City Council - meeting_joint

Good afternoon, and welcome to the council meeting of Tuesday, March 3. 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 03:34. Your last opportunity to turn into speaker cards will be at 05:34PM or before the item is called for discussion.

You can fill out a speaker's card by grabbing a card at the front table and hand handing it to a clerk representative. If you're looking to submit an online speaker card, that time has passed as they were due twenty four 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 Fife? Present. Council member Gaio?

Is he online? I

do not. Okay. Council member Gallo. Council member Gayo, please unmute yourself for roll call.

Present.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Houston?

Present.

Council member Ramachandran? Present. Council member Unger? Present. Council member Wong? Present. And Chair Jenkins?

Present.

Showing eight members present at this time. Going to item three modifications to the agenda.

Yes, so we're going to hear item number six point nine first. Subsequent to that we will hear item 4.2 and then 4.1 and then we'll go in order of 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?

So I need a second to pull item 6.9 from consent to full counsel.

I'll second.

Gaio with the save. Okay. Thank you. Gaio.

On the motion

on the motion to move item 6.9 from consent to non consent

being the first item, council member Brown. Aye. Council member Fife? Abstain. Council member Gaio? Aye. Council member Houston?

Aye.

Council member Ramachandran? Aye. Council member Unger?

Aye.

Council member 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

Council member Gallo?

Yes.

Are you on camera? Is there any other adults in the room over the age of 18?

I I can see everyone, but you're the one that mutes me and unmutes me. Right?

No. No. I I as part of, you teleconferencing in, the requirements are, that you are on camera and that you state if there are any adults in the room with you.

No. No. I I can see everyone on the chamber, but I there's someone else with me. No.

Okay. Thank you.

Noting the change of order in the agenda, we will be starting with item 6.9. And 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 the 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 6. On behalf of the city administrator, this clerk's office is submitting copies of the registrar of voters certificate to the petition.

The county ROV submitted the certificate to the petition on Monday afternoon and therefore the information of the document was not available or known to the city at the time of the filing deadline.

Alright. And I'd like to make an 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 2 special election. And the information in the ROB 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, seconded by council member Houston to approve the urgency. Council member Brown. Aye. Council member Fife. Aye. Council member Gaio.

Aye.

Council member Houston. Aye. Council member Ramachandran. Aye. Council member Unger.

Aye.

Council member Wong. Aye. And chair Jenkins.

Aye.

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 Act of 2026, propose ordinance calling and giving notice for the holding of a special municipal election on 06/02/2026 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 06/02/2026 and directing the city clerk to take any and all actions necessary under law to submit the measure to voters at the June. 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 Oakland 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 Registrar 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 Registrar of Voters. The registrar conducted a random sample examination under elections code section nine one one five and 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 a 113.47% 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 eighty eight days, no more than a hundred and three days after the order of the election. As a city elections official, I hereby certify to the council that upon examination of the initiative petition proposed ordinance, the petition has been signed by the requisite number of voters. In addition to accepting this certification of petition, a vote in favor of the resolution before you will call a 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 some amendments and for your viewing, all reports are attached to this item via LEGISTR.

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 KTOP 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 nine one one 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 a $192 annually for single family parcels and other parcels as specified, exempting certain low income and senior households and others, raising approximately $34,000,000 annually for nine years with oversight audits and public disclosures be adopted.

Thank you. If no questions from the council, we're gonna go to public comment and I'm gonna wish miss 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 to this item. And again, this is item 6.9 as the agenda was taken out of order. Annette Blue, Gabe Macias, Veronica Garcia, Elizabeth Stage, David Boatwright, Miss Asada Olabala, Seth Oyer, Derek Barnes, mister Hazard, And the clock is shown on the screen behind me.

All right, good afternoon council. My name is Antoinette Blue. I also have Aiele here with me. I'm the president of SEIU Local ten two one City of Oakland chapter. I'm a nine one one dispatcher with the Oakland Police Department as well and I'm here to speak in support of the revenue measure sorry, the revenue measure. The measure was placed on the ballot through signature gathering. There were over 38,000 Oakland voters who signed the petition to fund core city services such as 911, OFD firehouses, 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 Gabe Macias, vice president of SEIU local twenty twenty one Oakland chapter. I work in KOCB and address illegal dumping throughout the city. I am here to ask the council prioritize addressing illegal dumping in Oakland.

As a resident and also born and raised here in Oakland, we approved the revenue measure to ensure that we are funding these vital services. As a city as a city worker, I know that illegal dumping and trash hurt public health and the quality quality of life neighborhoods. We ask this council to stand with their consultants, their residents, and vote to play to place this revenue measure in our June 2026 ballot. Thank you.

Good afternoon, council. The Seth Oyer, president Oakland firefighters local fifty five. I'll make this quick since we only have a minute. Just wanna give a 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 wanna 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 Octobers ago. That is an example of what a fully staffed, 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 of firehouses closed and the 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, d four 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 911 response time and 25 firehouses to increase the likelihood that lives are saved and fires are contained before they turn into conflagrations. It's gonna take some time for the council's economic development measures to turn around our budget woes and to rebuild residents' trust in 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 gonna help illegal dumping. This is gonna help homelessness with no details, and people unknowingly sign with no credibility of what they actually gone 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 a $192 that are gonna go on the backs of property owners, unfair another partial tax. You have taxes, measures for which you just gave a financial report, you're unable to fulfill the mandates of measure q, measure w, measure n n, measure h h, and that's just some of them. You don't need to there should be somebody stepping in and say, until you are in full compliance with all of your measures currently in place.

Folk 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 demur, He sent me through two hundred and eighty days of procedural BS. And now it's in the proper department 24 when I filed a writ on 05/19/2025. Two hundred and eighty days later, now I'm gonna get my day in court because four point two six point one three o in joining the voter from filing a grievance for relief, you can't have that in a ballot measure.

But all of you sit here with your heads.

Thank you, mister Hazard. Your time is up. Veronica Garcia, mister Boatwright, mister Barnes, if you would still like to speak to 6.9, please raise your hand or step to the podium.

We're ready. David Boatwright, District 4. I'm sorry, I thought I was going to 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, and 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 the public before.

Thank you, mister Boatwright, Veronica Garcia, or Derek Barnes. I see mister Barnes. Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Hi, madam speaker. 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 and began taking decisive action last year, as we have seen the tip of the spear of pieces of legislation like H. One. And the complications are that 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 lowering overhead cost expenses, and none of this will be easy. Please vote no on advancing this measure without guardrails on any of these measures and how the money will be ultimately allocated. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Barnes. That was the last speaker for this item unless Veronica excuse me, Veronica Garcia is in the chambers or on Zoom. All cards for this item have been called.

Move approval as amended. I move it.

