Antioch City Council
November 4, 2025

1644-113j
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please place them in the record of proceedings for the Commission’s CEQA study.

Sincerely,

Christina M. Caro

CMC:ljl
I59
1 ATTACHMENT A

I60
1644-113j 2
Environmental Improvements Resulting from Union Participation

1. Environmental Settlements

Some unions work on constructing and operating the projects that they challenge. In those cases, the unions and their community coalitions enforce the environmental and public health issues raised in their CEQA challenges through mitigation and binding settlements. A few examples are listed below.

a. Residential, Commercial, Mixed-Use Projects

East Bay Residents for Responsible Development, et al., v. City of San Leandro et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case Number RG21107867 (2022) – Lawsuit by citizen group which included labor organizations and community members challenging a CEQA infill checklist for construction of a mixed-use residential project on a contaminated site. The litigation resulted in a settlement with the applicant to implement additional soil mitigation and use low- emission construction equipment.

Branaugh Stage 2 Project (City of Dublin, 2023) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members filed comments stating concerns about a CEQA addendum for a mixed-use residential and industrial project. The group’s participation resulted in a settlement with the applicant to use low-emission construction equipment.

1000 Seward Project (City of Los Angeles, 2023) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members filed comments on the Draft EIR for a 9-story commercial development stating concerns about air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. The group’s participation resulted in a settlement with the applicant to use low-emission construction equipment and a low-emission emergency backup generator.

Ocean KAMP Project (City of Oceanside, 2022) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members brought an administrative appeal of Oceanside’s approval of permits and a Supplemental EIR for a 92-acre mixed-use residential, commercial, and hotel project stating concerns regarding air quality, biological resources, and water supply impacts. The appeal resulted in a settlement with the applicant to implement environmental measures addressing construction air quality, biological resources, and water resources.

I61
1644-113j 3
Modelo Project (City of Commerce, 2022) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members brought an administrative appeal of the city’s approval of a mixed-use development for 850 residences and commercial and community space. The appeal resulted in a settlement with the applicant to use low-emission construction equipment, increase the number of electric vehicle charging stations, create an energy conservation plan, and install construction noise barriers.

San Jose Residents for Responsible Development et al. v. City of San Jose et al., Santa Clara Superior Court Case Number 18-CV-321709 (2017) – Lawsuit by citizen group which included labor organizations and community members challenging a Negative Declaration for a 728 residential unit or 1 million square foot commercial/office use development on a contaminated site. The litigation resulted in a settlement with the applicant to prepare a soil remediation plan, use low-emission construction equipment, reduce energy consumption, provide bike racks and bike lockers, install electric vehicle charging stations, and provide a subsidized transit program.

2nd and PCH Project (City of Long Beach, 2017) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members filed an administrative appeal of the city’s approval of a Final EIR for a large commercial/retail center, stating concerns regarding analysis and mitigation of the project’s air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. The appeal resulted in a settlement in which the applicant agreed to implement additional measures to reduce NOx and greenhouse gas emissions.

East Weddell Residential Project (Sunnyvale, 2014) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members commented on a Draft EIR for a multi-story residential project, stating concerns regarding construction and operational air quality impacts, contaminated soil, energy efficiency, and water reuse. The group’s comments resulted in a settlement with the applicant to revise the EIR’s mitigation plan to increase energy efficiency, install electric car charging stations, provide air filtration systems, obtain written regulatory confirmation of soil cleanup, and mitigate sewer replacement impacts.

Great Oaks Mixed-Use Project (City of San Jose, 2014) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members commented on Draft EIR for a mixed-use project with 720 residential units and 1.5 million square feet of commercial and office/research and development uses on 80 acres. The group’s comments resulted in a settlement with the applicant to sample and remove contaminated soil under regulatory oversight before project construction, and use of low-emission off-road construction equipment to reduce toxic air contaminants and GHG.

I62
1644-113j 4
Napa Pipe Project (Napa County, 2013) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members commented on a subsequent Draft EIR for a 2500-unit mixed-use residential and commercial project on a former industrial site, stating concerns regarding water supply, traffic, and hazardous materials. The group’s comments resulted in a settlement with the applicant to improve water- related infrastructure and traffic infrastructure, and address contamination issues at a proposed school site.

The Village @ 1500 Newell Project (City of Walnut Creek, 2010) – Coalition of labor organizations appealed a planning commission decision authorizing CEQA exemptions for a mixed-use residential commercial project, stating concerns regarding potential impacts on water quality, noise, indoor air quality, loss of trees and energy efficiency. The appeal resulted in a settlement with the applicant to protect local creeks, reduce construction noise, provide indoor air filtration to residences to reduce freeway emissions, and tree replacement.

Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, et al. v. City of Sacramento, et al., Sacramento County Superior Court Action Number 34-2009-80000166 (Delta Shores Project, 2010) – Environmental group and coalition of labor organizations and community members brought a CEQA lawsuit challenging the City of Sacramento’s approval of a mixed-use project of to 5,092 residential units and 1.3 million square feet of commercial development on 800 acres of open space lands bordered by a national wildlife refuge and a freeway. The litigation resulted in a settlement with the applicant to install air filtration systems, reduce residential exposure to harmful toxic air contaminants, improve biofiltration for wetland areas, and tree restoration.

Hilton San Diego Resort Convention Center Project (City of San Diego, 2008) – A union filed comments with the California Coastal Commission on an application for a coastal development permit to construct a conference center at the Hilton San Diego Resort stating concerns regarding the project’s traffic and water quality impacts. The group’s comments resulted in a settlement with the applicant to support the addition of conditions to the project to revise its traffic demand management program and add additional construction and operational water quality protection measures to its stormwater mitigation plan.

Westshore Marina Residential Condominium Development Project (City of Richmond, 2006) – Coalition of labor unions filed comments on the EIR for a 269- unit multi-building residential project, stating concerns regarding the project’s air quality and contamination impacts. The group’s comments resulted in a settlement with the applicant to implement additional dust control measures, reduce diesel emissions from construction equipment, and complete soil cleanup to residential standards before issuance of occupancy permits.

I63
1644-113j 5
Heritage Point Residential Subdivision (City of Pittsburg, 2003) – A union filed comments on a negative declaration for a rezone and general plan amendment to convert commercial land to residential use, stating concerns about contaminated soil, fugitive dust emissions, traffic, and noise. The union’s comments resulted in a settlement with the applicant to implement additional measures to reduce construction noise, analyze on-site hazards, reduce fugitive dust emissions, modify existing streets to reduce traffic impacts and ensure emergency access, and provide pedestrian and bicycle access.

b. Industrial Projects

14800 W. Schulte Road Logistics Center Project (San Joaquin County, 2022) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members filed an appeal of the county’s approval of an EIR for an approximately 700,000 square foot industrial warehouse facility, stating concerns regarding air quality and public health impacts. The appeal resulted in a settlement with the applicant to provide worker protection to prevent Valley Fever exposure and reduce truck idling emissions.

