in the contracting world
with federal contracts, as well as local contractors,
local agencies that are recipients of federal contracts,
there are some requirements
that the federal government has yet in place.
And one is the DBE goal, which is a goal that the recipients of grantees from federal,
of grantees receiving federal dollars are obligated to have in place a program
for disadvantaged business enterprises.
And in the state of California, as in every other state, the Department of State Department
of transportation determines with the US Department
of Transportation what its goal should be.
And so that goal in the state of California,
the Caltrans has negotiated a 17.06% goal
for DBE participation.
And all of the grantees that received money
from Caltrans are obligated to fulfill that goal.
And what we found in our analysis that Oakland DBEs
received less than, received 2.1%, less than 3%
of the DBE dollars awarded by the city
were awarded to Oakland disadvantaged businesses.
And disadvantaged businesses outside of Oakland
received no dollars.
So the 17.06 or 17% goal that was to be achieved
by the city was not realized.
And thus, the federal dollars were awarded
to non-disadvantaged businesses.
The federal government also has Title VI requirements
for federally-assisted contracts.
Contracts that you receive from the federal government
have their requirements that should be fulfilled
upon receipt of those funds.
And they include certain provisions for reporting,
certain provisions for providing some technical support
and we found no evidence that the city was engaged in that process either.
And then to your local and small local business enterprise program
which was adopted a number of years ago and as an
effort to ensure the participation of all businesses within the city
and to afford certain advantages to businesses that were deemed to be both
local, small, and small, local.
So we looked at those, the percent of those dollars that were received in your provision
is that 25% of your contract should go to small and 25% should go to local, so effectively
local, small, should be 50% of your awards.
And so you can see here that those goals were not achieved across the board.
But also when you take the local and small local participation and look at it by race
and ethnicity, you see another pattern in terms of what ethnic groups are receiving
dollars that are awarded to small and local businesses.
And you can see here that while the achievement was 46 percent overall to local businesses,
that the different ethnic groups received very few dollars relative to the non-minority
males who received 37% of those dollars that were awarded to small and small local businesses.
We also discovered in our research that there were some provisions that were available in
local policy or at least procedures in which a department could seek a waiver to move forward
with advertising or posting a solicitation, a request for bids, a request for proposal
without including the local business preference.
And so there we discovered that a significant number would make that request and effectively
the contract would be advertised without having the provision for a local or a local small business included in the solicitation.
So the department determined with approval of the minority business office that there were no opportunities for small local businesses and therefore the provision was not included in the bid.
which is a highly unusual process
because its standard is to allow the prime contractor
to demonstrate that there were no opportunities
rather than for the government to determine
without making that requirement public
and enforcing the prime contractor
to be supportive of the program
and in the event that they could not,
that there would be a provision
that is normally added to a contract
for them to demonstrate that they made a good faith effort.
So to our findings, there are some findings
that I think are of note that the city has adopted procurement
and equity policies which were designed
to ensure fair practice.
And the departments have exercised discretion
without guardrails that the exercise preferential treatment
in awarding no bid contracts, contracts which did not get to be bid.
And they have approved waivers as a routine practice that allowed for
the solicitation of bids and proposals without having the provision that there be local business participation.
And then there's a failure to enforce the prime contract compliance requirements,
which has an effect that you have reduced the level of participation.
So we also found that there's been a failure to enforce subcontracting payment provisions.
You do have a very progressive payment provision, but that provision is not necessarily advertised
in each of your solicitations, so that the prime doesn't know that the policy exists
nor the subs, and that businesses have not been paid promptly, and I think you can all
appreciate on the 1st and the 15th of every month that that check doesn't hit your bank
through the electronic transfer, it can be a disaster.
Well, it's no different for a business owner who has to make payroll that they should be
able to get prompt payment, and I think that you commend it one more policy that you have
in place, it's very rigorous if in force, which is prompt payment, and actually it's
prompt payment with provisions for penalties to be paid if indeed there is noncompliance
with the prompt payment provision.
So you have policies that require that.
They require subcontractors to be paid within 20 days of the prime receiving payment, and
And sub-contractors have reported that that has just not been their experience.
So you have a procurement policy framework and then there's a question of the implementation.
So you have policy which is authorized competitive procurement as a default method.
That means that you should be using competition unless you have these extraordinary circumstances
and emergency is one of those.
And the contract procurement thresholds for both the city council and the city administrator.
And we found that the departments operate with what one of your managers,
with whom we had an interview with several managers, but one manager referred to the personal checkbook.
Which was for her concern because it meant that the departments could go forward to city council and
request approval to award a contract to an unnamed vendor for an unnamed amount for an unnamed duration.
And that is one of those practices that is in violation of your policy.
But in fact, it's something that we discovered during the course of this work that has been in practice.
And then there's a lack of written guidance or executive oversight creates
consistent application of the equity and procurement requirements across departments,
albeit provisions that are in your policy.
So those observations came from our interviews with the department managers.
And consequently, non-compliance can produce discrimination.
And we feel that the market forces do not explain the observed outcomes.
There are administrative decision making is an explanation for those outcomes.
So there is an economic impact that results from not
spending money with the taxpayers that help to assist and fund the city's operation.
And many jurisdictions around the country have taken very seriously the importance of
doing business with local vendors because of the benefits that accrue from that.
And so we have now discovered that two decades later, four disparity studies, African-American
and women-owned businesses continue to have a disparity.
It has persisted over these two decades.
In the small local business program which was established in 2020-03.
A quarter of a century ago, it's still ineffective in achieving parity for
businesses that wish to do business with the city and available to do business with the city.
And over 50% of the prime contract dollars are awarded to 27 businesses
who control most of your subcontract awards.
And I think it's important to note that nearly 65% of the city's prime contracts were awarded to non-Oakland businesses.
The impact loss of revenue to city businesses,
loss of business tax to the city, and
the indirect loss of sales and property taxes,
as well as an observed increased commercial office vacancies and
empty retail space that you can all tie back to the issue of the decisions
made when your dollars were being spent, the dollars of your taxpayers were being spent.
So there are a couple of recommendations that we might ask that you consider.
And I'll ask that you consider increasing local and
small local business enterprise program accountability.
And you want to have a structured and enhanced certification process.
And you want to include subcontracting provisions in that policy.
And to publish your operating procedures so that businesses know what is being done and considered.
And for you to eliminate your waiver provision to take away
or to give to the prime contractor the authority to decide whether or not they want to use
a local business as a subcontractor is giving away too much of your authority.
And we think that that's something you should really reconsider.
And to assess penalties for failure to achieve subcontracting, the small local business subcontracting
goals and to verify the participation and require approval to substitute a
business. There's again reports from the anecdotal that businesses received a
contract but never received any work as a result of that contract and that the
managers managing the project were not attentive to ensuring that the
participation occurred as promised when a contract was awarded. We also think
that a systematic and very structured outreach program to market, any changes that are made
to improve contracting and access to contracting.
And to develop a forecast of contracts that are for upcoming, businesses should know,
with sufficient lead time, where you're proposing to spend your money, the scale and scope of
those contracts, and the timing of their advertisement is not an unusual request, and it's clearly
Probably not unusual for local governments as well as states and counties to provide
forecasts in that respect.
And then the disputes, businesses spoke of very trying times when they had a dispute
with a prime contractor or with a department, but had no real avenue to take those disputes,
no real time frame for when those disputes would be addressed or whether they would be
addressed.
Those are good public policy.
It's not costly, and it doesn't have any color tint to it.
It's just a good way to do business.
And we also think that you should have quarterly reports
that are verified data of who received your contracts,
who the subcontractors were, what contractors were paid,
and what disputes or other issues arose
so that you know how the dollars are being spent
And also the public is made aware of that.
And when you pay a prime contractor,
that information should be public,
it should be on the website,
and you should publish it the same day,
whatever number of days you want to publish it in a month
so that the business knows when to go
to see if its prime contractor has been paid.
It reduces the disputes,
it reduces the time that your staff has to spend
answering questions about when is payment going to be made,
And it also makes those responsible for paying more accountable.
And we think, too, it's very important to debrief the unsuccessful bidders so
that they know better how to do business with you and how to improve their success.
So those are a number of things that you can do.
We are now in a post-209 environment where we have a constitutional amendment
that says that you cannot do preferential treatment.
And with that in mind, it has certain conditions
that have to be honored.
And I might note, I think there's evidence
that there is preferential treatment
and I think that should be addressed.
But you can comply with all of your Title VI requirements.
There will be a level of transparency
that will result from that.
And you can apply and comply with Caltrans DBE goals
because those are mandated and they should be
in all of your documents
and it should be a condition of award.