On item 6.9 moved by council president Jenkins, second by council member Houston to adopt the item as amended. Yeah. Yeah. Five in the queue.

Yes. I I do wanna say that I wanted to clarify, council president Jenkins, that this item is to put this, measure in front of the voters in June. Correct?

That's correct.

It's not us and our opinions on the validity of the measure?

No. The citizens initiative, it was gathered it gathered enough signatures, so our role and responsibility is to place it on the ballot.

Okay. I 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 by

okay.

On the motion by council president Jenkins, seconded by council member Houston to adopt this item as amended. Council member Brown. Aye. Council member Fife. Aye. Council member Gaio?

Aye.

Council member Houston? Aye. Council member Ramachandran? Aye. Council member Unger? Aye. Council member Wong? Aye. Chair Jenkins? Aye. Motion passes with a vote of eight ayes. Going still staying out of order going to item 4.2 next. We'll need a motion to open the public hearing.

So moved. Second.

On the motion to open the public hearing moved by council member Ramachandra and seconded by council member Fife. I believe I heard council member Brown. Aye. Council member Fife. Aye. Council member Gaio. Aye. Council member Houston?

Okay. Council

member Unger? Aye. Council member Wong? Aye. Council member Ramachandran?

Aye. Motion passes for the vote of six ayes. Two 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 17.86 s dash eight abundant and affordable homes near transit combining zone regulations identifying sites eligible and ineligible or exclude excluded from the senate bill 79 property development standards making related Oakland zoning map amendments to designate parcels within the SA 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 Gil christ. We have eight minutes on the clock. Is that sufficient?

Eight minutes. We had requested when we spoke, madam president, to you with the president that we might have 15. Is that viable?

Yes.

Thank you. Appreciate that. And to the council, thank you for appreciation. William Gilchrist, director of planning and building and I shall defer to Laura Kaminski who is our strategic planning manager to do this presentation. And again, thank you council for your time.

Good afternoon counsel and the public. If I can have the presentation from KTOB please. Okay. So this is senate bill 79, the planning code implementation ordinance. So for some background, senate bill 79, the abundant affordable homes near transit act was assigned by the governor in October.

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 vest 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 SB 79 is requirements are is that areas that are within the BART stations which are the tier one BART stations as classified by SB 79 or tier two BRT stations require for higher densities and this would start as of July 1 is when this senate bill would 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, a 160 dwelling units per acre. If you're within a quarter mile, it's 75 foot height limit or a 120 dwelling units per acre. If you're in a half mile, it's 65 feet foot height and a 100 and dwelling units per acre.

For Tier two which is along the BRT, along International Boulevard, it's 200 or within 200 feet it's 85 foot height limit, a 140 dwelling units per acre, 65 foot height limit within a quarter mile or a 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 and height based on local land use conditions such as historic districts and lower density neighborhoods. An exclusion would suspend those densities and height allowances s b 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 in many of the designated TOD zones as a result of prior up zoning. 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 Brauy Val specific plan, West Oakland, Coliseum, and Lake Merritt that have all increased densities along these tier one and tier two TOD zones.

SP 79 standards are a blanket increase in density and height that would override prior planning and input from the community. Also there was insufficient time for the state to prepare and review an alternative plan prior to SP 79 effective date of July 2026 so that is why staff is proposing these exclusions. So exclusions may be adopted prior to the effective date of s b 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 update of the land use and transportation element with anticipated adoption in 2027. City staff wants to develop its alternative plan that will meet the overall densities required by S B 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 and which areas do not as well as receive valuable community input. In addition, the environmental justice element policy e j 8.1, specifically what we heard a lot from the public during the environmental justice element process was the 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 and 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 in a 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 resource properties that are designated as historic resources. So for exclusion two, I'll start off with these are areas that are primary 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 the TODs that fall under SB 79 are within a low resource area except for the McArthur 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 area that's in the center, 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 when we look at the aggregate density in that area we're actually at 307% of what SB79 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 civic plan to have a more tailored zoning would essentially be overridden by that state law. And then just as an example here, here's 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 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. They're around 70%. So for the tier two, 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 5th Avenue we're still at a 142. If we get to even 48th Avenue we're at maybe 91%. And then as we get further east we get lower. So if we're at 90th Avenue we're around 47% of what SB 79 would require. So exclusion one is for any parcels that meet at least 50% 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 McArthur 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 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.

And similar, this is for showing the Ashby BART Station and the Rockridge BART Station. So again, it'd 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 three. And then you can see here versus for McArthur BART, the areas that are in purple are the parcels that meet that local register property. 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 70 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 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% meaning the density of 40%, the historic resources, and the meeting of 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'd been excluded, or whether it's still covered meaning it's eligible and has not been excluded. And it 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 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 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, you know, these exclusions are only, you know, are 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, McArthur, and Rockridge Bart stations as exclusions for the meeting the 50% density requirement. And staff, the reason why staff disagreed with that is that again these exclusions provide an SPC 79 give cities a time to develop an alternative plan.

They are not permanent exclusions. The proposed exclusions for 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 at bringing this in 2027. And we want to we're getting public input and wanting to have that process and look at this comprehensively when we're doing these changes. And ultimately 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 bill, the senate bill allows the opportunity to create an alternative plan and have it more tailored to a particular area instead of just, you know, anything that's within a quarter mile is 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 of, you know, 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 requested the city council conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopted ordinance recommended by the planning commission amending title 17 of the Oakland municipal code to add chapter 17.6 s eight 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 s eight combining zone and to identify whether such designated parcels are eligible for or excluded from the senate bill 79 property development standards in making California Environmental 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 council member. This includes the questions that you're posing to staff but the clock will stop when staff is responding. Thank you.

Council member Unger then Wong.

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 wanna 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 for all the double negatives in this thing. It is incredibly hard to understand where exclusion means inclusion and no means yes and we're through the looking glass. But I wanna 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 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 SB 79 since that's the only choice we have.

And I wanna be clear because we're gonna hear a lot about alternative plans. In the High Resource District, there is no true alternative. S b 79 is the law and we are bound 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 idea, 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.

The ship has sailed on that and the state has, you know, set that ship afloat. District 1 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 1 do not qualify for the exemption.

In District 1, 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 up zoning of College, Telegraph, Claremont, 40th, you know, 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, you know, 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 wanna 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 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.

We happened to be working on a general plan update, which we only do every, you know, twenty 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 d one. 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 overreached 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 d one 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 I 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 1, and that is why I am committed to adopting SB 79 in District 1 and making sure that we can build with the density that we need in order to provide housing. That's it.

Thank you, council member Wong.