South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan (City of Ontario, 2022) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members filed comments on the Draft EIR for an approximately 220-acre industrial and business park, stating concerns regarding unmitigated air quality, greenhouse gas, public health risk, and biological resources impacts. The group’s participation resulted in a settlement with the applicant to use low-emission construction equipment, restrict on-site vehicle idling, encourage tenants to use low-emission and zero-emission trucks, provide solar-ready rooftops and electric vehicle charging, and conduct pre- construction surveys for sensitive species.

Beaumont Summit Station Project (City of Beaumont, 2022) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members filed comments on the Draft EIR for a 188-acre e-commerce and commercial development project, stating concerns regarding air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, public health, transportation, and water supply impacts. The group’s participation resulted in a settlement with the applicant to restrict on-site vehicle idling, encourage tenants to use low-emission and zero-emission trucks, provide electric vehicle charging stations and EV-capable truck infrastructure, fund transportation and park improvements, and implement on-site water recycling.

I64
1644-113j 6
Redwood Tech at 101 (City of Morgan Hill, 2021) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members appealed the city’s approval of a 29-acre industrial/commercial project with a CEQA exemption. The appeal resulted in a settlement with the applicant to implement additional measures to use low-emission construction equipment, install noise-reducing sound barriers on the construction site, develop a greenhouse gas reduction plan, route trucks away from residential neighborhoods, and develop a transportation demand program to reduce vehicle miles travelled during project operation.

Citizens for Responsible Industry, et al. v. County of Imperial et al., Imperial County Superior Court Case Number ECU001204 (2021) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members filed a lawsuit challenging the county’s approval of an EIR for a battery energy storage project alleging inadequate analysis and mitigation of energy impacts, greenhouse gas impacts, and hazardous materials impacts. The lawsuit resulted in a settlement with the applicant to use low-emission construction equipment, report on operational energy use, and evaluate battery fire risks in its emergency response plan.

1111 Comstock Data Center (City of Santa Clara, 2021) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members filed an appeal of the city’s approval of an MND for a four-story data center building with on-site back-up diesel generators and diesel fuel storage tanks. The appeal resulted in a settlement with the applicant to use low-emission diesel backup generators using best available control technology, and create an energy conservation plan.

Hanford Biogas (Kings County, 2020) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members commented on the MND for a biogas upgrade facility, 5-mile pipeline, and retention ponds, stating concerns regarding the project’s public health impacts and biological resources impacts. The group’s participation resulted in a settlement with the applicant to provide Valley Fever training for construction workers, conduct burrowing owl surveys, and provide construction buffer zones for the species.

Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, et al. v. County of Riverside et al., Riverside Superior Court Case Number RIC1901829 (2020) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members filed a lawsuit challenging the county’s approval of an MND for a 58.8 megawatt industrial wind energy repowering project on a 600-acre site in the county’s desert Wind Energy Resource Zone. The petition alleged inadequate analysis and mitigation of biological resources impacts, air quality and public health impacts, and potential worker exposure to Valley Fever. The lawsuit resulted in a settlement with the applicant to prepare a bird and bat conservation strategy, prepare a construction I65
1644-113j 7
emissions reduction plan, and provide construction worker training and protective gear to prevent Valley Fever exposure.

Contanda Bulk Liquid Terminal (Port of Stockton, 2019) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members commented on the EIR for a renewable diesel storage and transport facility, stating concerns regarding unmitigated air quality impacts. The group’s comments resulted in a settlement with the applicant which resulted in the execution of a $292,189.00 Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement between the facility and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to improve air quality in the San Joaquin Air Basin.1

Raging Wire Data Center (City of Santa Clara, 2019) - Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members filed an appeal of the city’s approval of an MND for a 27-megawatt data center project with 11 back-up diesel generators on a 3-acre site. The appeal resulted in a settlement with the applicant to monitor diesel backup generator emissions, ensure that lithium battery equipment meets international fire standards, and prepare a VMT reduction plan.

Tranquility Solar Generating Facility Project (Fresno County, 2014) – Coalition of unions commented on the Draft EIR for a 400-MW solar photovoltaic energy facility in an area endemic to Valley Fever. The coalition entered into a settlement with the applicant to implement measures to minimize construction worker exposure to Valley Fever.

Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery Coker Modification Project (Contra Costa County, 2006) – Union coalition filed comments with the air district alleging that a refinery coker upgrade project required an air permit from the local air district.

The coalition entered into a settlement with the applicant to reduce hazards exposure to workers, implement fugitive dust mitigation during construction, and use low-emission construction equipment.

Shore Terminals Expansion Project (City of Martinez, 2004) – A union filed comments on a refinery expansion project to construct additional fuel tanks at a marine oil terminal facility which the city asserted were exempt from CEQA. The union entered into a settlement with the applicant to reduce fugitive construction dust and use low-emission construction equipment.

1 See Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement With Contanda Terminals Llc To Mitigate Air Quality Impacts From The Contanda Renewable Diesel Bulk Liquid Terminal Development Project In The Port Of Stockton, available at
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahU KEwifsoXQ_9TnAhXPtp4KHWMQD9EQFjAAegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.valleyair.org %2FBoard_meetings%2FGB%2Fagenda_minutes%2FAgenda%2F2019%2FSeptember%2Ffinal%2F2

2.pdf&usg=AOvVaw34t6RM2URTOBKLeK-ZHdkq (last visited 6/9/2023).

I66
1644-113j 8

2. Other Environmental Improvements

A few examples of other environmental improvements made on projects and their environmental review documents in response to union participation in the environmental permitting process are listed below.

Valor Elementary School (City of Los Angeles, 2023) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members appealed the city’s approval of an MND for a charter elementary school on a contaminated site close to a major freeway. The city responded to the appeal by providing additional analysis of contamination impacts and hazards mitigation, and by preparing a health risk assessment to quantify the health impacts to students and teachers from exposure to toxic air contaminants from freeway emissions.

1396 5th Street Project (Oakland, 2022) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members appealed the city’s approval of a West Oakland housing project on a contaminated former industrial site next to a major freeway. The city’s CEQA checklist incorrectly said that the contamination had been cleaned to residential standards, when it hadn’t, and failed to analyze cancer risk from exposure to hazardous air pollution from the freeway. The city council voted to uphold the appeal and continued the hearing to address the CEQA inadequacies. At the final hearing, the council added a soil cleanup plan to clean the project site to residential standards before construction workers and future residents were at the site, and added conditions requiring health-protective air filters in residential units located near the freeway before approving the project.2

Cambrian Park Mixed-Use Village Project (City of San Jose, 2022) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members commented on the EIR for an 18-acre commercial/residential mixed-use neighborhood project proposing a 229-room hotel, 305 apartments, 48 single-family homes, 25 townhomes, 180-person assisted living facility, commercial space, town square, and public open space. The group’s comments resulted in multiple revisions to the Final EIR to analyze air pollution from diesel generators, apply air quality mitigation, analyze transportation impacts from all of the project’s proposed residences, and strengthen noise mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts on surrounding residences.

