At Council This Week, July 1, 2025

As Legislative Break Draws Near, a Flurry of “Urgency” Legislative Items Bypass Committees & Go Directly To Council

City Staff raised eyebrows at Thursday’s Rules Committee with requests for an unusual number of “Rule 24” urgency processes to skip committee deliberation and go straight to full council. Council’s Rule 24 urgency designation allows an item to be scheduled directly to a full Council meeting rather than first going through committee. The City had already been relying increasingly on Rule 24 in recent weeks–6 items on Tuesday’s Council agenda got there via Rule 24 requests at previous Rules meetings, including the significant changes to Impact Fee legislation reported on below. But at Thursday’s rules committee meeting, an astonishing 16 requests to bypass committee were made by city staffers for the upcoming July 15th meeting, the last council meeting scheduled before the body takes summer recess and all were granted by the CMs on the committee.

In their rationales for the requests, city staffers from various departments claimed that many requests were last-minute attempts to make deadlines that coincide or set during council's summer break—with attendant loss of funding, contract opportunities or other problems if missed. But the requests come as the first half of the year was punctuated with often cancelled or sparsely agendized committee meetings, and record-breaking speedy council meetings that had bare bones agendas.

Rules Committee members Carroll Fife, Rowena Brown and Janani Ramachandran all remarked on the atypical number of Rule 24's.

"It is a little concerning...I understand that there have been unusual circumstances, and we definitely need to make space for public comment and participation in the democratic process so I just wanted to register my concerns," Fife said.

Impact Fee Update Would Have Stayed in Committee, But Rule 24 Fast-Tracked it to July 1 Council—Jenkins and Wang Amendments Added June 24, 26

An Impact Fee amendment that would add significant changes to Oakland’s fee structure was moved from the CED pending list to the July 1 full Council meeting at a recent rules committee meeting via Rule 24 [see above]. The amendments from the Planning and Building Department [PBD] incorporate some changes required in new state laws, like switching the per unit based fee to a function of square footage. But the update also features significant changes not required by the state—the original update deliberated by the CED committee on June 10 would also change the current fee payment timeline, for example. Developers must currently pay a partial impact fee at the time a permit is issued, and then the full amount when the project is complete. The payment feeds the Affordable Housing Trust Fund [AHTF] and goes into the City's financing grants for affordable housing developers in the near-term, giving current affordable housing projects an initial boost to match market rate housing development.

At the June 10 CED meeting where the changes were first discussed, there was substantial commentary from stakeholder organizations and residents about the controversial changes. But most of the commentary was critical of many proposed changes. Jeff Levin of East Bay Housing Organizations [EBHO], an organization intrinsically involved with the development of impact fees a decade ago, encapsulated much of the criticism. The organization has been advocating for stronger rules designed to better recoup the impact of market rate development, but instead, Levin said, “staff is actually proposing to weaken rather than strengthen the program.”

Levin warned elimination of up front fees would deprive the AHTF of financing for housing development to match the over-production of market rate housing–the actual intent of the original concept. Levin also noted that market rate units that are affordable only in name continue to receive reduced impact fee costs.

During the meeting, CM Kevin Jenkins read off questions from a prepared document, and suggested a plan to delete fees entirely from East Oakland’s Impact Fee Zone 3—Zone 3 encompasses most of East Oakland, and has a lower fee structure that was initially intended to spur development away from Oakland’s downtown core. The community response and especially Jenkins’ stated intention prompted CMs to keep the item in the pending list with no date specific in order to revisit it again.

But at the June 11 Rules Committee, City staff requested that the update go straight to the July 1 Council meeting instead. CED Chair Rowena Brown, who is also on the Rules Committee approved of the change on the dais in response to Rules Chair Jenkins’ query—and Brown noted Jenkins’ intention to add his amendments to the item before it reaches Council.

That vote forwarded the legislation with no additional consideration of stakeholder commentary to a full council meeting. On June 24, according to legislative documents, Jenkins added his amendments to the packet that would waive Impact Fees in Zone 3 completely. On June 26, the same day as the Rules Committee meeting, CM Charlene Wang added her own amendments that enlarge Zone 3 to include District 2 areas currently in Zone 2 in the East Lake area. Those amendments together would create a no impact fee zone from 2nd avenue, just east of Lake Merritt and along Macarthur Blvd to the San Leandro border if accepted and passed.

The packet will go to full council Tuesday with none of the criticisms advocates offered at the CED meeting answered. But it will have Jenkins’ amendments that the public didn’t have time to consider as well as previously undiscussed changes from Wang only seen by last Thursday. The item is on the non-consent agenda.