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 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 allows for localities to adopt alternative plans as long as overall density is required by SB 79 are met. But keep in mind that those density minimums in SB 79 were designed to get even suburban areas in 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 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 s b 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 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 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 upzoning 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 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. It out loud

or it's on screen. Right?

It's it's on the screen and and counsel 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 ayes.

Through the chair to council member Wong, please give them to the clerk staff to pass down.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. If there's no other amendments, we will move to public comment and then start discussion. Thank you.

As I call your name, 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. Paul Maldonado, Naomi Schiff, Jennifer McElrath, Sarah Rowley, Mississaata Olavala, Gordon Douglas, Joe Johnston. I see your ceding time to Jay McElrath, mister Hazard, and Jules Boulet. Sorry if I said it incorrectly.

I'm here in my time with this little law.

Was that you mister Hazard? Yes. Oh, thank you. Clock.

You got it. You got it though, her mama. 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.

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.

And that's real important. You're 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 Rockridge doesn't wanna turn that former Red Cross office into homeless housing. They object to that. They object to anything, Rockridge, that's gonna 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 go

Thank you, miss Olavala. Your time is up. Just

to clarify, it's one minute. Right? Alright. Cool. Alright. I'll start now. Good afternoon. My name is Raul Maltonato, District 3. I put an online comment, but today I'm representing East Bay Yimbi. We support the SB 79 and s eight combined zone framework, but we urge you to reject exclusions one and two. Number three is okay. These exclusions delay SB 79 until 2032. Oakland's tenant protections, like just cause rent stabilization, are intact. They're baked into SB 79 as well. So if there's any upcoming arguments for that, that this doesn't hold if there people say that there are no tenant 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 these exclusion requirements. There was just like, because the analysis was done, they just added it on from planning commission from staff. But I really want to get down to very quickly is there is an equity problem exclusion one and two together give every neighborhood an out, low resource neighborhoods and high resource neighborhoods.

Hi. My name is Sarah Rowley. I represent San Antonio Station Alliance. We're fighting for BART Station at 14th Avenue, which is in council member Wong's district, District 2. And we are in support of this, and we are in support of council member Wong's amendment.

In order to build a station, need to prove that there's ridership and the plan to build ridership in the coming decades. Right? Like, we need to really think about what Oakland is gonna 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 tenants 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 ZIP codes in the entire Bay Area. And most importantly, there is a 2.8 mile gap in 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 longtime Oakland resident, a homeowner of a a historic home in District 2, and a big fan of SB 79 and increasing density in our city.

Through the chair before you go on could you please state your name?

Yes, sorry. Gordon Douglas. Sorry, thought you guys had that. I'm a 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 SB 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.

Kevin Dally. I appreciate the work that the staff has done in producing these documents. I encourage you to adopt the amendments of council member Unger and Wong to increase 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 council members to look in their district to see how you can do similar acts of building more dense housing now. Every district but my own District D 4 has transit stops that qualify under s b 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 and allow for housing there too. Thank you. Please adopt the amendments.

Hello. I'm Jules Bruyet. I'm a West Oakland resident district three public school teacher and homeowner and I ask you to fully implement s b 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 the

Before

you begin, I'm guessing you're Jennifer? Yes. Joe, are you in the chamber? Thank you.

I, Jennifer McElrath of Oakland, am 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 and 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 100.

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

That 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. S p 79 is one size fits all, but our large and varied city has been up zoning. I've been going to meetings since 2009 and each one has resulted in up zoning 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 taller and one area less tall. That's all we're asking for. We support the planning staff proposal to request those exclusions coordinating 79 with the general plan update. Thank you. Thank

you. All nine 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 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 the goals around SB 79 was to ensure that all cities within the state of California were actually building more housing. But 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 want to 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 a 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, you know I think it has been called into question a couple 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 what 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 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 like 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 to, 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 for my colleagues that when you read the report and you look at some of these transit stops really starting in like District 5, District 6, and District 7, all of the percentages are quite low as far as like where we need to be focusing and building more, you know, 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 you know 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 of our specific plans that happened at the Coliseum BART Station but we did not have a specific plan for the Fruitvale 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 I guess maybe my last point that I want to 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 really 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 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 Vault specific plan we got through the transit agent 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 And so as all the areas that we don't have specific plans, they're actually being required to be more detailed in this LOOT and that also included specifically obviously the Rockridge BART Station as part of that and also the McArthur BART Station and the Fruitvale and then all of the BRT. So that has been our intent really is looking at how we can increase the densities in those areas. But 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 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 closer to the stations and maybe a little bit lower density as you go further out is what we'd be looking at when we're doing this alternative plan.

I see. And then I guess my last question is I heard, well someone mentioned this to me and I got a couple emails that said if, you know, if we don't pass these amendments today we're looking at not doing this planning until 2032. Is that accurate?

Yeah. So no that is not. So the intent so what is written in there is what the state allows as the maximum. So the state 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 2027.

And then soon after would be the implementation action would be the actual zoning that would then implement those densities and create 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 is one of the lowest density residential land uses we have. And we are planning on, at least the proposal would 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.

Council member Houston.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I wanna thank council member Unger and Wang for this. I just my my question 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 s B 79 density would automatically go into 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 2032 then we can no longer have exclusions according to the state law.

Got it. And this is for the the the city attorney. I wanna move both of these amendments but I wanted to make sure they're they mesh. Do they work with each other?

Through the chair of council member Houston, my understanding is that 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, 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.

Then I ask If I may, through the president, to the council and also through the chair to council member Brown. I did wanna emphasize a few things and and we will work with the disposition of the council, but the idea of having the land use and transportation element, what we keep calling the loot, by its very 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 and you do not have a 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 gonna 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 like 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 dilute even before the S b 79 was coming down the pipe. What I think we're dealing with fundamentally, it's no dispute over outcome. You know, we 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, you know, 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 will wanna be way ahead of that no matter what. Now again, our plan with out s b 70 '9 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 a very effective element and one of 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 counsel. Obviously, the general plan update has to be approved by this body as well. So you will be able to have, you know, the words to see the final word to see that we have achieved the goals, not just of the densities around S B 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 S B 79, not at all. It seems to me to be more an issue of timing in terms of when these might go into effect, 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 percentage above what SB 79 would require. So we are 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 is associated with that.

TOD has been a very big part of my work in 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 we had to get that done.

Thank you, mister Gilchrist. Thank you, miss Laura. I wanted to move the two amendments. I wanna move them with this item.

I'll second that.

I wanted to include Coliseum bar two. Even though it's not in my district and council member president is not here, I wanted to include that because that's that's a huge piece to our district. It's okay. Alright. 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 council member Houston second by council member Wong to move both the Unger and Wong amendments. Council member Brown.

Abstain.

Council member five? Council member Gaia? Council member Houston?

Aye.