2 See Minutes of Oakland City Council meeting, 07/19/2022, available at https://oakland.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=987073&GUID=B2497803-33A2-4746-AD3E- 0E7A9623714A (last visited 6/9/2023).

I67
1644-113j 9
1750 Broadway Project (Oakland, 2020) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members appealed the city’s approval of a 37-story downtown Oakland housing project on a contaminated site adjacent to a multi-unit residential building whose residents would be adversely impacted by Project construction. The appeal alleged that the city’s CEQA checklist incorrectly deferred analysis of contamination impacts and failed to mitigate health risk and noise impacts to adjacent residents. The neighbors also appealed. In response to the appeals, the city added mitigation measures and conditions to the project to conduct soil sampling and perform additional dust monitoring, to provide window replacements and relocation plan/assistance to neighbors displaced by the construction process, and to utilize local hire and local apprenticeships.3

Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar GPA (City of Santa Clara, 2021) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members commented on the Draft EIR for a mixed-use project involving 2,500 dwelling units and 2 million square feet of office space, stating concerns regarding air quality and biological resources impacts. In response to the group’s comments, the city prepared a health risk assessment to analyze impacts from emissions of diesel particulate matter, conducted a biological survey of project site, and corrected inconsistencies in project’s proposed general plan amendment.

Park View Towers Project (City of San Jose, 2018) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members commented on the CEQA addendum for a 3-building residential mixed-use project with 221 residential units and 18,000 square feet of commercial use, stating concerns regarding the failure to analyze historical resources impacts on the St. James Square Historic District. In response to group’s comments, the Historic Landmarks Commission analyzed the historic resources impacts on the Historic District and prepared a detailed analysis of historic church restoration in accordance with historic resource guidelines.

Oak Knoll Mixed Use Community Plan Project (Oakland, 2017) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members commented on the supplemental EIR for a 188-acre mixed use project consisting of 935 residential units, a 72,000 square feet retail/commercial village, and relocation of a historic building. In response to the group’s comments and comments of other environmental and neighborhood coalitions, the city added additional conditions of approval to the project requiring additional mitigation and monitoring for biological impacts, additional traffic and transit impact mitigations, restricted phased project construction, and more stringent requirements for fire safety and vegetation management plans.

3 See Minutes of Oakland City Council meeting, 03/03/2020, available at https://oakland.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=764044&GUID=375B74B5-DE52-4143-B329- 5E23DE5C36BF (last visited 6/9/2023).

I68
1644-113j 10
Saranap Village Mixed Use Project (Contra Costa County, 2017) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members commented on the recirculated Draft EIR for a mixed-use village containing residences and neighborhood-oriented businesses, stating concerns about the project’s air quality, greenhouse gas, and biological impacts. The group’s comments resulted in a additional mitigation being added to the project related to construction air quality, dust control, indoor air quality and air filtration, greenhouse gas reduction reporting and installation of electric vehicle charging stations.

14th and Alice Project (Oakland, 2016) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members appealed the city’s approval of a CEQA infill checklist for a five-story, 262-unit residential and mixed-use project, stating concerns regarding the failure to analyze health risk from construction emissions.

In response to the appeal, the city prepared a construction health risk assessment and documented the feasibility and commercial availability of Tier 4 construction equipment for the project.

24th and Harrison Street Project (Oakland, 2016) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members appealed the city’s approval of a CEQA infill checklist for an 18-story mixed-use residential and retail building project, stating concerns regarding the failure to analyze health risk from construction emissions. In response to the appeal, the city prepared a construction health risk assessment and documented the feasibility and commercial availability of Tier 4 construction equipment for the project.

Bay Walk Mixed-Use Project (City of Richmond, 2015) – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members commented on an MND for a mixed-use residential and commercial project on a contaminated site, stating concerns regarding air quality, worker exposure to hazardous materials, and historic resources (Kaiser Shipyard). The group’s comments resulted in the applicant agreeing to additional measures to address the potential environmental and public and worker health and safety impacts of the project, including installation and maintenance of air filtration and ventilation systems, improved stormwater treatment, supporting local historic preservation efforts, and increased protections for construction workers from hazardous exposures.

One South Market Project (City of San Jose, 2013) – Union coalition appealed the city’s approval of a 23-story mixed-use building with 312 residences, retail, and parking, stating concerns that the city had incorrectly calculated the project’s affordable housing in lieu fee. In response to the appeal, the city assessed an additional $400,000 in in-lieu inclusionary housing fees, for a total of $2,406,112 in in-lieu fees paid to the city to facilitate future affordable housing projects.

I69

4218-007cmc
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
CHRISTINA M. CARO
SARA F. DUDLEY
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
KENDRA D. HARTMANN*
KYLE C. JONES
RACHAEL E. KOSS

NIRIT LOTAN
AARON M. MESSING
WILLIAM C. MUMBY
CAMILLE G. STOUGH

MARC D. JOSEPH
Of Counsel

*Admitted in Colorado

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444-6201
FAX: (916) 444-6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-7037
___________

TEL: (650) 589-1660
FAX: (650) 589-5062
[email protected]

printed on recycled paper

February 17, 2020

Via Email and Hand Delivery

Mayor Libby Schaaf
Council President Rebecca Kaplan
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Oakland
c/o City Clerk
Oakland City Hall
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza,
Oakland, California, 94612
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Via Email Only

Mike Rivera, Project Planner ([email protected])
William Gilchrist ([email protected])
Barbara J. Parker, City Attorney ([email protected])

Re: Response to BayHAC Letter (Holland & Knight) re 1750 Broadway Appeals (PLN18369)

Dear Mayor Schaaf, Council President Kaplan, City Council Members, Mr. Rivera, Mr. Gilchrist, Ms. Parker:

This letter is submitted on behalf of Appellants East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (“East Bay Residents” or “EBRRD”) in response to the January 29, 2019 letter1 by Jennifer Hernandez of Holland & Knight, filed on behalf of the Bay Area Housing Action Coalition ("BayHAC").2

1 Exhibit A, BayHAC Letter.
2Ms. Hernandez incorrectly identifies her organization as “Bay Area Housing Action Coalition.” The actual name of her organization, as described on its website and in California Secretary of State (“Cal SOS”) filings is “Bay Area Housing Advocacy Coalition.” See Exhibit B, BayHAC website at I70

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
The BayHAC letter is a specious and legally unsupported attempt to intimidate City Council members into denying EBRRD’s Appeal (APL19013), and the Appeal of the residents of 1770 Broadway (APL19010), without considering the Appeals on their merits. The letter makes ad hominem attacks on Appellants’ members for participating in the Project’s public administrative process, inaccurately characterizes the issues on appeal, and contains misleading and erroneous statements about EBBRD’s members and the applicability of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) to the Project. BayHAC relies on misstatements of law and fact in an effort to intimidate City officials and chill EBRRD’s participation in the Project’s public process by contending that union workers and local residents are not entitled to raise environmental concerns about projects in their community.

