Near-Empty Non Consent Calendar
It's worth noting that the only items on the Non Consent Calendar are required to be there due to statutes requiring public hearings. Everything else is on the Consent Calendar, including, inscrutably, legislation to ratify the recently qualified union-backed parcel tax ballot measure. Since signature gathering began for the independent measure, Council stopped discussing their own potential version of the parcel tax measure that is baked into the second year of the biennial budget’s revenue assumptions without communicating to the public about plans. The Council President, Kevin Jenkins, authored the budgetary patch of the ballot measure in 2025—and CMs Janani Ramachandran and Rowena Brown as Co-Vice Chairs of the Council's budget committee included it in the Council's draft budget which was passed last Summer.
After a brief agendized inquiry into potentials for drafting such a measure late last year, it has not come up in Council or committee again. A Budget Advisory Commission presentation on the proposal was pulled from a Finance Department agenda last week.
The Mason Tillman contracting disparity report was moved to this meeting because its presenter could not be at the last Council meeting to present and discuss. But it’s also now on the Consent Calendar, bringing questions about whether it will be discussed at all now, ditto the Black New Deal report and Race/Equity Activities Report. [the item is actually on a separate non-consent item calendar number, my mistake]
On Non Consent
SB 79 Implementation Ordinance
SB 79 was signed into law late last year and goes into effect in June, 2026. The law would increase the allowable density for development projects in any Transit Oriented Development Zone [TOD], which is any area within ½ mile of a BRT station or BART station– including stations that themselves lie outside of Oakland.
The Planning Department wants to utilize “exclusions” allowable in the law to develop a tailored “alternative” plan for Oakland, also allowed in the law, given that Oakland has long range general plans and area specific plans that include density and zoning changes. Oakland would use SB79’s exclusion criteria of low resourced areas, areas that already have at least 40% of the new density allowances or are historic to exclude nearly every TOD from immediate compliance with the law while an "alternate" plan is created. Because the areas around Rockridge, Macarthur and Ashby BART stations mostly have none of these triggers, the Planning Department would like to include them by default into the SB79 standards—except for slivers around commercial corridors and elsewhere that do meet criteria as individual parcels and would be excluded from SB79 density limits. The Planning Commission, an independent body of appointees, suggested that the City instead forego the entire area from exclusion—meaning Rockridge, Macarthur and Ashby BART areas would be subject to SB79 in total, not just part.
During the CED Committee meeting, D1 CM Zac Unger said he agreed with the Commission’s suggested amendment. Unger said he was worried about having residential areas ONLY open to higher density, while commercial corridors more capable of handling the load are excluded. Unger proposed an amendment that would opt all of those areas into SB79, not just some. But the other committee members said they believed the ordinance should go to full council as presented, and after discussion, amended according to the will of the body. Unger’s amendment failed, with only CM Ramachandran voting for it, but its likely to come up again during deliberation.
[OO really whiffed on this one in the Committee roundup a week ago, apologies]
On Consent
There’s a lot here as noted that shouldn’t be on Consent due to its nominal interest to the public
—2024 City Of Oakland Disparity Study Final Report
The study was heard at the Life Enrichment Committee in early February, but when it was scheduled to also be discussed at the next full Council meeting, it was pulled because the presenter could not be present. Unclear if there will be a discussion.
See introductory notes above
—OPD Surveillance Tech 2024 Annual Reports
See this week's In the Details for more information about this.
Comments ()