And you can apply an independent lens
to determine if discrimination exists
or to use or the use of preferential treatment
in the procurement and contracting process.
And I might note for those clients of ours
that have applied this lens,
they are looking at process that's used
develop a scope of work, the development of a scope of work, the scale of that work, the
timeline for that work, and the requirements determine in many respects who can bid those
contracts.
So you want to look at that.
You want to look at staff, and you want to look at staff assigned to this process, and
you want to see if there's any patterns that indicate that there may need to be more attention
given to equity and to fairness in the process.
So that lens is a very, very important process and you're being used increasingly by governments
that really want to get to the systemic issues that express themselves in who is awarded
a contract.
And you can in turn reflect the city's business community's ethnic and gender makeup on the
selection panels and to publish evaluator scores.
parties who are working on behalf of the city and who sit on a panel should sit
there as representatives of the taxpayers as well as the organization
for which they are employed. And therefore their decisions should be public
and they should be held accountable for the decisions that they make. And I think
with that you will find that you will have more fairness in the process and
more equity in the distribution of your contracts. And I think you will bring
more dollars to the city and it will make for a much more functional
environment for the businesses that are within the city and who pay city taxes.
And with that, I want to thank you for the opportunity to bring this study to
you. It's a long time coming but nevertheless, I don't know whether the
facts have changed in the time since we began this work but I'm glad that as a
business owner in this city that the city administrator city attorney and no
doubt the City Council will make the decision to do things that will result
in greater equity in the ward of contract and distribution of the wealth
within the city and with that I want to thank you. Thank you so much for as you
You stated a very long-awaited study that so many people on this Council and the City
have been concerned and deeply invested in trying to understand the nuances of.
That was an incredibly thorough presentation and an even more thorough report.
Thank you for all of the work that went into this.
And as you said, not sure how much has changed since 2021, but I think most of us weren't
the city in the first time and
I'm hoping we can use it on this
council in 2021 so I'm hoping
that we can utilize some of your
recommendation and drive the
city forward.
I will pass it to my colleagues,
councilmember Brown in Houston.
Excellent.
Thank you so much.
It's good to see you again, Dr.
M.Z.
I'm not sure if you remember me,
but there's so much consistency
I'm a state contractor and I
believe you were able to get
that that particular contract
right- but I think that like I
guess the point that I'm making
here is that you know I know
that the report states. Many
areas of opportunity- for the
that you've been studying for a very long time,
and so just really want to thank you
for your continued due diligence
in really shedding light on these issues.
I have a handful of questions,
but I know that members of the public have been waiting
to kind of engage us and give a public comment,
and so was hoping for the opportunity
to hear from members of the public.
Council Member Houston.
I'ma share this, hi Dr. Ramsey.
I'm angered.
As soon as I took seat, and along with Council Member Fife,
I took seat, I've been in office 13 months.
And day one, day one, I was saying,
why is the S-L-B-E being waved?
Some of these, and I got this so you don't have to actually,
I got this so you don't have to call it up.
I want you to explain, these numbers are disturbing,
Because when me, myself, council member five,
we fighting about this, you know what they called me?
They said I was bid rigging.
Because I'm fighting for SLBEs.
And this one right here, disturbing.
This is criminal, in my opinion, this is criminal.
And 23 years, 23 years, they put that SLBE in place.
and we're in worse condition than we were then.
23 years.
I got eight minutes.
So you can put the clock on.
I was on the other side of this fence and I saw it.
Dr. Ramsey, now I'm sitting up here
and can pass legislation and policy
to fight for my people, my brown and black people.
I've been on the other side.
So I'm gonna say this.
I was talking to my brother the other day, he was hurt.
He called me up and he was hurt and I saw it in his eyes.
He said, kid, I couldn't even sleep.
This is disturbing that we had to go through this
and others had to go through this, right?
It's unjust.
I appreciate your efforts and I know you for a long,
long time ago and I respect that you're a genius always
and this just shows it more.
So we have to come together as a people
and as a community, as a people, as a community.
And it doesn't matter what color you are,
what's right is what's right.
My mother is black and my father's Latino.
Never met him.
All I know is black.
Cut my vein, it drips black.
So that's what I fight for, but I can't say certain things
because of 209, right?
So I'ma look at it like this, small local businesses.
You know who that is, right, right?
So I'ma fight, I've been in office for 13 months
and I'm gonna fight and I'm gonna fight and I'm gonna fight.
And if who knows me, I'm built from a different cloth.
And I always say this, I just look like this, right?
So I'm gonna fight for my people
and I know people on this council
because this is a different council.
I'm gonna tell you, this is not the same council.
We get along, we disagree.
And I like what Council Member Unger said one time,
just because I disagree with you, Ken,
we still gonna make it happen.
I love that kind of leadership, right?
So I'm gonna say this and I'm gonna pass this
to the council member five because she's gonna begin on something I know that go
ahead council member five thank you for passing the baton so through the chair
I do want to speak to this issue because as councilmember Houston mentioned some
of the pushback that he's received I've also received pushback for attempting to
create equity on this body but I believe you've heard enough from this body I
I would love to hear the public speakers as well
because you all are a majority of the reason
why we're moving forward to correct
this information right now.
We've been in meetings, we've been struggling,
we've been fighting.
I remember being at Baines Construction,
talking to Kathy Adams,
trying to get the disparity study out,
the one before this one.
So this is not a new effort,
but I really do want to hear from the public speakers
and then I'll speak to what Council Member Houston
was talking about.
Thank you, Council Member Wong.
I'll be brief since nothing I can say really.
My colleagues have said it all,
and it's just upsetting and we've got to do better.
So let's move to public comment.
Okay, we can move to public comment.
As I call your name, please approach the podium in any order.
Please state your name for the record before beginning.
If you are on Zoom and you wish to speak
and you signed up for this item,
Please raise your hand so I can easily identify you.
Destiny Muhammad, Mississauga Ola Bala,
Michael Baines, Samuel Adams, Herman Adams,
Kay Letitia Maras, Petra Brady, Jael Fong,
Roxanne Monique Mosley, Ramona, is it Catherine?
Sherry Moseley, John Edwin Scott, Henry Williams,
Josephine, yeah, you got it.
Annabelle Goodridge, Derek Barnes, Kevin Dalley,
Lynn Turner, Mr. Boatwright, Kathy Adams,
Chadwick, Donnell Spell, Paul Cobb, Mr. Hazard.
You can begin where you're ready.
Is there a time we have a
question that the time is shown
behind me on the screen and you
have one minute to address the
council.
Well first of all I like to say
this is a long time coming.
Doctor Ramsey I respect her in
Chicago I respect her in Atlanta
this study has been done all
over the United States is the
first time.
That we've looked at the
studies and really took the
state from a political
standpoint to reality.
Well I'm a victim of this
study.
Twenty years ago I started this
whole thing about minority
I think it's going to be a
$5 million so we grew right in
east Oakland we grew so let
you know that public policy can
generate a general contractor
that has the ability to hire
our people and that's what you
do it's a old boy network you
start talking about diversity
this old boy network blacks are
blacks Chinese are blacks
Latinos are and that's the
reality of what we're up against
so we got to get more where we
can hire our own people with our
we're going to make a move because nobody ever made a move before
they had a lot of talking we even had a press conference
and they slipped the study out underneath with them thank you so your
time is up and can you give me your name please
what i didn't hear you i said your time is up but can you give me your name
thank you very much and i'll say dr ramsey thank you god bless you
good evening everybody i'll make this real quick
um i just want to first of all thank you dr ramsey
I was part of this study, they called me.
So I really appreciate that.
So my time is going.
I'm gonna just be real brief.
I would like to see all local participation goals
go back up to 50%.
I'm asking the city administration to release all waivers.
There's a 25 year waiver on Sewer just alone.
I'm asking you to please release all waivers immediately.
So immediately all waivers.
I want you to look at other cities like San Francisco and New York.
They have citizen programs, all VSLBE contractors should be written into all contracts.
And until they graduate out of VSLBE, I think that all reparations may should be considered.
But black and women owned businesses are struggling, we need to set racial goals.
Thank you. Mr. Cooper. Your time is up.
Can I do the chair? Can I bring something up?
The reason why I went before council member
Jenkins said that it might miss quorum
and he had said that one minute.
I think that my people should have two minutes.
And council member Five feels the same way.
She said it to me and I'm just standing by her side.
So I think they should have two minutes to speak
because I don't like them getting cut off that quick.
That's what I wanna say through the chair.
To the parliamentarian, since the meeting already started
with one minute, is there a way to go back
and award previous speakers?