Council member Unger? Aye. Council member Wong? Aye. And council member Ramachandran? Aye. With the absence of council member Jenkins, two one abstention, two absent, the motion fails. And again that was a vote of three ayes with Houston, Unger, Ramachandran, two absent Jenkins and Fife, one abstention Brown.

This council member Gayle on the Zoom.

He did not answer his roll call vote. He is present, but he did not say anything. His camera

is off.

Wasn't on mute. I was on mute. You I couldn't unmute it. Can you hear me now?

Can we reach out

the phone? Hello?

Can you hear me? We

need another motion and a second.

I'm gonna remotion that I accept the both amendment proposals to this item.

Guys, you got me on mute.

We can hear you, council member Gayo. Just just stay you you you can you can stay off mute when when the roll call happens. You can vote in a minute.

But I was on mute the last time around or

The last time you were on mute, unfortunately. But there were there's another motion in 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 Fife is absent. Council member Gaio?

Oh, I just wanted to, for the record, state that I had the opportunity to meet with the planning staff and hear 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. N o.

Thank you. Council member Houston? Council member Ramachandra I'm sorry. Not you. I'm sorry. Council member Unger? Give me a second. Aye. Council member Unger?

Aye.

Council member Wong? Aye. Council member Warmachandran. Aye. Motion still fails with a vote of three ayes, two absent, one abstention, one no.

Council member Brown.

So, at this time at this at this time, I would make a motion to adopt staff's recommendation.

I'll second that. I'll second the motion.

Thank you, council member Gaio. And we have a motion by council member Brown, seconded by council member Gaio.

I I apologize. If we can take twenty seconds while we consult with the city attorney about the last vote.

Through the chair to the clerk, can you restate the vote on the first

motion? The first motion You mean

the one that just happened?

Yeah. The one that you just called right now.

Okay. Abstention by Brown, five Jenkins absent, Houston, I, Unger, I, Ramachandran, I, Gaye, Oh,

Charlene.

Yeah.

Houston Unger Ramachandran Wong I.

So that's four eyes. Four eyes. Right? Mhmm.

Okay. So it is four eyes.

Okay. So through the chair to the body, that is a tie. And so 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 Ramachandran, seconded by council member Gayle. Council member Brown. Council member Brown. Aye. Council member five is absent. Council member Gayle. Aye. Council member Houston. Aye. Sorry about the council member Houston? Aye. Council member, Unger? Aye. Council member Wong? Aye.

And chair Ramachandran? Aye. Motion passes with a vote of six ayes, two absent Jenkins and Fife. 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 Oakland municipal code to amend chapter 17.96 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 referenced 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 item?

Five. Okay, thank you. KTOP if I can have the presentation. Okay, good afternoon Laura Kaminski, strategic planning manager. So this item is on amendments to planning code chapter 17.96, the s 14 and also work live and live work regulations.

So Oakland adopted chapter 17.96 s 14 housing sites combining zone as part of the 2023 2031 housing element applying to all sites in the housing sites inventory. While the s 14 zone streamlines review, concerns have emerged that may constrain activation of vacant or underutilized sites. Staff commit to review and update this chapter based on the results of its implementation. So for the definition section in s 14 includes definitions of what constitutes a development project. An amendment would clarify the definition and enable limited expansion for businesses within existing buildings.

The following project types are now clearly defined to not 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 01/01/2026 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 01/01/2026 where the square footage of the building is increased by 50% or more than 30,000 square feet which is ever is less. Additional non residential expansion could be allowed via proposed conditional use permit process.

So also in seventeen point nine six zero four zero it talks about required majority residential use. Currently all development S 14 sites might be, must be majority residential or meet one of four exemptions. Existing regulations limit non residential development constraining activation of vacant or underutilized sites. A proposed amendment would add a conditional use permit exemption for non housing development. A CUP would be granted only if the project meets general condition conditional use permit to 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 open 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 the 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 adopt 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 include 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 That concludes my presentation.

Thank you. Colleagues, any comments or if not, we will move to public comment. Seeing none, 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. Mister Hazard, miss Olabala, and Kevin Dally. Thank you, mister Hazard.

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 is 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 introduce 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 got you got 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, 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 council? Nothing.

Why are we doing this? We're spinning our wheels on stuff when we got homelessness, illegal dumping, public safety, black disparity going on, and we're spending time on this kind of stuff. That's what you do. You avoid

Thank you, miss Olabala.

Okay. Thank you. Colleagues, is there, council member Wong? Now this is

a planning staff recommendation I can get on board with. I'll, make a motion to approve staff recommendation. This is the economic development that we need.

Councilmember 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 6 at the Eastmont Mall where based on the 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 some of that area, to that area as well as provide more housing. So this is a necessary fine tuning. And I second second the the motion.

Thank you.

On the motion for item 4.1 moved by council member Wong, seconded by council member Brown. Council member Brown. Aye. Council member Fife. Aye. Council member Gayle. Aye. Council member Houston. Aye. Council member Unger. Aye. Council member Wong. Aye. Council member Ramachandran. Aye. Motion passes with a vote of six ayes. I'm sorry seven ayes. Council member Jenkins is absent. I believe at this time we are 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 Tillman Associates pursuant to resolution number eight nine zero five eight. You have a number of speakers on this item.

Is there someone from staff ready to present on this item?

Through the shared members of the body, we have Doctor. Ramsey here. So we want to provide some space for her to do her presentation. And Doctor. Ramsey, if you'd like to use the microphone here, that's certainly fine.

And fifteen minutes is what council president Jenkins had let me know you had agreed to, if that's sufficient.

I didn't hear what was said.

Council president Jenkins informed me that your presentation could would be up to fifteen minutes. Is that correct?

Yeah. It may take a few

more if you'd like my comments on the findings.

Okay. 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 described 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 what 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 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 is 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 MWBE's received 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 that 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 that $486,000,000 were spent by the city during the study period in the award of prime contracts. And, so in addition, we found that the policies, 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, produced statistically significant underutilization of minorities and women. And administrative practices were linked to those discriminatory outcomes. So, this 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 was the size of the contracts awarded, where roughly 71% of the contracts the city awarded during that study period were under a $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, you had a, overwhelmingly, a 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. You want to go to the next slide, please.

59 businesses were awarded 50% 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, utilized businesses exercise a great deal of control over the cost of projects. They exercise a great deal of control over the businesses that are 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 the core competitive activities. Will you 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 two zero nine, you're aware that we have a constitutional amendment that says 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 that 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 of 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 a contract in some other jurisdiction.