These claims have no credibility, ignore the significant contributions that unions and community coalitions have made to environmental health and safety throughout the State through involvement in CEQA proceedings, and are a basic abuse of process that should not be condoned by the City.

Our review of the letter also demonstrates that BayHAC is uninformed about the facts of the Project and the Appeals. For example, the letter asserts that “the City has not made any findings that the Project would have any negative effects on public health or safety.”
3 This is incorrect. Two of the principal issues raised in EBRRD’s appeal are the significant, adverse health and safety impacts from exposure to toxic air contaminants and noise that were identified in the City’s own CEQA Analysis and its supporting studies. BayHAC also contends that Applicant Rubicon has “engaged in community outreach to address as many community concerns as possible.”
4 However, one of the principal claims in the Neighbor’s Appeal is that “The Developers Reported False Information Regarding Community Engagement,” including claims that the Applicant held meetings with residents of 1770 Broadway that “never took place.”5 These statements demonstrate that BayHAC has not reviewed the record for this Project.

https://www.sfhac.org/bay_hac/ (last visited 2/13/20). See Cal SOS website at https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/Detail (entity detail) and https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/Document/RetrievePDF?Id=04275729-26312972 (Name Change), last visited 2/13/20.
3 BayHAC Letter, p. 5 (emphasis in original).
4 BayHAC Letter, p. 5.
5 See Exhibit C, Residents’ Appeal, p. 4.

I71

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
BayHAC next claims that the City will face “significant exposure to litigation” under the HAA if the City Council were to “uphold the pending appeals and reject the Project or take any action to reduce its density.”6 This statement further demonstrates BayHAC’s lack of understanding of the Appeals. Neither EBRRD’s Appeal nor the Neighbor’s Appeal ask the City to “reject the Project,” “deny the Project,” or “reduce its density.” Both Appeals simply ask the City Council to remand the Project to staff to comply with CEQA. Granting the Appeals would result in the City being required to prepare a legally adequate CEQA document – an environmental impact report – to fully analyze and mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts prior to approval.
7 BayHAC fails to recognize this.

BayHAC also fails to acknowledge that CEQA compliance is a fundamental prerequisite for projects to be subject to the Housing Accountability Act in the first place.8 By upholding the Appeals, the Council would therefore be complying with both CEQA and the HAA – not violating them, as BayHAC claims.

Finally, the author of the letter, Ms. Hernandez, is a well-known anti-CEQA and anti-union advocate for commercial developers, with a pattern and practice of attacking citizen participation in the CEQA process and agency decisions which implement and uphold environmental laws. Promoting herself as a “Wonder Woman vs. CEQA,”9 Ms. Hernandez has taken an openly adversarial approach to public participation in the CEQA process by publishing reports which allege that “anonymous entities,” “NIMBYs,” “business competitors” and “labor unions” are responsible for obstructing the development of affordable housing in California with

6 BayHAC Letter, p. 2.
7 See EBRRD Appeal, p. 3 (“As explained herein, the City Council should vacate the Planning Commission’s approvals and remand the Project to Staff to prepare a legally adequate EIR, before the Project can be presented to City decision makers for approval.”); Residents’ Appeal, p. 17 (“the 1750 Broadway Project, must not be allowed to proceed without a sufficient set of mitigation measures approved by the impacted residents of our building. We have the right to a thorough, honest and transparent accounting of all the issues that we have contested in this appeal and prior public comment.”); Schellinger Brothers v. City of Sebastopol (2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 1245. 8 Gov. Code § 65589.5(e) (“Nothing…in this sectio n be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code [statement of overriding considerations] or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.”). 9 See Exhibit D, SPUR Urban Center program for San Francisco CEQA Panel, Tuesday, October 10, 2017.

I72

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
CEQA challenges (undermining her own argument by citing successful lawsuits in which the court determined that the agency had violated CEQA).10 Ms. Hernandez’ reports have been squarely rebutted by state agencies, legal scholars, and national environmental organizations who conclude that the reports are “misleading,” “overblown,” that their own datasets “do not support its conclusions,” and that the rate of CEQA lawsuits, a mere 0.7% of California projects, is substantially smaller than the litigation rates asserted by Ms. Hernandez.
11 Ms. Hernandez has also sued local and state agencies for enforcing environmental laws. Recent examples include a 2018 lawsuit against the City of Berkeley to compel the City of Berkeley to approve her developer clients’ post- Spengers development project as a “streamlined” project under SB 35, 12 and a 2019
lawsuit brought by housing advocates suing the California Air Resources Board

10 See Jennifer Hernandez, David Friedman & Stephanie Deherrera, In the Name of the Environment, Holland & Knight (2015); David Friedman & Jennifer Hernandez, California, Greenhouse Gas Regulation, and Climate Change (2018); Jennifer Hernandez, California Environmental Quality Act Lawsuits and California’s Housing Crisis (2017); Holland & Knight, OPR Proposes to Increase CEQA’s Costs, Complexity, and Litigation Risks with SB 743 Implementation (August 22, 2014).
11 See Exhibit E, State of California Department of Justice (AG Kamala Harris) (2012), Quantifying the Rate of Litigation under the California Environmental Quality Act, available at https://voiceofsandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/AGCEQA.pdf (last visited 2/15/20); BerkeleyLaw Center for Law, Energy & Environment, Getting it Right: Examining the Local Land Use Entitlement Process in California to Inform Policy and Process (2018), available at https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Examining-the-Local-Land-Use- Entitlement-Process-in-California.pdf (last visited 2/13/20); UCLA School of Law, Hecht, Anti-CEQA Lobbyists Turn to Empirical Analysis, But Are Their Conclusions Sound? (2015), available at https://legal-planet.org/2015/09/28/anti-ceqa-lobbyists-turn-to-empirical-analysis-but-are-their- conclusions-sound/ (last visited 2/13/20); UC Berkeley School of Law / UCLA School of Law, Elkind, Misleading Attacks On California’s New Transportation Analysis Under CEQA, August 28, 2014, available at https://legal-planet.org/2014/08/28/misleading-attacks-on-californias-new- transportation-analysis-under-ceqa/ (last visited 2/13/20); David Pettit (NRDC), Jennifer Hernandez, Why some say this environment law hurts the housing market (August 29, 2017), available at https://www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/2017/08/29/58868/or-did-ceqa-cause-the-housing-crisis/ (last visited 2/13/20); UCLA Law/UC Berkeley Law Climate Change and Business Program / Loyola Law, CEQA in the 21st Century, available at https://rosefdn.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CEQA-in-the- 21st-Century.pdf (last visited 2/14/20).
12 See Exhibit F, Petition for writ of mandate in Ruegg & Ellsworth et al. v. City of Berkeley, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG18930003 (filed: 11/28/2018).