How does this work if we were to change it?
Through the chair to the body, your rules provide
that speakers should be treated uniformly,
and the council president did make a statement earlier
in the meeting for one minute,
and he stated those reasons on the record.
We're doing some research so we appreciate your patience. Thank you
Okay, I will it is our rules clearly state if we have the items starting with a certain number of minutes for every item
we have to
continue with it, but I will use my discretion to
Give two minutes per speaker that being said the speakers that have already spoken
Will get an extra minute if they wish to speak now and we can start there
that's what's up that means Oakland okay so just before you start let me just see
where I left off that okay I'm ready and thank you all right once again so you
know I said that you should think about putting women and black contractors in
some kind of position for maybe reparations whatever right I think we
should have racial set-aside goals like after seven years of a disparity you
can set racial goals dr. Ramsey can speak to that minority contractors versus
the city of Boston look into that we should also have real-time goals like
let's not keep this down the road anymore I'm talking about 60 days or
less. And then of all recommendations once again to stop all waivers and bring
the goes back up to 50% and I thank you. Kathy Adams for the record I've been
yield time to Herman Adams raise your hand Destiny Muhammad I hope she's still
here. Is Destiny still here? Yes and Petra Brady too and I have to I won't
can't use eight minutes, but I'm ready when you are.
My name is Kathy Adams.
I'm president of the Oakland African-American
Chamber of Commerce, speaking on behalf of a coalition
that includes OAACC, Construction Research,
I'm so sorry, but excuse me.
Can I start over, because they're distracting me.
They're having a whole meeting over there.
Madam Clerk, can we restart the time?
Can you guys just give us just a little respect.
is speaking right in this corner.
Okay, thank you.
My name is Kathy Adams.
I'm the president of the Oakland
African American Chamber of Commerce,
speaking on behalf of a coalition
that includes OAACC, Construction Resource Center,
National Association of Minority Contractors of NorCal,
and members of East Bay Rental Housing.
We just recognized 100 years of black history,
I can't say celebration.
And here we stand, our people are resilient.
Thank you OAACC members.
Being disrespected is never acceptable.
Being treated unfairly today is why I am here.
There's a phrase say, so the last will be first
and the first will be last.
Challenges our human understanding
of fairness and status and reward.
And this is tied to God's kingdom.
I want to speak plainly.
The 2024 disparity study confirms what our businesses
have known and experienced for years.
Oakland's public contracting system
operate as a closed network.
Public dollars are concentrated
among a small group of firms,
many of them non-local while qualified minority
and women-owned firms remain underutilized
despite documented availability and capacity.
This is not subjected, it's documented.
This is not about special treatment,
it's about fairness, compliance,
and economic sustainability.
When public dollars fail to circulate locally,
Oakland loses jobs, we lose tax revenue,
We lose opportunities for small businesses to grow and hire.
The study also raises serious concerns
about DBE participation and federal compliance.
That should concern every member of this council.
So let me be very clear about what we're asking for.
We're asking for three specific actions.
First, formally accept the disparity study findings,
not symbolically, but with acknowledgment
that disparities exist and require correction.
Second, create a business-led staff-supported task force
to recommend structural procurement reforms.
Third, direct city administration
to produce a remediation and implementation
roadmap within 60 days.
Accept the findings, create a business owner's
Oakland Task Force delivers 60-day road map.
The study must be a mandate or is formed,
not a document that sits on the shelf.
I want to thank Dr. Ramsey,
all the council members,
particularly Council Member Carol Fife for stepping up,
because we've been on this for a long time,
and all of our fellow council members,
thank you to OAACC businesses.
I get up every day because of these people and I never get tired even in the mist of loss. I keep fighting I
Want to thank?
Our 93 year old sister
When you think about
celebrating a hundred years
This is 93 years right here and this is her standing here
She didn't even get sleepy on y'all
She stayed she stayed resilient and
Sometimes even in the midst of adversity we stand we fight
We stand on your backs
we stand on our ancestors back and we will not stop fighting and we expect and
Demand that you treat us right less wrong. Let's make our wrong, right? And this is a good time to do it. Thank you
Okay, my name is Annabelle Gudrich. This is my mom, Josephine Gudrich, and I haven't had a contract from the City of Oakland.
I have contracts from City of Berkeley,
City of San Francisco, Salesforce, Berlin Game, not one. I've tried to get in touch with the
procurement people. I have emailed, I have called, no response.
But I have serious stuff that's going on. I'm taking my mom
space too so Josephine goodrich I want you to know garbage at the side of my building a lot of garbage I
Got a parking ticket. I was doing on the sidewalk I parked because I had theft before
we had uber delivery
put the food in the car and
Over 200 meals was gone
So now when I cater I park on the paper. I got a hundred and ten dollar ticket. I paid it
But that's not the main concern
Last Wednesday, I'm gonna say it as it is. I'm taking my mom time. So y'all could think a
white man
I'm out my business in my car. He can't I'm gonna talk raw
He came up to me and said you black fucking
nigger. You need to go back to the jungle. And I turn around in my car. I had to take
10 deep breaths because my mom was there. And I'm like, don't, don't. So I stop by the
traffic like that, stay right there. And he decided to come from across to what's my
car, say, motherfucker, if you come to my car, I will fuck you up. And I was not joking
think about that I was so serious and he reversed and went back did this
respectful through see the time you get an additional one minute to clerk staff
did you add the one minute already so we'll see the time you get one minute
you have one additional minute okay the city of Oakland do not promote East
they're going to be able to
connect with East Oakland
businesses. When they can.
Consul man Gallo. He never
come back ever. Nobody. Jen
kens. Came by the mayor of
Oakland came by the other day
which was great but we don't
get no support in East Oakland
none whatsoever. So I don't
And most of all, the safety of black businesses
in that area because white people feel the entitle.
I work hard, I work hard.
Sometime I woke up five o'clock in the morning.
I just did the taste of NFL.
I just put Oakland on the map.
I just did K-R-O-N-T-V and talk about all this stuff.
I'm worldwide, I'm well-known, good.
Hello my name is Roxanne Mosley and I want to make sure that everybody is aware that I have my sister who also signed up my fiance who also signed up and my mother so that's two four five six.
I would like six minutes on the call the maximum amount of time is five and I need I need the names before I give you this.
Yes Roxanne Mosley.
do you want to know the name of my family whoever is seating you time i need those sherry moseley
joel fong Ramona Catherine okay i'm going to bring it to real world and we're since we're
talking about east oakland we're going to stay on east oakland i am the owner of sweet fingers
restaurant. That is a business located and seminary point. If
anybody is aware that. That business that development. I was
years ago that this city council voted on a contract for that
development within out not a local. Developer but an out of
his town developer by the name of sunfield development. He was
he was given that development for $6,000.
That was the contract that he was given
for that multimillion dollar development.
As we sit here today,
that multimillion dollar development
does not have the Walgreens there anymore.
Some other places are vacant there as well.
Why is that because he does not care about the Oakland
residents or the Oakland businesses.
So what does he do.
He prices the leases, the spaces for extremely high.
My particular unit, he has at $12,000 a month.
When I actually invested in that property,
that I came into as a shell with nothing in it, period,
$1.6 million.
And I pay taxes on $1 million plus a year
since I've been there.
I'm keeping it 120%.
And now I am being forced out of this property
Because I will not agree to a $12,000 a month rent.
That particular community, although I love it well,
cannot sustain a $12,000 a month rent.
They love us.
They take care of us.
If you look at all of the rest of the properties
in the buildings, go have a field trip.
You will see that the only building there
that is not tagged up and messed up is Sweet Fingers.
Why is that?
Because we take care of our community.
We provide a space for our community.
We provide quality ingredients and food for our community.
This is why we fought for this space.
This is why I have fought Sunfield development
for this space.
And why I'm telling you this is
because when there's been a mistake or an error made,
not by your counsel, I know this was another counsel,
we need to take steps to mediate that, okay?
We need to take steps to make sure
that if we have a slumlord lease that's on a long term
that he's not allowed to stay there.
I know for a fact that when that particular contract
was awarded to him, he was supposed to make that
an affordable place for businesses to thrive and to grow.
And then you wonder why that build,
that space is half empty.
It's half empty because you cannot thrive and grow
with some made up, calm charges, calm charges.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
This man is lining his pockets while he doesn't even live.
He had a business there when he first opened up.
He went ahead and put a business in
when he first got the contract.
But guess what, he left.
He abandoned his own property.
He doesn't live in Oakland.
He lives over there in some place in Contra Costa.
So what I'm saying, Orinda, Orinda, that's where he lives.
So what I'm saying is we need to do better.