It is 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 1.3 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 of 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 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 was 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 informal contracts, the dollars that are lost, as well as in the formal subcontracting 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 they're 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 business is comparable to the capacity of non minority in terms of percent of differences. And that there was a less than $15,000 difference when we compared 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, Caltrans has negotiated a 17 o 6% goal for DBE participation. And all of the grantees that receive 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 o six or 17% goal that was to achieve 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 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 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 small and small local.

So, we looked at those, the percent of those dollars that were received. And, your provision is that 25% of your contracts 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 not the while the achievement was 46% overall to local businesses, that the different ethnic groups received very few dollars relative to the non minority males who received roughly 37% of those dollars that were awarded to small and small local business. 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, 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 local or 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 net effect that you have reduced the level of participation.

So, also, we also found that there's been a failure to enforce subcontracting payment provisions. You do have a very progressive payment, prompt payment provision, but that provision is not necessarily advertised in each of your solicitation, so that the prime doesn't know that the policy exists nor do the subs, and that businesses have not been paid promptly. And I think you can all appreciate on the first and the fifteenth 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 and I think that you commended one more policy that you have in place that's very, rigorous if enforced, 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 twenty days of the prime receiving payment. And subcontractors 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. An 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 the approval to award a contract to an unnamed vendor for an unnamed amount and 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 inconsistent 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, noncompliance 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 two decades later, four disparity studies, African American and women owned businesses continue to have a disparity. It has persisted over these two decades.

And, the small local business program, which was established in in twenty twenty o three, a quarter of a century ago, is still ineffective in achieving parity for businesses that are wish to do business with the city and available to do business with the city. And over 50% of prime contract dollars were 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 business. 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 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 the, 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 a, 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 local, 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 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 upcoming, businesses should know with sufficient lead time where you're proposing to spend your money, the scale and scope of those contracts, is and the timing of their advertisement is not an unusual request. And it's clearly 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 timeframe for when those disputes would be addressed or whether they would be addressed. So 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 02/2009 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 to 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 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. Those 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 wanna thank you.

Thank you so much for, as 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 on this council in 2021 so I'm hoping that we can utilize some of your recommendation and drive this city forward. I will pass it to my colleagues, council member Browns in Houston.

Excellent. Thank you so much. It's good to see you again Doctor. Ramsey. I'm not sure if you remember me but there's so much consistency in the report that you have presented in the first time that we met.

And that was because you advocating to ensure that you received a state contract to do this work, right? And I believe you were able to get 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 city of Oakland and we also know that these issues are larger, right? And that's the work that you've been studying for a very long time and so just really wanna 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'm a share this. Hi hi doctor Ramsey. I'm angered. Soon as I took seat and along with council member Fife, I took seat. I've been in office thirteen months. And day one day one I was saying why is the SLBE being waived? 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. This is these numbers are disturbing because when me, myself, council member fight, 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 this is criminal in my opinion. This is criminal. And twenty three years twenty three years they put that SLBE in place and we're in worse condition than we were then.

Twenty three 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, doctor 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 a say this. I'm I'm I'm I was talking to my brother the other day. He was hurt. He called me up. He was hurt. And I saw it in his eyes. He said, Ken, 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 from 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 02/2009. Right? So I'm a look at it like this, small local businesses. You know who that is. Right?

So I'm a fight. I've been in office for thirteen months and I'm gonna fight and I'm gonna fight and I'm gonna fight. And if if 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 a 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 kid, we still gonna make it happen. I love that kind of leadership. Right? So I'm a say this and I'm a pass this to my council member Fife because she gonna dig in on something. I know that. Go ahead council member Fife.

Thank you for passing the baton. So through the chair, I do wanna speak to this issue because as council member 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 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 I remember being at 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 I really do want to hear from the public speakers and then I'll I'll 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, but my colleagues have said it all and it's just upsetting and we've ought 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 Mohammed, Mississauga Olabala, Michael Baines, Samuel Adams, Herman Adams, k Leticia Miraz, Petra Brady, Jael Fong, Roxanne Monique Mosley, Ramona is it Catherine? Sherry Mosley, John Edwin Scott, Henry Williams, Josephine.

Yeah. You got it. Annabelle Goodrich, Derek Barnes, Kevin Dally, Lynn Turner, mister Boatwright, Kathy Adams, Chadwick, Donnell Spell, Paul Cobb, mister Hazard. You can begin when you're ready. The time is shown behind me on the screen, and you have one minute to address the council.

Well, first of all, I'd like to say this has been 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. This is the first time that we've looked at this study and and really took the study from a political standpoint to reality. Well, I'm a victim of this study. Twenty years ago, I started this whole thing about minority participation as a small black company in East Oakland today, I come into a $188,000,000. So we grew right here in East Oakland. We grew. So it lets 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 the old boy network. When you start talking about diversity, it's the old boy network. Blacks hire, blacks, Chinese hire, blacks, Latinos hire, and that's the reality of what we're up against. So we gotta get more where we can hire our own people within our community, local people. So what with the council I see here today being progressive enough to say to yourselves, we're gonna 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 within. Thank

you, sir. 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 will say doctor Ramsey. Thank you. God bless you.

Good evening, every good evening, everybody. I'm a make this real quick. I just wanna first of all, thank you, doctor Ramsey. I was part of this study. They called me. So I really appreciate that. So my time is going. I'm a 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 twenty five year waiver on sewer just alone. I'm asking you to please release all waivers immediately. So all immediately, all waivers. I want you to look at other cities like San Francisco and New York. They have set aside programs.

All VSLBE contractors should be written into all contracts. And until they graduate out of BSLBE, I think that all, reparations may should be considered. Black and, black and women owned businesses are struggling. We need to set racial goals.

Thank you, mister Cooper. Your time is up.

Can I can I to 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 and council member Fife 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. Thank you. To

the parliamentarian, since the meeting already started with one minute, is there a way to go back and award previous speakers when or or how does this work if 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, 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 at. Okay. I'm ready. And thank you. Alright. Once again, so, you know, I said that you should think about putting women and 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. Doctor 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 sixty days or less. And then all all recommendations once again to stop all waivers and bring the goals 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 Mohammed, I hope she's still here. Is Destiny still here? Yes. And Petra Brady too and I have two. I won'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 o OAACC, construction 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?

You guys

just give us just a little respect? We didn't speak when you were 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 one hundred 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 wanna 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 acknowledgement 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 road map within sixty days. Accept the findings, create a business owners Oakland task force, deliver sixty day road map. The study must be a mandate for reform, not a document that sits on the shelf. I wanna thank doctor Ramsey, all of 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 midst of loss I keep fighting. I want to thank our 93 year old sister. Come here for a second because this is a blessing. When you think about celebrating a 100 years, this is ninety three 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. Let's wrong let's make our our wrong right, and this is a good time to do it. Thank you.

Okay. Yeah. Okay.