I73

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
(“CARB”) for implementation of its greenhouse gas (“GHG”) reduction policies as “racist.”13 In October 2019, an Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled against Ms. Hernandez’ client in the Spengers lawsuit, finding that the project did not meet the requirements for the SB 35 streamlining process due, in part, to potential adverse impacts on former Ohlone burial grounds.
14 In March 2019, the Fresno
Superior Court struck seven (7) of Ms. Hernandez’ nine (9) claims in the GHG lawsuit against CARB, holding that they failed to allege a supportable factual or legal basis.
15 Ms. Hernandez’s claims of CEQA abuses have been repeatedly rejected by state agencies, courts, legal scholars, and environmental organizations. The arguments presented in her BayHAC letter are equally unsupported and without merit. As discussed herein, the Council should reject the arguments presented in the BayHAC letter and grant the Appeals on their merits.

13 See Exhibit G, The Two Hundred vs. California Air Resources Board/CEQA, Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 18CECG01494 (filed: 04/27/2018) (https://publicportal.fresno.courts.ca.gov/FRESNOPORTAL/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0) (last visited 2/14/20).
14 See Exhibit H, 11/25/19, Notice of Entry of Judgment Denying Petition / Order Denying Petition in Ruegg & Ellsworth et al. v. City of Berkeley, Alameda County Superior Court Case No.

RG18930003, available at https://www.berkeleyside.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Lawsuit- 1900Fourth-ruling.pdf (last visited 2/17/20); Daily Cal, Judge rules against developers in West Berkeley Shellmound lawsuit, available at https://www.dailycal.org/2019/10/23/judge-rules-against- developers-in-west-berkeley-shellmound-lawsuit/ (Last visited 2/13/20). 15 See Exhibit I – 3/29/2019 Order Partially Granting CARB Demurrer to First Amended Petition, Case No. 18CECG01494.

I74

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
I. UPHOLDING THE APPEALS WILL NOT TRIGGER LIABILITY

UNDER THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

BayHAC devotes four pages of legal argument to apparently threaten a lawsuit against the City under the HAA if the City upholds the Appeals. BayHAC’s arguments reflect a misunderstanding of the HAA and its relevance to this Project.

A. The Housing Accountability Act.

The HAA is a State law which promotes infill development by accelerating housing approvals at the local government level.
16 The HAA was enacted in 1982 in
recognition of the fact that "the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem."17 The Act limits the ability of local government to restrict certain types of housing developments, including market rate or affordable housing developments which are entirely residential, include transitional and supportive housing, or are mixed-use projects with at least two-thirds the square footage designated for residential use.
18 For a proposed housing development to qualify under the HAA, it must meet all of the following criteria:

 The development complies with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies.19
 The development would not cause a significant, unmitigable adverse impact on public health or safety.20
 The development complies with CEQA, the California Coastal Act and the applicable congestion management program.21

16 Gov. Code § 65589.5.
17 Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(1)(A).
18 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2).
19 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f).
20 Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1) (emphasis added).
21 Gov. Code § 65589.5(e) (emphasis added).

I75

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
The HAA was amended in 2016 and 2017 to update the HAA’s findings about the state housing shortage, and to strengthen enforcement powers.22 The amended HAA mandates that courts award attorneys’ fees to successful petitioners,23 and authorizes courts to fine cities found in violation of the HAA.24 However, the HAA amendments did not alter or diminish the HAA’s threshold requirements that projects must comply with CEQA, project must comply with objective standards, conditions, and policies and projects may not cause a "significant, adverse impact" on public health or safety.

1. HAA Claims Are Not Ripe Until CEQA Review is Complete.

Government Code Section 65589.5(e) mandates that projects subject to the HAA must comply with CEQA, the Coastal Act and the applicable congestion management plan. Cases interpreting Section 65589.5(e) have held that compliance with these environmental and planning laws and programs trumps the HAA, and that HAA claims are not ripe until CEQA review is complete. 25 In Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, the Court of Appeal interpreted the relationship of Section 65589.5(e) of the HAA with the cited environmental laws in the context of the Coastal Act, concluding that the HAA “subordinates” the Coastal Act.
26 In Schellinger Brothers, the Court held that CEQA review must be completed before an HAA claim becomes ripe. In Schellinger Brothers, a developer spent six years trying to get a development plan approved, modifying the plan by repeatedly reducing the density and paying for various versions of an EIR that was never

22 See Exhibit J - SB 167 (September 29, 2017), available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB167 (last visited 2/14/20).
23 Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A).
24 Gov. Code §§ 65589.5(k)(1)(B), (l).
25 Schellinger Brothers v. City of Sebastopol (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1262, 1270; Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 927, 944, fn9 (“Because the HAA similarly provides that it shall not be construed to relieve local agencies from complying with the Coastal Act (§ 65589.5, subd. (e)), if we were to reach that issue we would likely conclude that it too was subordinate to the Coastal Act.”).
26 Kalnel Gardens, LLC, 3 Cal.App.5th at 944, fn9.

I76

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
certified. He sued, seeking a court order requiring the City to certify the EIR, citing, in part, the HAA. The Court of Appeal held that it could not order the City to certify the EIR, that the City had not unreasonably delayed the project because the project’s CEQA review was ongoing, and that the HAA would have no applicability until the EIR was certified.
27 The Schellinger Brothers Court held that the HAA does not “impose[] a self- executing deadline within which an EIR must be certified.” 28 As the Court
explained, “[n]either section 21151.5 of CEQA, nor Government Code section 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, constitute a categorical or jurisdictional bar to preparation and certification of an EIR taking more than 365 days after the project's application is deemed complete.”29 Thus, where (as Appellants request here), a local agency decides to prepare an EIR for a project, the agency cannot be subject to liability under the HAA for failure to approve the project because CEQA review is not deemed complete until the EIR is certified.

The cases cited by BayHAC are simply irrelevant to the issues before the City Council and do not support its position that the City would be subject to HAA liability for upholding the Appeals.

In North Pacifica, LLC. v. City of Pacifica, the District Court addressed the limitations imposed by Government Code Section 65589.5(j) on a local agency’s discretion to “disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density.” 30 Neither issue is relevant here because the Appeals do not ask the City to disapprove the Project or reduce its density. The Appeals merely ask the City to comply with CEQA. The North Pacifica court did not address the issue of CEQA compliance under Government Code Section 65589.5(e), and therefore does not support BayHAC’s position regarding municipal liability under the HAA in this case.