We need to look out for our black owned businesses.
We need to award more contracts,
and when they're being discriminated against
or discouraged from their spot,
then we need to support them and protect them.
That's what I'm saying, and if that means
you have to kick him out under the rules
with the city attorney being able to look it up
and see if he's following the guidelines
that he was supposed to follow
when he got that particular property,
then that's what you need to do.
Kick him out and put a local property management.
All right, ready.
In public service, there are the hard things.
Before you begin, please give me your name.
Chad Rixbell, the chair of the board
for the Oakland American Chamber,
CEO of the What's Your Group.
This last disparity study, this current one,
people were scared of what's in it, the recommendations,
how people are gonna view it, what can we do about it?
It's not your counsel, not the current city administration.
But today we have an opportunity.
The opportunity we have is to look at it differently
and to do something and restore faith
in this body and the city.
Number one, accept it as is.
number two, like said before, do a business led commission with staff supporting it and
have that 60 days afterwards, an actual action plan that gets put in place.
Now we can ask ourselves, okay, what is that going to do?
I say just vote on it now and put something in place for a commission, a commission of
business owners that know what's going on with your staff that can help put something
together with the recommendations that she's already given and we can just move forward.
And it gives you the opportunity not just give faith back in you, in the city, but work
with all the organizations that are here, all the community that is looking for jobs,
businesses, the contractors have been complaining for over 15, 20 years, and get faith back
in something instead of walking in fear.
We have the intelligence, we have the know-how to navigate the fear and navigate all the issues
you think are going to come legally or whatever from state and national.
You don't put, you don't have faith in fear.
You fear what you have faith in.
And I want to have faith in y'all.
And have anyone coming to comfort us fear you.
Okay, Maraz, Eastmont neighborhood council 30-Y.
I want to echo the sentiments of Sweet Fingers.
We know that the folks, for example, at Eastmont Mall, they do not live in Oakland.
They live in Los Angeles.
They do not step up.
We do bankrupt cleanings.
They are not engaged.
We know the lady that owns Church of Chicken, she does not live in Oakland.
She lives in Texas.
We have to track her down when her lots are a hot mess.
75% of Oakland city contracts awarded to non-minority males.
That is concerning.
We know Dr. Ramsey has been coming here for 20 years
saying the same thing.
We know that she went to the county 20 years ago.
They managed to change their statistics.
I don't really want to see study after study after study.
The data has to continue to flow.
But I would like to see change.
I would like to see this council figure it out.
for people who care.
And they've made the suggestions of what is not working we need we need contractors in Oakland to have equity we need property managers and Oakland to have equity to live here to care to be neighbors thank you.
Good afternoon thank you my name is Brenda Harbin for today I am a retired judge and I am here on behalf of the NAACP Oakland branch.
this year the N A A C P celebrates one hundred seventeen years of fighting for equal justice and economic equity. We ask the council to not just adopt or accept this report. But to act quickly and start doing something about it. This is an emergency and everybody needs to see this as an emergency. This has been going on entirely too long.
you know that you don't really
want to do something wrong and
you've turned a blind eye to it
we can do something about it
now I want to thank a doctor
Ramsey for her excellent report
I want to also ask the city
administrator Justin Johnson
why this report was released
without the recommendations
action section of that report.
Why were the recommendations
kept from the public we have a
that you can. And we ask you
that you release the report that
you release it that contains
all the re recommendations we
found no legal authority for
you to withhold those
recommendations our taxpayer
money paid for that we paid good
money for the excellent work of
doctor Ramsey whether some legal
impediment to enforcing or to
implementing the recommendations
that's a totally separate thing
but you cannot keep those
and I want to just point out
I'm a working group or something
to address these issues to find
out what can be done
immediately in the short term
what is a long term part of a
project but to get something
done.
In ninety days at least for
sixty let me say that the
opportunities in the past to
protect the women and minorities
in town and in Oakland.
You've not done it.
In December.
Thank you your time is up.
leadership of the city we really appreciate it and the things I'm gonna
say I know it's not a reflection of this body here but is that report first of
all my name is Lynn Turner business owner born and raised here that report
I was actually a part of but I didn't even agree with it because I didn't
think we needed a disparity study. We already know we're in despair. However,
when I read that Thursday night for the first time, it broke my heart.
I love the city of Oakland and Oakland doesn't seem to love us. This was
horrible. It's criminal. When you look at that report and you see what's in there,
it's ridiculous so if you look at page 2023 I believe it is and you add up the
black Latino Asian number those three numbers don't equal the white person's
number you know the white companies is five times more their number is five
times more and we think that we are being treated justly and we aren't. It's
horrible and then on the other page I mean the other page with the waivers
they wave even before the contract is out you don't even get an opportunity to
see if there's anybody that exists it's horrible so what I'm asking is you
adopt it but also we got to get to work we don't need any more studies let's put
group together the council what I like you guys to do a lot I like you guys to
do is to adopt the disparity study put a date let's get a date for leadership of
the city whatever our group is because I ask people with that sounds interesting
what were you asking people if you have a complaint this is what I tell people
work for me. If you have a complaint, come with a solution. The city asks for this report.
We have some concerns and we have some solutions that's performance-based. Let's put those
in place now. We don't need to wait. We've been waiting. We've been cheated in a sense
out of several projects. We're not looking for a handout. We're looking for a fair shake.
looking for equity in our own city.
Thank you.
Hi, Kevin Dally, here to talk about.
I really appreciate Dr. Ramsey's work.
Councilmember Feib's years of pushing
and continuing to push.
And Councilmember Houston, I've been watching a lot
in the last year, 13 months, sorry, for pushing recently.
I'm interested in contracts that make streets safer, get streets paved.
In a few minutes, we'll be talking about a half million dollar award to a cyclist who
hit a pothole because the work hadn't been done.
I agree that the challenge to the city administrator and to the staff and to Oak Dot and to Public
works, how do we get a list of contractors so we can move a list of contractors, local
minority owned, woman owned, so we can move ahead at a good speed to get the streets paved.
We don't have that list now, and we cannot really move ahead at full speed.
I admit I'm guilty in the past.
We had an ADA consent decree.
I spoke out in favor of waving the rules for rewarding contracts on the ADA contracts.
I think it was an okay idea, but I'm not as convinced as I used to be on that, but this
should be the last time we wave.
We need to move ahead, get a plan moving, and I am looking forward a few months from
what's the best way to do that
and now to sing this plan and
what we can do to make things
better thank you.
I guess I call this equal time.
I close it like to say again
that doctor we have the study.
Definitely supports everything
we've been seeing here tonight
but the thing again we could
talk about all the policies we
can talk about all the meetings
we can go to a community meeting
we can go to outreach.
We talk about implementation we
talk about enforcement we talk
that go out to sites and look at the sites,
actually walk the sites and count how many minorities there
and actually have a report there hands-on,
not something third-party but going out
and having the ability to make these decisions.
And the only way you're gonna get that is supply people
in those contract compliance departments.
If you've got one person trying to control
300 small companies, that's impossible.
So let's talk about implementation with enforcement
and that's talking about a budget.
Now you got to put a budget together for the implementation.
So all everything else that you have before you will mean nothing.
It's a policy.
It's no implementation.
And you guys have great policy because I'm an example.
Your policy does work.
Your policies work if you got the right enforcement.
So as I speak tonight, again, Dr. Ramsey.
Miss Ola Bala and Mr. Hazardy wish to speak on the side.
The City of Oakland prompt payment ordinance
found in open municipal code chapter 2.06
requires the city and its contractors
to pay invoices within 15 to 20 days.
15 to 20 days.
You continue to violate that policy.
You have policies that you violate all the time.
And no, Ramachanda, it's not just because of the council.
If you'd be attentive to what's going on in this city,
you would know what's happening.
This is not anything new.
You need enforcement.
You need to do the recommendations that
are in Dr. Ramsey's report.
You sit up there, and you want to do a task force.
What we need a task force for?
You have a policy, but you waive 128 contracts.
You waive the policy.
When it should have gone to local businesses.
Shame on you.
You sit up there in these pompous seats
as though you were concerned.
You don't do a damn thing.
All these other communities that don't have to have a task force,
Sometimes they don't even have to come here.
I introduced Gayle to the young lady here.
Her business is at Fairfax and High Street, am I right?
He ain't never been there.
That was over, what, a year and a half ago?
OK?
Never been there in his community.
So y'all are chucking black folks.
Enforce the policies.
Thank you, Mr Hazard.
It's going to take more than my two minutes to read you since 2020, the
number of task force commissions, studies, and reports for black people
in the state of California, you have the task force to develop reparation
proposals for African Americans.