My name is Annabelle Goodrich. This is my mom, Josephine Goodrich. And I haven't had a contract from the city of Oakland. I have contracts from city of Berkeley, city of San Francisco, Salesforce, Burlingame, 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 this 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 pay I got a $110 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 came I'm a talk raw. He came up to me and said, you black fucking nigger. You need to go back to the jungle. And I turned 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 stopped by the traffic light. I stayed right there. And he decided to come from across to watch my car. I said, motherfucker, if you come to my car, I will fuck you up.

And I was not joking about that. I was so serious. And he reversed and went back. The disrespectful

Through seated time, you get an additional one minute. To clerk staff, did you add the one minute already? So you so with city time, you get one minute. You have one additional minute.

Okay. The city of Oakland do not promote East Oakland businesses. When they come, councilman Gallo, he never come by ever. Nobody. Jenkins 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 know what the councilor is gonna do, but something needs to be done. And most of all, the safety of black businesses in that area because white people feel they're entitled. I work hard. I work hard. Sometime I woke up 05:00 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.

Hello. My name is Roxanne Mosley and I wanna 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 2, 456. I would like six minutes on

the call.

So the maximum amount of time is five and I need I need the names before I give you the time.

Yes. Roxanne Gotcha. Mosley. Do you wanna know the name of my family? Whoever is seating you time, need those names. Sherry Mosley, Joel Fong, Ramona Catherine. Okay. I'm gonna bring it to real world, and since we're talking about East Oakland, we're going to stay on East Oakland. I am the owner of Sweet Fingers Jamaican restaurant. That is a business located in Seminary Point.

If anybody is aware of that. That business that development. It was years ago that this city council voted on a contract for that development within out, not a local developer, but an out of town developer by the name of Sunfield Development. 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 multi million dollar development does not have the 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 the leases, the 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, $1,600,000. And I pay taxes on 1,000,000 plus a year since I've been there. I'm 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 a field trip. You will see that the only building there that is not tagged up and messed up is Sweetfingers.

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 what I why I'm telling you this is because when there's been a 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 if 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 he wondered why that that build that space is half empty. It's half empty because you cannot thrive and grow with some made up calm charges, cam 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 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.

You.

Hard to follow that. Alright. Ready. In public service, there are the hard things.

Before you begin, please give me your name.

Oh, Chadwick Spell, the chair of the board for Oakland American Chamber, COO of the Bachira 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 I said before, do a business led commission with staff supporting it and have that sixty days afterwards an actual action plan that gets put in place. Now we can ask ourselves, okay what is that gonna 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 which is 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 all the organizations that are here, all the the community that is looking for jobs, businesses, the contractors have been complaining for over fifteen, twenty 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 gonna come legally or whatever from state and and national. Because you know you don't put you don't have faith in fear. You fear what you have faith in. And I would have faith in y'all.

And have anyone coming to come for us fear you. Thank you.

Kay Mraz, Eastmont Neighborhood Council thirty y. I wanna 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 Bancroft 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 there's, when her lots are a hot mess. You know, 75 of Oakland City City contracts awarded to non minority males, that is concerning. We know Doctor. Ramsey has been coming here for twenty years saying the same thing. We know that she went to the county twenty years ago, They managed to change their statistics. I don't really wanna 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. They've made the suggestions of what is not working. We need we need contractors in Oakland to have equity.

We need property managers in Oakland to have equity, to live here, to care, to be neighbors. Thank you. Good

afternoon. Thank you. My name is Brenda Harbin Forte. I am a retired judge, and I am here on behalf of the NAACP Oakland branch where I serve as the chair of the Legal Redress Committee. This year, the NAACP 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, and you've turned a blind eye to it, we can do something about it now. I wanna thank doctor Ramsey for her excellent report. I wanna 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 right to know all of the the recommendations that doctor Ramsey made. So 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 there's some legal impediment to enforcing or to implementing the recommendations, that's a totally separate thing, but you cannot keep those recommendations from the public. We also ask you to establish a committee, a task force, 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 prox project, but to get something done in ninety days at least or sixty. Let me say that opportunities in the past to protect the women and minorities in in Oakland, you've not done it. In December Thank

you. Your time is up.

Good evening council members, and thank you for allowing me to speak. The leadership of of the city, we really appreciate it. And the things that I'm gonna say, I know it's not a reflection of of 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, you know, it broke my heart. Love 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 it's ridiculous.

So, if you look at page twenty twenty three, I believe it is, and you add up the black, Latino, Asian number, those three numbers don't equal the white person's number, the the, 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 it's horrible.

And then on the other page, I mean the other page with the waivers, they waive 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 gotta get to work. We don't need any more studies. Let's put a group together, the council, what I like you guys to do, oh, what 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 when

That sounds interesting. What were you asking people?

If you have a complaint this is what I tell people that work for me. If you have a complaint, come with a solution. So the city asked 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. We're looking for equity in our own city. Thank you.

Hi. Kevin Dally here to talk about I really appreciate doctor Ramsey's work. Council member five's years of pushing and continuing to push. And council member Houston, I've been watching a lot in the last year, thirteen 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 or 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 waiving the rules for awarding 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 now to seeing this plan and what we can do to make things better. Thank you.

I guess I call this equal time. In closing, I'd like to say again that doctor Ravy's study definitely supports everything we've been saying here tonight. But the thing again, we can 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're talking about enforcement. We're about having a a contract appliance office with contract officers that go out to sites and look at the sites, actually walk the sites and count how many minorities are 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 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 gotta put a budget together for your 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, doctor Ramsey.

Miss Olabala, mister Hazard, do you wish to speak? Come to the side.

The city of Oakland prompt payment ordinance found in Oakland municipal code chapter two point o six requires the city and its contractors to pay invoices within fifteen to twenty days. Fifteen to twenty days. You continue to violate that policy. You have policies that you violate all the time. And no, Ramachandra, it's not just because of counsel.

If you've been attentive 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 doctor Ramsey's report. You sit up there and you wanna do a task force. What do we need a task force for? You have a policy, but you waive a 128 contract. You waive the policy. Policy. But it should've gone to local businesses.

Slame on you. You sit up there in these pompous seats as though you're concerned. You don't do a damn thing. All these other communities, they don't have to have a task force. Sometimes they don't even have to come here. I introduced Gyle to the young lady here. Her business is at Fairfax And High Street. Am I right? They ain't never been there. That was over, what, a year and a half ago? No.

Six years.

Okay? Never been there in her in his community. So y'all are shucking black folks. Enforce the policies.

Thank you, mister Azer.

It's gonna 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 this California Reparations Report. You have the Civil Rights Department hate survey highlighting African American experiences. You have the Racial Justice Act studies of for African Americans. You have the Mortgage Lending 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 LA County report. You have the San Francisco Reparations Task Force, the Glendale report on being in sundown cities or towns.