27 Schellinger Brothers, 179 Cal.App.4th at 1262, 1270. 28 Id. at 1262.
29 Id.
30 (N.D. Cal. 2002) 234 F.Supp.2d 1053, 1059, aff'd sub nom. North Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica (9th Cir. 2008) 526 F.3d 478; Gov. Code § 65589.5(j).

I77

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
Similarly, in Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, the Court concluded that the HAA applies to market-rate housing, and addressed whether subjective design review standards can be used to deny a project under Government Code Section 65589.5(j). Honchariw is not relevant to the issues in the pending Appeals because those Appeals do not contend that the Project’s market rate apartments render the HAA inapplicable and the Appeals do not ask the City to deny the project based on design review standards.

Both the plain language of the HAA and the relevant cases interpreting it make clear that the City has a duty to comply with CEQA before any party can raise a claim under the HAA.

2. The City Will Not Be Subject to HAA Liability for Requiring Additional CEQA Review for the Project.

BayHAC contends that upholding the Appeals would subject the City to a lawsuit under the HAA. BayHAC is incorrect. The Appeals ask the City Council to remand the Project to City Staff to prepare an EIR because the Project’s current CEQA exemption document fails to comply with CEQA. In particular, EBRRD’s Appeal provides substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project is likely to have significant, adverse impacts on public health from human exposure to inadequately mitigated toxic diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions, and from prolonged human exposure to inadequately mitigated construction noise impacts over the Project’s 3-year construction period.

The Appeals therefore demonstrate that the HAA does not apply to the 1750 Broadway Project because (1) the Project does not currently comply with CEQA, and (2) there is substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project has significant, unmitigated public health impacts.
31 Moreover, under Schellinger Brothers, the
additional time required to prepare and circulate an EIR if the Appeals are upheld would not result in a violation of the HAA because the HAA does not impose any time restriction on the City’s preparation of an EIR.32

31 Gov. Code §§ 65589.5€, (j)(1).
32 Schellinger Brothers, 179 Cal.App.4th at 1262.

I78

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
BayHAC next mistakenly asserts that upholding the Appeals would result in “denial” of the Project or a reduction in density.33 Again, neither Appeal asks the City Council to “deny the Project” or “reduce density.” Under the City’s municipal code, any issues that are not raised in the Appeals are outside the scope of the Appeal.34 Therefore, these issues are clearly outside the scope of the Council’s potential action on the Appeals. BayHAC’s contention that the Project will be “denied” or “reduced” is therefore without merit.

Upholding the Appeals would result in the City performing the additional CEQA review that is necessary for the Project to comply with CEQA. This requested relief – remanding the Project to Staff to prepare an EIR – is precisely the type of action that the City maintains the discretion under both CEQA and the HAA to require, because both CEQA and the HAA require the City to comply with CEQA before the Project can be approved, and before any claim can arise under the HAA. Whether or not the developer is frustrated by the prospect of additional review, neither Rubicon, BayHAC, nor any other person or entity would have legal standing to invoke the HAA until the City is satisfied that its CEQA review for the Project is complete. As the Court stated in Schellinger Brothers:

It is probably a truism that since adoption of the California Environmental Quality Act [] in 1970, every developer has at some point before construction starts ground his teeth or clenched her fists in frustration while enduring the often lengthy process leading to certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed project. This appeal shows that frustration is not enough to justify premature judicial action that would short-circuit the decision-making process intended by CEQA.
35 As in Schellinger Brothers, the City Council should disregard BayHAC’s threats, and Rubicon’s pleas for immediate approval, and uphold the Appeals. In upholding the Appeals, the City Council should also make a finding that CEQA review for the Project remains incomplete and that an EIR is required in order to comply with CEQA.

33 BayHAC Letter, p. 5.
34 OMC, sec. 17.134.070(A).
35 179 Cal.App.4th at 1249 (internal citations omitted).

I79

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
II. UNION PARTICIPATION IN THE CEQA PROCESS

Ms. Hernandez attempts to slander EBRRD’s members and discredit their Appeal by contending that EBRRD’s member unions have “ulterior motives” and would withdraw their Appeal for a project labor agreement. 36 This statement is
false. In fact, Rubicon has been told exactly the opposite by EBRRD throughout the Appeal process – that unless the environmental and public health issues raised in the Appeals were addressed through enforceable mitigation, EBRRD would continue to oppose the Project regardless of whether the Project’s adverse workforce impacts are addressed. While it is not unusual for developers and their advocates to stretch the facts, we have rarely seen a member of the bar so directly misrepresent the record in a written submittal to public officials. Ms. Hernandez’s dramatic misrepresentation of facts surrounding EBRRD’s Appeal could be a sanctionable offense if made in Court.
37 Ms. Hernandez next asserts that the union members of EBRRD aren’t really concerned about the public health and environmental impacts of the Project, and for that reason the issues they have raised in the CEQA review process should be disregarded.
38 She is wrong. As we explained in our Appeal and subsequent correspondence to this Council, EBRRD’s members have a direct interest in enforcing the State’s environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members, and have the same rights to raise their concerns about the Project’s environmental and public health impacts as any other East Bay resident.

36 BayHAC Letter, p. 2.
37 CCP § 128.7 explains that, by presenting any paper to the Court, the attorney is certifying that: (1) It is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; and (3)The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” CCP § 128.7(b) (emphasis added). Where any of these conditions is violated, CCP § 128.7(c) authorizes the Court to “impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.” CCP § 128.7(c). 38 BayHAC Letter, pp. 2-3.

I80

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
Unions and their members have long understood that community and worker safety and environmental protection are essential to long-term sustainable development and a healthy construction economy. For these reasons, the union members of EBRRD participate in local environmental permitting and regulatory proceedings to advocate for responsible and sustainable development that will protect their members and the communities in which they live. This advocacy has produced stronger environmental protections, lessened the adverse impacts of individual projects, resulted in greater community benefits and led to more informed decision-making – a fundamental goal of citizen participation in the CEQA process.

A. BayHAC’s RICO/Sherman Arguments Are Uninformed and
Misplaced

Ms. Hernandez cites two recent federal lawsuits against unions to contend that union participation in the CEQA process “amounts to extortion.” 39 These cases
do not involve EBRRD, and have no relevance to this Project. More importantly, Ms. Hernandez’s letter fails to inform the City that the unions have prevailed in their underlying CEQA lawsuit in the first case (Icon at Panorama v. Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters et al.), and that the complaint against the unions in the second case has been dismissed by the federal court (Evans Hotels v. Unite Here et al.).40

On July 30, 2019, the union petitioners in the Icon case won their underlying CEQA lawsuit, demonstrating the merit of the unions’ CEQA claims.41 The trial court’s decision granting the unions’ petition for writ of mandate is attached.