You have the Alameda commission, Alameda County commission for reparations.
You have the California racial equity commission.
You have the commission on the status of African Americans.
You have this California reparations report.
You have the, uh, civil rights department hate survey highlighted
African American experiences.
You have the racial justice act studies of that for African Americans.
You have the mortgage lending, uh, discrimination study for African Americans.
You have the housing and homeless report disparity treatment
of African-Americans you have the state of California analysis of black Americans you
have the reparations San Francisco discriminatory report you have the San Francisco African-Americans
reparation advisory committee you have the study of black L. A. county report you have
the San Francisco reparations task force the Glendale Dale report on being in sundown cities
our towns
you have the
uh...
martin marin county status analysis of highly racial disparities of african
americans
you have the report
and i'm gonna stop
it's time to stop the studies and reports
and studies
you have no study to become a sanctuary city
you have no study
a privacy commission
you have no study
to deal with many of the issues that you pick action on.
You just do it.
The state of California.
Thank you Miss Ola Bala.
Amen, Sister Ola Bala.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Paul Cobb.
I'm the publisher of the Oakland Post
and the Post El Mundo News Group.
I am here tonight to join with the many speakers
who came out in support of yet another completed study.
As Ralph Williams, who was the unofficial mayor
of West Oakland where I was born,
used to say, it's time to stop studying the studies,
researching the research and do something
That is requires some action and I think that I think that we should commend
Eleanor Mason Ramsey for this wonderful thorough study that has researched and
expose all of the wrongs of the city, especially since the Libby era that was
studied so thoroughly. We need to be liberated from all of that. I hope I would like to join
with because so much has been said and a prodigious amount of thought, emotion, energy has been
invested in this topic. And I would like to just say that I joined with Kathy Adams, the
president of the African American business organization.
I join with Eleanor Mason Ramsey.
I join with all the other individuals and organizations
that have spoken here tonight.
I hope that you do adopt a policy.
I hope that you establish a board.
I would like to volunteer to be a member of that board,
or at least if you don't want me,
at least you should accept.
Do you wanna finish it?
Is there something else you need to add
in the next 20 seconds?
20 seconds, I can close it out.
I hope that you implement it,
and now that we're in the midst of Women's History Month,
I think that we should commend Carol Fife and others
who are here for showing the leadership
for women's history month.
And as Sister Brown said,
she was an advocate for the live workspace.
I'm an advocate for those who want to work and live
and stay and make money in Oakland as well.
We need to reverse the cash flow characteristics
and stop subsidizing the suburbs with our money.
Thank you, Mr. Cobb.
Mr. Boatwright, do you wish to comment on this item?
Mr. Boatwright, do you wish to speak on this item?
Moving to the Zoom speaker, Derek Barnes,
please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Yeah, good evening, Madam Clerk and city council members,
Derek Barnes, Chief Theory President,
Oakland Business Owner and Operator.
Thank you, Dr. Ransley, for yet another report.
It's thorough, insightful, and I'm just so emotional
listening to the speakers, and again,
your report delivered to the Chamber. The study does not describe a minor imbalance.
In summary, it calls out a closed contracting network where public dollars are concentrated
among a small group of firms, many of them non-local, as we've heard. Open businesses
remain unutilized. We heard that. This is not just another equity issue. It eliminates
competitive resourcing. It's an economic leakage for our city. Let that sink in. Dollars flow
out of this city, you've heard me talk about that, and I think this is a clear example of what
happens when this occurs constantly. So first, you know, we have federal compliance exposure,
Dr. Ramsey talked about that. Next, we have some fiscal instability because the dollars leave
Oakland. And finally, we have an issue with public trust. And that's what many speakers have talked
about this evening. It's time for us to get in action and not just talk about reports and studies
So, the three immediate actions are to formally accept the findings and direct city administration
to come up with a roadmap and some measurable milestones within the next 60 days.
And establish an independent public staff task force, which I think could be done fairly
quickly so that you can get recommendations from people who know about the business.
You know, there are other cities that have done this.
I think there are models out there that we can leverage.
Oakland cannot afford another disparity steady
that sits on the shelf.
So the question before the council is simple,
will we move forward or will we maintain a system
that limits competition and pushes money
out of our own city?
Thank you, Mr. Barnes, for your comments.
Mr. Chair, all names have been called.
All right, thank you everybody that's came out,
everybody that's advocated over the years.
I will take comments from the council members
starting with council member five.
Thank you council president Jenkins
and I'll keep my remarks brief
because I feel like I've been doing too much talking
over the last several years on this issue.
But I will say that I am greatly,
I guess my heart is full from all of the people
who came out to support
and who haven't given up on this issue to date.
And I'm just honored to be a reflection
of the fight that you all have in you
to push us to do what we're supposed to do as this body.
Dr. Ramsey, I am just over the moon.
I'm in awe of your persistence
and your diligence in this work.
And I have to say, this is not about black people.
We can't even say that legally.
This is about doing the right thing
because it's the right thing to do.
And so thank you for continuing to push us
because when discrimination is building the systems,
I hear this all the time,
like there's good people who work for the city.
They're not gonna do anything that's racist
or discriminatory.
When discrimination is built into systems,
you can have good people perpetuate bad policy.
And it recreates systems that are problematic
for generations to come.
And there has not been a time in this country
where impacted folks have not had to fight
for their existence and fight for the right
to have just a little access.
And I think in 2026, we're beyond having to fight
for those little bits of scraps,
and this report shows us what is accessible,
and you all are demanding it.
And I heard three clear demands tonight
that I wanna respond to,
and I wanna invite the city administrator into,
because in my conversations with the city administrator,
since I've been here,
Administrator Johnson is the only one
who's lent an ear to what I've been fighting for.
The only one, I've had what, five mayors
and I don't even know how many city administrators
since I've been on the council?
And so Administrator Johnson, I do wanna,
I don't know if Emmeline is here,
I don't know if the director of DWES is here,
but I do wanna say that we have been in conversation
about how to address the systems issues that Oakland has.
And on March 24th there will be an item coming to my committee
about the SLBE program.
It's something that council member Houston has been vocal
about and something that I've been trying to work
with our city staff on amending since 2021.
So that is coming forward.
Is director Espia present to speak to that?
Through the chair of council member PIPE, yes.
Director Espia is here and those recommendations
are coming to LEC.
And I think one of the things I really appreciate
is the fact that through Director Espia's work,
she's really taking into considerations
the recommendations of the disparity study
as a baseline, but also in her professional recommendation
and her work in this space, she's able to articulate
what's working and what is not working
based on what the existing policies that we have in place.
So director, she, I just want to give her
just an opportunity to share a few words.
Yeah, good afternoon to the chair.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak
through working closely with Council Member Fife.
I am going to come to LEC on March 24th.
There are a lot of recommendations that Dr. Ramsey said
that are operational, that we should just be able
to implement as soon as we can.
Capacity is an issue, I think some public speakers
And that's the way we spoke to
that around the city's capacity
to enforce the policy fully.
But there are policy changes
that council needs to take
action on that will be the focus
of the presentation on March
24th, but I think the idea of a
council is definitely one that
is going to be presented on the
24th.
The disparity study was first presented in my committee.
We talked about a roundtable, I announced a roundtable would be formed to discuss the
findings and how we can implement them.
There are legal considerations that we have to take into consideration with the administration
that we all know is a problem that has us in wars all over the country, all over the
world, but at the same time, there are low-hanging fruit that we should be able to implement
immediately and I heard what the community said about a time-based
implementation plan and that is what I would like to discuss with you all in
conjunction with the city administrator and the city attorney's office so that
we can hit the ground running so I would like to announce that meeting on March
17th in preparation for the the life enrichment committee meeting that will
be happening on March 24th but the three things that I heard very clearly were
I think it's more likely that
we'll have to look at some of
the recommendations as to whether
we're accepting the findings,
accept the report, so receive
and accept the report, work with
the city to create that road map
and I heard 60 to 90 days.
I think that is doable.
Administrator Johnson, you can
speak to that and then bringing
this body together to look
through the recommendations to
see what's possible.
There are a host of
recommendations that have been
suggested in addition to the
time nothing will work out well so we want to take some key recommendations
that we can implement that we will see immediate results to so that's what we
will start to discuss the enforcement and implementation March 17th and I just
wanted to confirm administrator Johnson if if that is amenable to the city
administrator's office through the chair of the council member five yes and also
So I'm also just acknowledging in my last one on one with
president Jenkins he did also ask to make sure that that
framework is coming forward so just want to just acknowledge
that that request did come and so but to answer your question
directly yes that's a reasonable time for them.