You have the 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 Thank you. And studies. You didn't have no study to become a sanctuary city. You didn't have no study to have a privacy commission. You didn't have no study to deal with many of the issues that you pick action on. You just do it. The state of California, Alame

Thank you, miss Olavala.

Amen, sister Ola Balan. Mister 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 stay, 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 exposed all of the wrongs of the city, especially since the Libbey 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, and 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 joined 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.

It's it's two and a half. Do do you wanna finish that? Is there something else you need to add in the next twenty seconds?

Twenty 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, mister Cobb. Mister Boatwright, do you wish to comment on this item? Mister 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 duty resident, Oakland business owner, and operator. Thank you, doctor Ramsey, for, yet another, report. It's thorough, insightful, and I'm just so emotional listening to the speakers and, again, your report delivered delivered to the chamber. You know, the study does not describe a minor imbalance. And in summary, it calls out a closed contracting network where public dollars are concentrated among a small group of firms, many of them nonlocal as we've heard. Open businesses remain underutilized. You 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. Doctor 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 an 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 road map and some measurable measurable milestones within the next sixty 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 study study 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, mister Barnes, for your comments. Mister chair, all names have been called.

Alright. 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 Fife.

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. Doctor Ramsey, I am just over the moon. I'm in awe of of your persistence and your your diligence in 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 so thank you for continuing continuing to push us because when discrimination is built into systems, I hear this all the time like there's good people who work for the city that 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 lend an lent an ear to what I've been fighting for. The only one.

I I've had five mayors and I don't even know how many city administrators since I've been on the council. And so administrator Johnson, I 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 24, 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 is director Espia present to speak to that?

Through the chair of council member Pippe, 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 Espea'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, directors is she still here? 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 24. There are a lot of recommendations that doctor 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 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 24. But I think the idea of a council is definitely one that is is going to be presented on the twenty fourth.

So then I will invite thank you for that director Espia. Because when this disparity study was first presented in in my committee, we talked about a roundtable. I 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 I 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 17 in preparation for the the life enrichment committee meeting that will be happening on March 24. But the three things that I heard very clearly were accept the findings, accept the report, so receive and accept the report, work with the city to create that road map, and I heard sixty to ninety 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 host of information a host of recommendations that have been suggested in addition to the black new deal report recommendations. So we know we can't do everything because if we try to do everything at one 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 17, 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 Pfeif, yes. And 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 I just wanted to just acknowledge that that request did come. And so but to answer your question directly, yes, that's a reasonable time frame.

Thank you. So I I will make a make the motion to receive and file this report understanding that action will be taken immediately based on the things that we've heard. And we will be in conversation through the council president's office, my office, and I think council member Houston, you said you wanted to be involved as well. Whatever we're we're bringing forward. So I will definitely be in conversation with all of you all because I don't wanna speak for the council. We haven't taken a vote yet, but I 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 council member Fife. We have a motion on the floor. Council member O'Brien.

Excellent. Well thank you so much council member Fife for your leadership on this item. I did have a question. Definitely understand that we will be taking action on this report. There's a roundtable 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 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 that was an item that 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. Just wanted to check the status of that.

Through the chair of council member Brown. So, yes, there are a number of steps that have been taken by way of your your purchasing administration team as well as some of the work that your deputy city administrator, Monica Davis, is leading as part of the strategic planning process. So I will definitely say 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 processes. So things like making sure that, you know, the AP portal is being used so that we can process pavement. A lot of folks who who who are new to doing business with Oakland may not even know that.

So 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. Council member Houston.

Yes. I wanna second, receive and accept that report and I'm not gonna repeat myself but twenty five years ago set in these chambers, Darryl Carey used to fight for the same thing. So I said twenty five years of lost businesses, generational wealth has been lost, loss of lives. And I heard a gentleman on on online just said economic leakage of dollars. Put all those together, lost generational wealth, loss of businesses, loss of lives, loss of leakage of our fund our money going out of this city instead of staying in the city. So, I'd like to second that and receive and accept this report.

Thank you. You saying 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, council member.

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 sees seems like one of the most ripe for a low hanging fruit action is the 70% of contracts awarded under a $100,000. And I was wondering in your research whether the majority of this were council actions or under the city administer again, not anyone on Vestas, 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 non that were discretionary that you're referencing, is that 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. On the the emergency contracts, they have if they exceed two fifty, they have to come to city council, as well as the, cooperative agreements. If they exceed two fifty, 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 more or less

it's That's the right there before you. That one is not only low hanging, that's on the ground. You can pick that one up and move with it immediately.

Thank you. And my only other question, and I know there's gonna be follow-up discussion, 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 exemplary is 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 were committed to come back to the city within thirty 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 time frames 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 you know, 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 thirty days by the department by the department manager so you know where the violators are.

That that's that fruit is so visible and so accessible and is 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 wasn't made. But the arbitrariness of paying really is an issue that can be solved very, very, very simply.

So thank you. Seeing no more comments from the council members, let's go to roll.

There was a motion by council member five, seconded by council member Houston to receive and file this report. Council member Brown

One second. One second. Council member Fife.

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

Miss miss 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 what do we have to change the city charter for that through the chair to the city administrator or parliamentarian?

Through the chair to council member Fife. 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 council member five, seconded by council member Houston. Council member Brown. Aye. Council member Fife. Aye. Council member Gaiau. Council member Houston? Aye. Council member Ramachandran? Aye. Council member Unger? Aye. Council member Wong? Aye. And chair Jenkins? Aye. Motion passes with a vote of seven ayes, one absent, Gayle.

Moving

to the consent calendar, which is all of the

I'm sorry.

4.2. Four two. We move four two ahead of four.

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. Conducts a public hearing and upon conclusion adopting ordinance as recommended by the planning commission amending title 17 of the Oakland municipal code to add chapter 17.86 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 s eight 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 or this one as the s b 79 was making through make its way through the state legislature, she was endorsed in support of s b 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 tie today to allow counsel to vote on this item tonight.

Thank you so much Preston. Appreciate it. So that motion fails so it's back open. Council member Ramachandra. Thank

you. I would like to make a motion to adopt stocks recommendations including the amendments presented by council members Unger and Wong.

Okay. I will second that. Okay. So

there's a motion and a second. Council member Houston, do you have something to say?

Yes. I had already spoke to Unger and and and Wayne that I was gonna do a friendly amendment. I got it done, and I presented it right now. I wanna make that a friendly amendment. So I wanna what's how do we do that, city attorney through the chair if I don't wanna override, my council member, Roman? Okay. I wanna amend Ramachandra's motion to accept my amendment along with the other two amendments from Unger and Wayne.

Okay. 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. That.