39 BayHAC, pp. 2-3.
40 See Exhibit K, 1/7/20 Order Granting Unions’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint in Evans Hotels v. Unite Here et al., USDC Southern District Case No.: 18-cv-2763-WQH-KSC (“Evans Dismissal”) and 7/30/19 Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate in Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, et al. v. City of Los Angeles. et al., LA Superior Court Case No. BS175189 (“Icon Decision”).
41 Exhibit L, 7/30/19 Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate in Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters,et al. v. City of Los Angeles. et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS175189.

I81

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
On January 7, 2020, the District Court issued the attached order dismissing Evans Hotel’s amended complaint, and, to date, has not granted leave to amend.42 In dismissing the Evans Hotels complaint, the Court held that the unions’ activities, including “sending letters and lobbying City Councilmembers” and “filing CEQA challenges” were permissible and protected actions that fall squarely within the unions’ First Amendment right to petition the government.43 As the Court clearly explained, “[t]hreats to file a lawsuit, to lobby, file CEQA challenges, and engage in a negative publicity campaign are incidental to petitioning activity and fall within the scope of the Petition Clause.”
44 The Evans Hotel case demonstrates that that
EBRRD’s Appeal, and its related actions in asking the City to remand the Project to staff to prepare an EIR, are Constitutionally protected actions intended to petition local government to address EBRRD’s environmental concerns.

Ms. Hernandez next asserts that “labor unions routinely exploit the CEQA process...alleging spurious environmental objections regarding a project's CEQA document.”
45 As support, she alleges (with no citation to any evidence), that “labor union plaintiffs filed at least 397 CEQA lawsuits challenging California construction projects, with at least 24 of those lawsuits filed against the City” between 2013-2020.46 In addition to being unproven, this claim appears to imply that union participation in the CEQA process amounts to “sham petitioning.” Federal courts have held precisely the opposite.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Noerr-Pennington doctrine established that the Petition Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution insulates petitioning conduct from anti-trust liability, regardless of the petitioner’s anticompetitive purpose or intent.
47 In “sham petitioning” claims, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that the lawsuits were brought “pursuant to a policy of starting legal proceedings without regard to the merits and for the purposes of injuring a market

42 Id.
43 Exhibit K, Evans Dismissal Order, pp. 11-14.
44 Exhibit K, Evans Dismissal Order, p. 14.
45 BayHAC Letter, p. 2.
46 BayHAC Letter, p. 2.
47 Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 138 (1961); United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 669-72 (1965).

I82

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
rival,” i.e., “for purposes of harassment”48 or based on “knowing fraud.”49 Both the Ninth Circuit and the US Supreme Court have concluded that unions filing a series of non-labor lawsuits constitute petitioning conduct which is “protected from antitrust liability under the Noerr–Pennington doctrine.”50 Both courts have similarly held that meritorious challenges cannot constitute “sham” petitioning, because the “First Amendment and federalism concerns prevented the filing and prosecution of a well-founded lawsuit from being enjoined as an unfair labor practice.”
51 As discussed in detail in EBBRD’s Appeal and below, union participation in the CEQA process, including that of EBRRD’s member unions, is founded on the merits of challenging a project’s permitting process on environmental grounds.

Union participation has resulted in substantial environmental and public health improvements and additional mitigation for hundreds of projects across the State.

As a former Columbia University fellow and union organizer has explained, “[m]uch of the important social legislation that has built a better society came about because of the strong political support of labor. Unions backed civil rights legislation, Social Security, Medicare, environmental laws, wage and hour laws, the ban on child labor, and much more.”
52 BayHAC’s spurious contentions to the contrary should be rejected by the City.

48 USS-POSCO Indus. v. Contra Costa Cty. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 31 F.3d 800, 811 (9th Cir. 1994).
49 Kottle v. Northwest Kidney Ctrs., 146 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 1998). 50 USS-POSCO Industries, 31 F.3d at 812.
51 BE & K Const. Co. v. N.L.R.B. (2002) 536 U.S. 516, 526–527; USS-POSCO Industries, 31 F.3d at 811.
52 See Exhibit M, Stern, Unions & Civic Engagement: How the Assault on Labor Endangers Civil Society (2013), available at https://www.amacad.org/publication/unions-civic-engagement-how- assault-labor-endangers-civil-society (last visited 2/15/20).

I83

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
B. Judicial Recognition of Union Participation in the CEQA Process

CEQA was designed to ensure that projects thoroughly mitigate their environmental impacts through transparent public processes in order to “inform the public and [] responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.”
53 For this reason, the Legislature has clearly
explained that “public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process.”54 Public participation, civic engagement, activism in their communities, and legal enforcement of basic rights are fundamental components of union participation.

Precisely as intended by the statute, union participation in CEQA challenges like this one has not only led to reduced environmental harm, it has led to greater public disclosure and more informed decision-making by agency officials.

The courts have recognized unions’ right to participate in the CEQA process and the benefits of union participation in environmental challenges. 55 The following
cases are a few examples of successful CEQA actions brought or influenced by unions, including some cases in which EBRRD member unions have participated:

Supreme Court Decisions

1. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310 – Labor organizations and an environmental group brought a CEQA action against the air district challenging its issuance of permits enabling an oil refinery to produce ultra-low sulfur diesel. The Court agreed with the petitioners that increased use of existing equipment was to be evaluated as part of the

53 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1123. 54 14 CCR § 15201.
55 See Bakersfield Citizens for Local Ctrl. v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1198 (“unions have standing to litigate environmental claims.”); Int’l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v.

Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 265 (successful union suit under CEQA to challenge plant’s change from clean to dirty fuel). In Meridian Ocean v. State Lands Comm’n (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 153, a coalition of fishermen brought a CEQA challenge to stop sonic testing of the ocean floor, contending the testing harmed fish populations. The court stated, “[w]hile those whose livelihood depends upon being able to catch fish may have pecuniary motivations to bring the matter to public attention, the fact marine and fish life is being threatened is surely a legitimate environmental concern.” Id. at 170-71.

I84

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
project, not the baseline setting. The Court also agreed that the project was not merely a modification of a previously analyzed project or the continued operation of an existing facility. The Court agreed that substantial evidence showed the potential for significant impacts, requiring preparation of an EIR.