Thank you.
So I will make a make the motion to receive and file this
report understanding that action will be taking immediately
on the things that we've heard and we will be in conversation through the
council president's office my office and I think councilmember Houston you
said you wanted to be involved as well whatever we're bringing forward so I
will definitely be in conversation with all of you all because I don't want to
speak for the council we haven't taken a vote yet but I know my colleagues want
to move in a direction when it comes to equity and this is one of the ways that
we can hold ourselves accountable to what we know needs to happen in the city
of Oakland so I thank you all. Thank you thank you so much Councilmember Fife. We have a motion
on the floor and uh Councilmember O'Brien. Excellent um well thank you thank you so much
Councilmember Fife for your leadership on this item. I did have a question definitely understand
that we will be taking action on on this report there's a round table coming focusing in on a
roadmap as well as I was reading through the report I guess I'm curious if there
are any of the like any lower hanging fruits that we have this the
administration is moving forward with I think one of the items on in the slide
is slide 34 where it talks about contractors being paid timely and also
the ability to publish these things on the website just was curious if if that
It's it's just a couple of
steps that was an item that.
Was it that I know that there
has been a decent amount of
steps in just in this last year
to work on like contracting the
payments.
I'm just wanted to check the
status of that.
I do the chair councilmember
Brown to yes in a number of
steps that have been taken by
way of your your purchasing
administration team.
As well as some of the work that
Um, so I will definitely say, um, now is a prime opportunity to, and some of that quite
candidly is also getting our own house in order, but also the communication piece with,
piece with vendors who are sometimes not very clear about our convoluted, convoluted processes.
So things like making sure that, you know, the AP portal is being used at the became
process pavement.
A lot of folks who, who are new to doing business with Oakland may not even know that.
I think there's some smaller cleanup low-hanging fruit items, which boils down to communication and feedback, but also being
Really more customer oriented to those vendors that are doing business with us
So there are some opportunities that I think will be helpful for us to bring forward as a part of the framework in the next couple
Of weeks. Excellent. Thank you so much
Thank you councilmember Houston
Yes, I want to second receive and accept that report and I'm not going to repeat myself but 25 years ago
Set in these chambers, Darrell Kerry used to fight for the same thing.
So I said 25 years of lost businesses, generational wealth has been lost, loss of lives, and I
heard a gentleman online just said economic leakage of dollars.
Put all those together, lost generational wealth, loss of businesses, loss of lives,
of the leakage of our money going out of this city instead of staying in this city. So I'd like to
second that and receive and accept this report. Thank you. You say in Darryl Carey's name made me
thought of Eddie Dillard in this moment and just his advocacy around this. So with that we have a
motion and second. Seeing no more comments. Oh, councilmember. Thank you. Just a couple of quick
questions again thank you for the details and for all of the follow-ups
that I know is going to happen by our city administrator and fellow
colleagues you know the one of the statistics that I mean many stuck out to
me but one of the ones that I'm it sees it seems like one of the most right for
low-hanging fruit action is the 70% of contracts awarded under a hundred
And I was wondering in your research whether the majority of this were council actions
or under the city administrator, again, not anyone on this desk, but under a city administrator's
purview that this discretion was used because I think the cap of a discretionary amount
of about $250,000 has been around for quite a number of years.
Yes, in fact, during the study period, the city administrator had the authority to award
a contract up to $250,000 without council approval.
So is the majority of the contracts that were discretionary that you're referencing, are
those the bucket of contracts under the city administrator's power for the most part?
Well, the discretionary contracts are separate in terms of the process, in terms of the on-call
contracts, where the contractor wins the contract competitively, would have been a council-approved
contract, and then is given numerous smaller contracts.
That is the project, the department manager, at that time Public Works and Department of
Transportation, they had the authority to make those decisions.
the emergency contracts they have if they exceed 250 they have to come to
City Council as well as the cooperative agreements if they exceed 250 they have
to come so it's a variety of different steps but it is important that 250,000
at the time was signature only required the signature of the city administrator
Correct, and more or less it's the same.
That's right there before you.
That one is not only low hanging,
but that's on the ground.
You can pick that up and move with it immediately.
Thank you.
And my only other question, and I
know there's going to be follow up discussions, studies,
all of that, but are there cities
that you have in mind in California
that we should look to as examples of ones who do it
better when it comes to racial equity in contracting?
Well, for me, the city that is not in California,
that was exemplars the city of Columbus, Ohio.
And in that instance, the city council moved
to accept the study and immediately put in place
a committee of business owners that were committed
to come back to the city within 30 days with a proposal.
And that that proposal was supposed to involve
a discussion with staff.
And so the idea was to bring to council
recommendations that had consensus building.
And I think those have been,
that's the one example that I think is most stellar
and most fitting for what we're discussing today.
Thank you.
Hopefully we can have similar short timeframes
with implementation.
And the last thing, just a statement.
In the committee that I chair our finance committee,
we are going to be bringing a report
regarding the prompt payment policy.
This is very clearly an issue across the board of,
the most impact is certainly to minority business owners
who like you referenced need to make payroll
and can't if the city still has money owed to them
for a very long time.
I know that is one of the sorest subjects
when it comes to talking in the community
of folks who have worked so hard
to get a city contract and not be paid.
So that is one thing that will be under exploration
of what are the concrete roadblocks
and how we can make it faster citywide
and actually adhere to the policy that we have.
So thank you.
You're welcome.
Vote on the prompt payment.
You have a good law.
You need to have an implementation
and you need to have accountability.
You could request a monthly report of any vendor
that did not get paid in 30 days by the department,
by the department manager.
So you know where the violators are.
that that's that food is so visible and so accessible and it's so fundamental
that there should not be another instance where a department manager
fails to pay or fails to give the contractor an explanation that is
mutually agreed upon that would account for why the payment was it made but the
arbitrariness of paying really is a an issue that can be solved very very very
simply
So, thank you seeing them more comments from the council members, let's go to world
There is a motion by council member five seconded by council member Houston to receive a file this report
Council member Brown one second one second council member five. I apologize
I do have to mention that disparity studies are
required by charter and I know I heard several individuals say that
They don't want any more studies, but that is something that is required by the city of Oakland
So if the public does not want any future
Mrs. Satter you're out of order. So if we if we don't honestly want any future disparity studies
That's an issue that has to be
Would do we have to change the city charter for that through the chair to the city administrator or parliamentarian?
Through the chair to councilmember five. Yes, the charter does require a disparity study
So that would have to go out to the voters if we wanted to change that
So that is something that we would have to consider
And so we can talk about that in our blue ribbon Commission roundtable meeting when we when we sit down to talk about implementation
Thank you all
going back to the vote again
This information report was moved to be
Received and filed by a council member five seconded by a council member Houston
Councilmember Brown aye councilmember five aye councilmember Gallo
Councilmember Houston. I
Councilmember Ramachandran. I
Councilmember Unger I
Councilmember Wong I and chair Jenkins I motion passes with a vote of seven ayes one absent
moving to the consent calendar which is all of the
Noting that the I believe the mayor staff is available to break the tie on item 4.2
I will read the item into record one more time
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopting ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission
Amending title 17 of the local municipal code to add chapter 17 point eight six section s eight
abundant and affordable homes near transit
Combining zone regulations identifying sites eligible and ineligible or excluded from the Senate bill 79 property development standards
Making related Oakland zoning map amendments to designate parcels within the s8 combining zone
and to identify whether such designated parcels are eligible for or excluded from the Senate bill 79
property development standards and making appropriate sequel findings
Good afternoon council members Preston Kilgore here deputy chief of staff to Mayor Barbara Lee
So the mayor went during the last this one as the sb-79 was making through make its way through the state
Legislature, she was endorsed in the support of sb-79
To build more affordable homes near public transportation with that being said I'm here to share the mayor does not intend on breaking the tide today
To allow council to vote on this item tonight
Thank you so much for us to appreciate it. So
That motion fails. So it's back open
councilmember I'm Chandra
Thank you. I would like to make a motion to adopt stocks recommendations
Including the amendments presented by council members anger and wonk
Okay, I will second that
that I was going to do that as
well.
Okay we have a new man okay so.
There's a motion in a second
councilmember Houston.
Yes I'm say yes I'd already
spoke to hunger and and and
weighing that I was going to a
friendly amendment I got it done
and I presented it right now I
want to make that a friendly
member so I want to what's how
do we do that I'm I'm city
attorney to the chair.
Okay I want to amend Ramachandran's motion to accept my amendment along with the other
two amendments from Aangen Wang.
So one second.
So if it's a friendly amendment and the maker of the motion agrees to the friendly amendment
then it can be added on to the original motion.