Head Start Director Cooppan Returns to Role, Gives Oral Report That Would Have Addressed Directorial Vacancy After Her Previous Termination

In an ironic twist to two intertwined city hall dramatic arcs, former Head Start Director Veena Cooppan returned to her job in time to give an oral report at the Life Enrichment Committee prompted by her own mysterious and abrupt termination in April. The surprising dismissal prompted concerned parents and advocates in Head Start's oversight and advisory committee to seek answers about the rationale, and how the program would continue without leadership in the short term. Both those who supported Cooppan, and regular critics of her tenure, worried about the outcome of the process. CM Carroll Fife, who, as the Life Enrichment Committee [LEC] Chair is the liaison for the Council to Head Start and its mandated bodies, agendized an oral report on the issues several weeks ago.

The report would have likely been given by Coppan's former immediate superior, Assistant City Administrator Latonda Simmons—but in the meantime Simmons was also abruptly mysteriously terminated as well. And then in an unexpected reversal before the report was to be given at Council, Cooppan was just as mysteriously returned to the Head Start Director role. Cooppan thus gave the report requested by the public due to her own dismissal.

During her comments about the state of Oakland’s Head Start, Cooppan noted that US President Donald Trump has disbanded the state’s oversight board, which once coordinated and aided the City of Oakland in its applications for the funding and imprimatur of the national program. Cooppan says there’s some confidence that the current application for the ongoing program is well-received, answering some concerns about potential ending the program first introduced by Kevin Jenkins when he was interim Mayor. Cooppan, however, shed no light on the internal process that led to her termination or how she returned to the job.

Advocacy for Unfreezing of Cultural Affairs Manager Continues at Life Enrichment

Advocacy for unfreezing the City’s Cultural Affairs Manager continued at the Life Enrichment Committee during a report on the Cultural Affairs Department's work agendized by Carroll Fife. [see live reporting thread]

Settlement Requires Hearing—But not Affirmative Vote—On Legislation Allowing Raising Rent for Garbage Fee Increases

A City settlement with landlords over garbage pricing from Waste Management requires that the City draft and introduce legislation to Council that would allow landlords to raise rental prices to reflect garbage service increases—the legislation comes before Council Tuesday. The settlement, however, does not require council to pass the legislation, only to consider it at a public meeting. Currently, landlords are allowed to petition for yearly Consumer Price Index [CPI] increases that represent increases in the cost of doing business as a landlord. Landlords are also allowed to petition for a higher increase than the CPI if they can prove a service or cost during the year exceeded the CPI allowed level. But an additional opportunity for specific garbage-related increases would be a first. The legislation would allow both the CPI increase and an additional garbage service increase, should there be one, even if the disposal increase didn't raise costs above the calculated CPI.

At the Community and Economic Development that first deliberated the legislation several members and representatives of the Oakland Tenants Union and ACCE spoke out against the concession. Several, like Valarie Bachelor, described it as overreach that would invite landlord lawsuits as a way of undermining tenant protections outside of the legislative process.

“[the legislation] is rooted in a lawsuit…the city then decided to appease landlord lobbies and gut its own rent control ordinances allowing landlords to pass through these garbage collection costs without fully realizing and analyzing. The policy aspect is an invitation for more lawsuits, more lawsuits from landlord corporations or landlord trade associations that will fully gut our rent controlled ordinances here in Oakland,” Bachelor, of ACCE, said.

Likely due to the exigencies of the settlement, the report, written by Emily Weinstein, the Housing and Community Development Director, does not directly advocate against the legislation. But in several instances, descriptions of the impact and character of the increase suggest it's likely to exacerbate Oakland's affordability crisis. Under "economic impact", the report notes that the legislation would:

"shift the economic impact of increased Waste Services costs from property owners to existing tenants on an ongoing basis"

The city's own race/equity analysis suggests the proposal has the potential for inequitable outcomes for Black and other at-risk tenant demographics generally, but stops short of recommending against it, due to a lack of data at the city level:

"The proposed changes would shift the economic impact of increased Waste
Services costs from property owners to existing tenants on an ongoing basis. While the issue of high housing costs is felt across all Oakland racial groups, Black tenant households are most impacted...It is unclear whether shifting to tenants the costs of increased Waste Services might disproportionately impact low-income people of color as data on household income, rent burden, and race/ethnicity of tenants who live in rental units covered by the Rent Adjustment Ordinance is not collected by the Rent Adjustment Program."

East Bay Rental Housing Organizations [EBRHA], an increasingly controversial organization led by Bay Area politician Chris Moore, advocates for the change on behalf of its members and the plaintiffs in a separate document included in the legislative packet, calling it a "compromised settlement to try to fairly distribute these increased costs among all their beneficiaries, while safeguarding against unnecessary future increases".

Council Will Vote on Filing County Liens For List of Delinquent Business Tax Accounts That Includes Former Mayoral Candidate Loren Taylor

Mayoral candidate and former D6 council person Loren Taylor had significant issues keeping up with his LLC’s business tax payments and state fees for over the past decade—to such a degree that his account was referred to Alameda County for placement of liens to recoup the money for several years running, public documents revealed during April's election cycle.