Oh. No. 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. Sit. Yeah we sent it to K Top. K Top can you put that up for me please?

Through the chair, we would like to on behalf of the office of the council member Kent Houston, son of Oakland, we would like to include these friendly amendments in the motion on the floor. Amend to move move to amend the ordinance to remove Coliseum Bart Station, MAC 9, AC Transit Temple Seminary, MAC 37, 63rd Avenue, MAC 38, 67th Avenue map 39, 73rd Avenue map 40, 77th Avenue map 41 82nd Avenue map 42 from planning code section 17 dot 86 dot zero six zero b. And to add the words and not to and 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 hereto and incorporated by reference herein. Thank you. And to amend section seventeen eighty six, apologies.

Apologies. And to amend section 17 dot 86 dot zero six zero 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 are blocking the ending part and I'm having technical difficulties on my phone but I Take some time, okay.

Thank you Trinity.

Thank you.

That's amazing. Are you finished? No.

Apologies.

Just to finish up, notwithstanding anything else stated in this subsection, all parcels that are zoned to provide maximum densities and residential floor area ratios exceeding 50% of those standards provided in senate bills senate bill 79 and located between 66th Avenue and Hangerberger Roll Road shall not be excluded under this exclusion. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. So you no. 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.

No. No. Yeah. But you were out of order last time. Okay. Alright? They're really we

need Mister Hazard, you are out of order. Mister Hazard, you are out of order. That's that's not gonna occur. Can't council member Houston, you're gonna be out of order in a minute too. Police have mister Hazard removed when the police come. We have a motion and a second with a friendly amendment. Madam madam clerk?

On item 4.2, there was a motion by council member Ramachandra and seconded by council member Wong to approve staff recommendations with the Unger and Wong amendments including friendly amendment by council member Ken I'm excuse me. By council member Houston, council member Brown I'm sorry. Council member council member Brown?

Yes.

Council member Fife? Abstain. Council member Gayo is absent. Just council member Gayo? I don't see him in the Zoom queue. Council member Houston? Aye. Council member Ramachandran? Aye. Council member Unger? Aye. Council member Wong? Aye. And chair Jenkins? Aye.

Motion passes with a vote of six ayes, one abstention, 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 02/17/2026. Item 6.2, a resolution regarding the declaration of a local emergency due to AIDS. Item 6.3, a resolution regarding the declaration of a medical cannabis health emergency.

Item 6.4 a resolution regarding a declaration of a local emergency due to homelessness. Item 6.5 a settlement agreement for the city of Oakland versus Oakland Unified School District. Item 6.6, a resolution calling I'm sorry. A resolution in regards to the special municipal election Item 6.7, a resolution for all star fire equipment agreement. Item 6.8, a resolution for a settlement for Robert versus Robert Solomon versus City of Oakland.

Item 6.9 has already been dispensed with. Item 6.1, a resolution for issuance of an unconditional certificate of completion for the 443044404448 Howe Street public improvements. Item 6.11 includes multiple pieces of legislation regarding the Adeline Street Bridge seismic retrofit and project construction phase. Item 6.12 a resolution amending resolution number eight nine seven zero three to acquire property rights from Home Depot for 42nd Avenue High Street access improvement project. Item six thirteen an information report from the Department of Race and Equity.

Item 6.15 a resolution for PSA with Stryker sales emergency medical equipment. Item 6.16 resolution for PSA ImageTrend emergency management software. Item 6.17, a resolution regarding OPD surveillance tech 2024 annual reports. And your last item, items 6.18, a resolution confirming the mayor's appointments to the residential rent and relocation board. You do have speakers on this item.

All good. To the city attorney.

Yes. Through the chair to the council, our office has some recommended amendments to item 6.6, which is a resolution calling and giving notice for the holding of the special municipal election on 06/02/2026, 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. So if KTOB can share on the screen the proposed amendments, and we also have copies for the public. We are adding a whereas clause to the resolution which will read, whereas on 03/03/2026 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 placed the proposed ordinance on the ballot as required by the California election code. Now therefore 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, is under the second resolved section in the resolution. And it'll add another bullet that reads, shall the measure to prevent increased nine one one 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 a $192 annually for single family parcels and other parcels as specified, exempting certain low income and senior households and others, raising approximately 34,000,000 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, approach the podium in any order. Please state your name for the record before beginning. 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. Miss Asada Olavala, I have you for all items on consent. Henry Williams, Derek Barnes, I have you for multiple items. Rajani Mandal, Kevin Dally, David Boatwright, mister Hazard, I have you for multiple items. Go ahead. You for one item.

Okay. Ready for me? Okay. Kevin Dally, talking I'm to six point eight. 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 and injury and cost the city of Oakland lots of money, hundreds of thousands, millions here.

It'll be cheaper to pay.

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 all you want. You better read it and understand it. And the they discontinued the flock cameras. While we could speak to the advantages of the camera, 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, Richmond, and a few others because there was unauthorized access.

We could tell the advantages of cameras, and I'm not against that part. 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 counsel 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 and wanna push something down our throat.

And that rule 29 that you suspended on November 4 or December 16 is gonna come back and bite you because I'm prepared a writ on that matter. And on that special election on April 15, now that the courts had determined that my writ is in their proper department twenty twenty four, four, that illegal tax you did on October 1 is gonna be challenged. And it's gonna invalidate if I'm correct, my writ writ is gonna invalidate the whole election. Thank you,

mister Hassett. Your time is up.

I need to see the clock, please. Thank you. 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 dressing 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 drug treatment needed for our homeless community. Item 6.5, the city of Oakland is has a settlement with the OUSD school board for $860,000 to pay for the election cost of twenty twenty two school board election. That brings me to item 6.6. How much is it gonna cost the initiative to be placed on the ballot? In 2022, it was $860,000.

What citizen group has $860,000 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 nine one response time. It will make no difference how much money you put into nine one one capacity if you don't have the offices to respond.

You address homelessness. You haven't even started addressing homelessness. You have on here a $192 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 h h, the affordable housing amendment measure, measure q c dealing with libraries, measure q dealing with parks and 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 commission committee for discussion. You're just rubber stamping it. The the authenticity of what you're doing with this ballot measure is very questionable, very questionable. Item 6.8, the lawsuit, 420,000. I keep telling you the Department of Transportation has all of these lawsuits due to whatever you need to find out why. Item 6.9, 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 Olevada.

David Beltright, district four. These all apply to the item s 6.9. I have been looking all over for a copy of the petition associated with this recent measure that's gone through. And finally, about twenty minutes before this meeting, I found out it was just today posted on the city website. That should have been part of the 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 that 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, Rajee Mandal, I have you with one card. Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Rajee Mandal, District 4. I wanna 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.