Oh what?
No what are you saying president?
I wanna put it on the board so I can read it out.
Is that okay?
Okay.
Chair, Trinity.
Can you come up and read that out for me
because I need my glasses.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, we sent it to K-top.
K-top, can you put that up for me please?
Through the chair, we would like to count through the,
on behalf of the office of the council member,
Ken Houston, Son of Oakland,
we would like to include these friendly amendments
and the motion on the floor.
to move to amend the ordinance to remove Coliseum Bart Station,
map 9, AC Transit Temple Seminary, map 37, 63rd Avenue, map 38, 67th Avenue,
map 39, 73rd Avenue, map 40, 77th Avenue, map 41, and 82nd Avenue, map 42 from
planning code section 17 86 dot 0 6 0 B and to add the words and not to not
including sites within one half mile of Coliseum BART station on exhibit B map
nine and AC transit stops listed on exhibit B map 37 through 42 after the
phrase in section four ending with attached here to and incorporated by
I reference hearing. And to amend section 1786, apologies. Apologies. And to amend section
17.86.0.60 to add to new subsection A, bullet point eight, the following sentence, now withstanding
anything else stated in this subsection, all parcels that are zoned to provide maximum
densities and residential floor areas exceeding 50% of those. And my apologies, the subtitles
and it's going to take a lot more time than I expected.
I think it was a block in the ending part
and I'm having technical difficulties on my phone.
Would I take some time, okay.
Thank you, Trinity.
Thank you.
That's amazing.
Are you finished?
No?
Apologies.
Just to finish up,
now withstanding anything else stated in this subsection,
all parcels that are zoned to provide maximum densities
and residential floor area ratios exceeding 50%
and located between 66th Avenue and Hangerberger Road shall not be
excluded under this exclusion. Thank you. Thank you. Okay so you know you're out
of order. You are out of order. You are out of order. That's your first warning.
Security. You're out of order. No you don't come here. You are out of order.
Mr. Hazard you are out of order. Mr. Hazard you are out of order. That's
we're trying to make sure that
that's not going to occur.
Councilmember Houston, you're
going to be out of order in
a minute, too.
Police administrator has it
removed when the police come.
We have a motion and a second
with a friendly amendment.
Madam Clerk.
On item 4.2, there was a motion
by Councilmember Ramachandran
seconded by Councilmember Wong
and Wong amendments including a friendly amendment by councilmember King I'm excuse me by councilmember Houston
councilmember
Brown I'm sorry councilmember councilmember Brown
Yes
councilmember five
abstain
councilmember Gallo is
absent
check councilmember Gallo
I don't see him in the zoom queue
Councilmember Houston. Aye
Councilmember Ramachandran. Aye
Councilmember Unger. Aye
Councilmember Wong. Aye
And chair Jenkins. Aye
motion passes with a vote of
Six ayes one extension and one absent
Going to the consent calendar
Which does include all of the item six?
starting with item six
Starting with item 6.1 approval of the draft minutes from the meeting of February 17th
2026 item 6.2 a resolution regarding the declaration of a local emergency due to aids
I'm 6.3 a resolution regarding the declaration of a medical cannabis health emergency
Adam 6.4 resolution regarding a declaration of a local emergency due to homelessness
I don't 6.5 a settlement agreement for the city of Oakland
versus Oakland Unified School District item six point six a
resolution
calling
I'm sorry a resolution in regard to the
special municipal election
item six point seven a resolution for all-star fire equipment agreement and six point eight a resolution for a
Settlement for Robert versus Robert Solomon versus city of Oakland
I'm 6.9 has already been dispensed with item six point ten a resolution for issuance of an unconditional certificate of completion
for the 44 30 44 40 44 48 house Street public improvements
I'm 6.11
includes multiple pieces of legislation regarding the Adeline Street Ridge seismic retrofit and project construction phase
item six point twelve a resolution
amending resolution number eight nine seven zero three to acquire property rights from Home Depot
For 42nd Avenue high street access improvement projects
item
613 and information report from the Department of Race and Equity
I'm six point fifteen a resolution for PSA with striker sales emergency medical equipment item
six point sixteen
resolution per psa image trend emergency management software
Item six point seventeen a resolution regarding OPD surveillance tech
2024 in your reports and your last item items six point eighteen a
Resolution confirming the mayor's appointments to the residential rent and relocation board. You do have speakers on this item. Okay
To the city attorney
Yes through the chair to the council our office has some recommended
Amendments to item six point six which is a resolution calling and giving notice
For the holding of a special municipal election on June 2nd 2026
requesting consolidation of the special municipal election with the statewide direct primary election and directing the clerk to take all necessary actions
to submit the measures to
For the to the voters at the June 2nd election
so if ktop can share on the screen the proposed amendments and we also have copies for the public
uh we are adding a whereas clause um to the resolution which will read whereas on march
3rd 2026 by separate resolution the city council accepted the certification of the results of the
examination of an initiative petition for a proposed ordinance entitled oakland public safety
cleanliness and community accountability act of 2026 and place the proposed ordinance on the ballot
but as required by the California election code,
now therefore be it.
And then we are also adding a bullet point
to the second resolve section,
which adds the ballot question that was approved
with the resolution for the initiative petition
that you all approved earlier in this meeting.
And that shall read, again,
this is under the second resolved section in the resolution.
And it will add another bullet that reads,
Shall the measure to prevent increased 911 response times,
maintain fire stations, fire protection services,
police patrols and investigations,
and gun violence and crime prevention services,
address homelessness, and remove illegal dumping and trash
by imposing a parcel tax of $192 annually
for single family parcels and other parcels as specified,
exempting certain low income and senior households and others,
raising approximately 34 million annually for nine years
with oversight audits and public disclosure be adopted.
And that concludes our proposed amendments.
Thank you so much.
Let's go to the public.
As I call your name, please approach the podium
in any order, please state your name
for the record before beginning.
If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand
so I can easily identify you.
You will be taken after the in-chamber speakers.
Chris Moore, I have you for three items,
Ms. Asada-Alabala, I have you for all items on consent.
Henry Williams, Derek Barnes, I have you for multiple items.
Rajni Mandal, Kevin Dalley, David Boatwright, Mr. Hazard,
I have you for multiple items.
You for one item.
Okay, ready for me?
Okay, Kevin Dalley, I'm talking to 6.8.
That's Robert Solomon, V City of Oakland.
Robert Solomon was badly injured
when his bicycle hit a pothole
on Grizzly Peak Boulevard, $450,000.
This is not the first time we've had high settlements
on Grizzly Peak, Skyline, and Tunnel Road.
As some of you know, my friend died on Skyline last year
when his bicycle hit a pothole,
and yet, Oak Dot's paving plan is for all three
of those dangerous streets to not be paved until 2028.
Let's move ahead and get these streets paved sooner.
It's a tragic life of loss, an injury,
and it costs the city of Oakland lots of money.
Hundreds of thousands, millions here.
It'll be cheaper to pave.
The other week, you approve the cameras, the flock.
I've given you each a copy, where in a number of cities,
they have discontinued.
You could tear it up or you better read it and understand it.
And they've discontinued the flock cameras.
While we could speak to the advantages of the Capitol,
there's abuse.
And in Mountain View, and about a half a dozen other cities
who've had this longer than the city of Oakland has,
there's been unauthorized access.
And you refuse to listen to those of us who came who were
trying to say, put guardrails.
You just don't rubber stamp.
Look at Mountain View.
Look at El Cerrito and a few others
because there was unauthorized access.
We could tell the advantages of cameras.
And I'm not against that point.
I'm talking about unauthorized access.
And I'm not just talking about ICE.
I'm talking about these other agencies.
Read the articles.
The other thing, this council better be real careful
when you cross the line of the procedural process.
You cannot amend something when you were waiting
for the mayor to break a tie.
That matter is concluded at that point.
Any subsequent action procedurally
And you refuse to ask for a legal opinion
from the city attorney's office.
That's what I asked for.
You just go, I want to push something down our throat.
And that Rule 29 that you suspended on November 4
or December 16, it's going to come back and bite you,
because I'm preparing a writ on that matter.
And on that special election on April 15,
Now that the court said determined that my writ is
in the proper department 24, that illegal tax you did
on October 1 is going to be challenged.
And it's going to invalidate, if I'm correct,
my writ is going to invalidate the whole election.
Thank you, Mr. Hazard.
Your time is up.
I need to see the clock, please.
Starting with item 6.4 homeless declaration, because it's an emergency, it has never been
an emergency related to homelessness, just a few things not being addressed.