According to County property records, Taylor eventually made payments that removed liens on his rental properties in the subsequent years of his term as City Council member. But a new Finance Department legislative request to file liens for business tax scofflaws before Council Tuesday includes his name once more for $7K of unpaid business tax payments from 2021 to 2024, according to the report. Taylor again failed to pay business tax on his rental property business from 2021 to 2024, per the document.

The period coincides with both of Taylor’s mayoral campaigns. The period also coincides with the Finance Department's reporting that rental property businesses were as an industry failing to pay Business License Tax—and current increases in revenue from pursuing those fees.

The item bypassed committee via Rule 24 at a Rules Committee meeting of June 5, but it's not clear why that was the case, as there was a subsequent Finance Committee meeting with very little agendized on June 10.

New Election of Council President Pro Tempore

This item was added after Rules via Rule 28 for unclear reasons. CMs will have to vote to consider it with urgency at the meeting with a super majority, but generally such votes are pro-forma and rarely fail. A new election would replace Current Pro Tempore Noel Gallo in the role.

Lee Appointments to Port Commission May Signify Break from City’s Past Port Political Dynamics

Mayor Barbara Lee's Port Commission appointments on Tuesday may reveal some clues to the mindset of her administration.

Lee's move to re-appoint Barbara Leslie, the Schaaf and Thao era appointment may come as little surprise. Leslie supported Lee’s run for mayor, was part of her mayoral transition team and heads the very influential Oakland Chamber of Commerce. Leslie has been on the Port Commission since 2018.

But two other Lee appointments, Alvina Wong and Derrick Muhammad, are notable for their departure from previous political dynamics at the Port. Wong’s appointment appears to respond to stakeholder advocacy to appoint an environmental advocate to the body. Last year, CM Dan Kalb tried and failed to propose an environmental advocate with a great deal of community support to the body instead of a reappointment of Arabella Martinez, an emeritus of the Unity Council. Kalb’s attempt failed, and Martinez was reappointed.

Wong is Asian Pacific Environmental Network’s [APEN] Basebuilding Director and was a Schaaf appointee to the Howard Terminal Community Benefits Agreement Steering Committee, where she was a frequent critic of the A’s resistance to include community input into plans for a waterfront stadium. Wong notably opposed the certification of the City’s Environmental Impact Report on the project, and though not an outright opponent of the ballpark at the port, frequently objected in public meetings to the structure of the deal and its conception of community benefits.

APEN has also been at the forefront of police oversight advocacy for years, and became a regular fixture in social justice issues for BIPOC communities, especially Black communities.

Derreck Muhammad was also an appointee to the Howard Terminal Community Benefits committee, but was perhaps even more critical of the development than Wong. Muhammad is a former ILWU Local 10 member and continuing advocate for the longshoreman’s union–he supported the union’s opposition to the port stadium and residential project due to its possible effects on waterfront industries. On the Committee, Muhammad was critical of only vaguely proposed workforce agreements that did not guarantee local, and Black-focused hires for construction.

The Alameda County Building Trades was a fervent promoter of the Howard Terminal project, and often used its leverage on Council members in the non-binding votes that characterized the ultimately failed process. The Trades Secretary, Andreas Cluver, is also on the Port Commission, in two roles that often blurred, but the Trades failed to give any concrete agreements on a workforce agreement.

At Rules, ILWU 10 Vice President Aaron Wright, who became a fixture at Council public comment meeting deliberations, praised Muhammad's nomination. But he also vocally castigated the City’s attempts to bypass the union in Howard Terminal negotiations.

Notably, Muhammad will replace long-time insider Michael Colbruno at the Commission. Colbruno is the longest serving member of the Commission, where he has served since 2013 on an appointment by then-Mayor Jean Quan. Colbruno was subsequently reappointed by Schaaf twice. During his tenure, Colbruno received the highest fine ever levied by the Public Ethics Commission on a lobbyist, $10K–for failing to report lobbying. Although not included as predicate for the fine or mentioned, Colbruno was a Port Commissioner during this time.

Colbruno is a co-founding partner in the lobbying organization the Milo Group, along with co-founder John Gooding, who for years ran both the Chamber of Commerce’s powerful political action committee as well as coordinating contributions for Lee in Congress under the One Voice PAC.

Also at Council Tuesday [most of these are touched on in some detail in the live reporting links here]:

—Laurel BID Hearing

—700K Wood Street Decommission Contract [for third party contract to clean up site before returning it to owner, Game Changer

—OPD Asset Forfeiture Fund Appropriation

—New César E. Chávez Library Lease

—Proposed 15 Year Zero Rent Lease, Rehab Agreement on Abandoned Montclair Fire Station for Piedmont Based Real Estate Broker

—Council Will Consider Parking Fines Increase by 10%, New Crosswalk “Daylighting” Fine

—License Of 615 High Street To TRYBE, Inc

—Omnibus Planning Amendments Would Streamline Certain Permit Procedures as Ministerial