The issue of addressing encampment management, the issue of maintaining state required shelters,
the issue of 50% of the unsheltered live in vehicles, the issue of mental health and
that we're going to look at
that we're going to be providing
drug treatment needed for our
homeless community. Item six
point five the city of Oakland
is has a settlement with the
all U. S. D. school board. For
eight hundred and sixty
thousand dollars to pay for the
election costs of twenty twenty
two school board election that
to be placed on the ballot in twenty twenty two it was eight hundred and
sixty thousand dollars what citizen group has eight hundred and sixty
thousand dollars to put on a ballot measure on the ballot in June this is
not a citizen's initiative you have partnered with the union and you have
participated city of Oakland city council to put this initiative on the ballot.
This initiative speaks to 9-1 response time it will make no difference how much money
you put into 9-1-1 capacity if you don't have the officers to respond.
You address homelessness you haven't even started addressing homelessness you have on
here a hundred and ninety two dollars annual partial tax at the same time you
have identified in one of your committee meetings that you have not met the
requirements of measure HH the affordable housing amendment measure
measure QC dealing with libraries measure Q dealing with parks and a
a little reduction, measure N, N, measure W, measure X.
At the same time, this item is rule 24.
This item did not go before the rules committee.
This item did not go to any committee for discussion.
You just rubber stamping it.
The authenticity of what you're doing
with this ballot measure is very questionable.
Very questionable.
item six point eight the lawsuit four hundred and twenty thousand dollars
i keep telling you the department of transportation has all of these lawsuits
dip due to
whatever you need to find out why
item six point nine
uh... again we've already discussed that i'm not gonna go back to it
but it's it's a disgrace how people can get out
thank you miss all about
David Bill right district for these all applied to the item s six point nine I have been looking all over for a copy of the petition associated with this recent measure that's gone through and finally about 20 minutes before this meeting I found out it was just today posted on the city website.
That should have been part of the materials
that came with today's item.
The other thing is I found out that the details
of the allocation of funds associated with these measures
is all worked out within the city
after measures have been approved.
And I'm thinking, who has the authority to do that?
And I've so, so far haven't found anybody
can tell me exactly who fills out those details because that's something very
important and really it ought to be something that we know more about when
these measures are being considered not after the fact. Thank you.
Moving to the Zoom speakers Rajne Mandal I have you with one card please unmute
yourself and begin your comments. Rajne Mandal district 4 I want to clarify two
points about the 2024 surveillance annual reports. First these reports were delayed in part because
they were batched into one consolidated item before coming to council. PAC also spent May through
October reviewing the community camera policy which slowed the review of the individual annual
reports. Second the 2024 flock annual report was already reviewed and filed by the Public Safety
Committee last July. The data and outcomes are presented then so there's really nothing new in
this packet that changes the documented results or policy framework. These
reports show that oversight is working. They document no misuse, no improper data
sharing, and no reported breaches during the reporting period. Oversight works
best when it is timely and focused. Right now, the structure makes it delayed and
repetitive. I urge council to streamline the surveillance ordinance so reporting
happens closer to real time while preserving accountability. Thank you.
Chris Moore, please begin your comments.
I have you with three items on consent.
Yeah. Hey, thank you.
This is Chris Moore with East Bay Rental Housing Association.
First off, wanted to just echo the comments Rajne Mandel made.
She made some great points there and will hardly agree with her points as usual,
because they're researched and there's always solid points.
The first item I want to talk about today is item S6.18.
It's the appointment of a couple of individuals to
the housing residential resolution and rent board, HRRRB.
The one in particular, Cara Broad-Fueler.
Sorry if I mispronounced that last name.
Ebra has made a point over the last year,
probably even a little further than that,
whether Derek Barnes or myself or others
in our organization have attended
pretty much all of the HRRRB meetings.
And we've gotten to either be a Zoom or a person,
we've gotten to understand the experience levels.
And we have a concern with Cara.
Before confirming this appointment,
we'd ask the council to verify whether she has actual hands-on owner
operational experience in Oakland.
Continuing and this has actually been a common practice in Oakland unfortunately,
but continuing to ignore genuine rental owner representation,
further harms renters and housing providers.
The hardest hit, the hardest impacted are actually the small ones that can't afford,
you know, at higher attorneys and others,
but the small minority and immigrant housing providers
who basically lack the resources
of the large corporate operators.
So questions that we would have and requests you ask
Ms. Braun, fuel her, is how many rental units
does she personally own or actively manage in Oakland?
How many tenants, or elsewhere actually,
how many tenants does reside in those units?
What rents are being charged
and when did those tendencies begin?
The reason we ask this is because you can see
on her rental property that,
and in the rental registry,
it indicates that the property address,
he's never charged them rent.
They live there rent free,
if there's a tenant that exists at all.
And I think that should be looked at.
Her background and experience is not one of a,
for a property owner.
But she was a staff attorney
for the National Housing Law Project,
a senior attorney for the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley,
a volunteer attorney for the Tenants Union.
So we believe it's inappropriate
to take a further look at her before you pass that.
Thank you for your comments.
Derek Barnes and Henry Williams, I believe is the last name.
If you still wish to speak,
please raise your hand or step to the podium.
otherwise at this time all names have been called is that it I'll end in ten
emotion a second motion is second as amended on the consent calendar moved by
councilmember five second by councilmember Houston accepting the also
accepting the amendment that the city attorney read into record councilmember
councilmember brown. The absent. Councilmember five. Councilmember Houston. Councilmember
Ramachandran. Councilmember Unger. Councilmember Wong. Aye. And Chair Jenkins. Aye. Councilmember
Gallo. Is he here? No. Motion passes with the vote of five ayes, three excused. That was your final action. You have
announcements and open forum. Councilmember announcements anything going on? Oh this
Mayor's office here we're nobody's here no announcements yeah open forum. As I
call your name please approach the podium in any order please state your
name for the record. If you are on Zoom please raise your hand so I can easily
identify you if you submitted a card for this item. Miss Asada Ola Bala, John
Edwin Scott, Ms. Tanjiri, Reverend Lara Everly, Mr. Hazard. Vote no on anything
that's on the June 2nd primary election and particularly if it's sponsored by
this council because they have a tendency to mislead the voter. Most of
voters don't read the ballot.
They read that 75-word text.
The devil's in the details, as it was in Measure A,
the transaction use tax.
Do not vote June 2nd for any parcel tax.
This city is in dire fiscal straits.
and for the city attorney to alter
the text of that special election.
It's unconscionable.
It says that the.
Thank you, Mr. Hazard.
Good evening, thank you, Council.
My name is Reverend Laura Eberly.
I'm the pastor at a church in Councilmember Wong's
District, Santiago, St. James.
And I'm here to plead your mercy for our community garden.
We have somehow run afoul of the planning department
who cited us for blight because a tree
was blocking a street light.
So we pruned the tree and then he came back out
and said we were still failing to comply
because our vegetation was excessive and overgrown.
It's a tended permaculture garden.
It's run by indigenous folks.
They have a training program for youth.
They provide thousands of pounds of free produce
to a couple hundred families at a weekly pantry.
And all the inspector would give me
was that the vegetation could be no more than 4 inches high.
I can't imagine that's the city's intention,
but they've already fined us $500,
and they're threatening us with thousands more
in just the next couple of weeks.
And I can't get the inspector to give me anything
I can work with short of.
Good evening.
My name is Barbara Tingary.
In the late 1990s, I worked at the School of the Future,
127 East 22nd Street, Manhattan, New York.
Half a block and around the corner is Grand Marcy City Park,
Park Avenue and Third, 21st Street.
In front of the large apartment complex
is a huge large black iron fence
which sharpened points at the top.
The park is private to be used
by the residents of the complex, they have a key.
The uptime apartments Oakland, California
as surrounded by Henry J. Kaiser Park on William and 19th Street, no black, no black, huge
iron fence to the city. I call on the City of Oakland to follow the apartment in Grand
Marceph City, Mercy City in. Through the chair, good to see you, Ms. Tangeri.
I think about a week ago, Mexico went into chaos
because of the killing of the drug czar, El Mincho.
I think that's his name.
So I looked into who this person was.
He came to this country illegally as a youth
and settled in San Francisco and started selling drugs.
And that began his career in the drug trade.
he was sent out of this country, and he returned three times illegally.
He started his career because he had the opportunity to come into this country illegally.
That's the person that was killed in San, he started in San Francisco.
I've been telling you this, you cannot have a sanctuary city with no perimeters or guidelines
for who comes into.
thank you miss Ola Bala all names have been called we wish to speak your name
was called please step forward thank you this thing for everybody came out this
meeting is adjourned