Court of Appeal Decisions

2. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 - Citizen group which included a grocery workers union challenged the City of Bakersfield approval of two Walmart “supercenters” on CEQA grounds. The court held that the EIRs for the projects were deficient in failing to correlate the projects’ adverse air quality impacts to resultant adverse health effects, and failing to analyze the projects’ cumulative and urban decay impacts. In upholding the citizen groups’ appeal, the court expressly held that “unions have standing to litigate environmental claims.” 56 3. Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Port Comm’rs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1357 – CEQA action brought by homeowners whose property would be adversely affected by an expansion of Oakland Airport. The homeowners relied heavily on evidence submitted by labor unions challenging the same airport expansion. The court held that an EIR must accurately describe the expansion, use the most accurate scientific methodology to calculate toxic impacts and include a noise analysis and health risk assessment of toxic impacts. Most of the Court’s conclusions were based on the testimony of experts retained by labor unions.

4. California Unions for Reliable Energy v. Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1225 – A coalition of labor and environmental organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the air district’s conclusion that no CEQA review was required prior to the District’s adoption of a rule authorizing road paving as a method to offset particulate air pollution. The groups argued that the rule did not assure maintenance, restoration, enhancement or protection of the

56 Id. at 1198.

I85

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
environment. The Court held that the District’s adoption was not exempt from CEQA and that the environmental effects of the rule were not too speculative for review.

5. Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867 – A CEQA lawsuit by union groups challenging the adequacy of an EIR for a proposed geothermal power plant. Relying on evidence submitted by California Unions for Reliable Energy regarding fugitive air pollution, the court held that the EIR contained inadequate information and analysis to support the EIR’s rejection of the unions’ proposed mitigation to reduce fugitive emissions.

6. Int’l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 265 – successful union suit under CEQA to challenge plant’s change from clean to dirty fuel.

7. Meridian Ocean v. State Lands Comm’n (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 153 – CEQA action brought by companies challenging State Lands Commission decision to require an EIR for sonic testing of ocean floor that may harm fish populations. The court upheld the fishing coalition’s participation in the CEQA process, irrespective of their commercial interests in the affected fishing industry. As the court explained, fishermen “claim the size and quality of their catches have been impaired by petitioners’ activities. While those whose livelihood depends upon being able to catch fish may have pecuniary motivations to bring the matter to public attention, the fact [that] marine and fish life is being threatened is surely a legitimate environmental concern.” 57 8. Plastic Pipe and Fittings Assoc. v. Calif. Building Standards Comm’n (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1390 - A coalition of labor and environmental organizations (California Pipe Trades Council, the Sierra Club, Planning and Conservation League, Communities for a Better Environment, Center for Environmental Health, and others) supported the California Building Standards Commission decision to require CEQA review prior to deciding whether to authorize the use of cross- linked polyethylene (“PEX”) plastic pipe. The groups were concerned

57 Id. at 171.

I86

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
that PEX allows toxic chemicals, including MTBE, benzene, and pesticides, to leach into drinking water. The plastic pipe and fittings association sued, but the Court upheld the Commission’s decision.

Trial Court Decisions

9. Citizens for Responsible Solar, et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 1718458 [Partially consolidated with Case No. RIC1718565] – Coalition which included California Unions for Reliable Energy brought a CEQA action challenging the EIR for an industrial solar photovoltaic plant to be located on former agricultural lands. The Court granted the petition, holding that the EIR failed to adequately analyze soil contamination impacts and mitigation for impacts to burrowing owl.

10. Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California v. County of Contra Costa (Super. Ct. Contra Costa County, December 1, 2016) Case No. MSN15- 0381 [Consolidated for purposes of trial with Case No. MSN15-0345 and Case No. MSN15-0301] – A coalition of labor organizations brought a CEQA action challenging the County’s air quality analysis in its EIR for a refinery’s propane recovery project. The court agreed with the labor organizations that (1) the county’s conclusion regarding the Project’s air quality impacts from railcar emissions was not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the county failed to consistently describe rail transportation of propane and butane; and (3) the county’s use of the prior shutdown of a process heater in the hydrogen plant as mitigation for the project’s NOx emissions was not supported by substantial evidence.

I87

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
C. Environmental Improvements from Union Participation in the CEQA Process

Union participation in environmental proceedings has achieved substantial success in front of local, regional, and State agencies, particularly when union challengers support affected community coalitions, as with EBRRD and the Neighbors’ Appeals of the instant Project.

Unions, including some of EBRRD’s members, have participated in the public review of industrial, commercial, residential and mixed-use projects like the instant Project, since at least the early 1980s. That participation has resulted in the imposition of thousands of additional mitigation measures, changes in project design, additional analysis and study and other actions that have substantially lessened project impacts and increased public disclosure and improved public decision-making. This has been achieved either directly through the incorporation of additional mitigation measures or conditions of approval by lead agencies at the unions’ behest, through the hundreds of environmental settlement agreements that union coalitions have entered into with Project applicants, the creation of non-profit community benefit organizations, and when necessary, through litigation.

EBRRD has participated in the City’s CEQA process for several projects in the last 5 years alone. EBRRD’s environmental comments resulted in project improvements, additional environmental analysis, and additional mitigation measures being applied to projects to reduce environmental impacts – all without filing a lawsuit. Some examples include:

 14
th and Alice Project (226 13™ Street, Oakland, Project Case No. PLN15- 320) – In response to EBRRD’s comments, the City prepared a construction health risk assessment and documented the feasibility and commercial availability of Tier 4 construction equipment for the Project.

 24th and Harrison Street Project (277 27th Street, Oakland, Project Case No.

PLN16080) – In response to EBRRD’s comments, the City prepared a construction health risk assessment and documented the feasibility and commercial availability of Tier 4 construction equipment for the Project.

 Oak Knoll Mixed Use Community Plan Project (8750 Mountain Boulevard, Oakland, Project Case Nos. PLN15378, PLN1715378, TTM8320) – In I88

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
response to EBRRD’s comments and the comments of other environmental and neighborhood coalitions, the City added additional conditions of approval to the project to require additional mitigation and monitoring for biological impacts, additional traffic and transit impact mitigations, restricted project construction to phasing assumptions identified in the SEIR, and added more stringent requirements to the project’s fire safety and vegetation management plans.

California unions have long participated in proceedings at the California Building Standards Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission to ensure that new building materials and methods of construction are safe and effective and contribute to the state’s energy efficiency goals. This participation has resulted in plumbing pipe manufacturers changing pipe formulations to remove chloroform and eliminate chloroform leaching into drinking water. It has resulted in the adoption of measures to protect workers from the high-levels of exposure to toxic solvents that had been occurring at the time of installation. Of note, this union participation led to regulation of pipe cements to reduce VOC emissions in order to meet air quality goals. It has also resulted in new worker training and installation standards to ensure that consumers and utility ratepayers receive the energy savings they are paying for.

California unions have also participated in the permitting of new energy generation facilities by local agencies (including renewable and traditional energy facilities) and by the California Energy Commission over many decades, demanding stronger air quality, water conservation and toxic material controls on new energy generation facilities. For example, union participation in environmental review of thermal solar power plants led to developers dropping plans to use fresh groundwater in favor of dry cooling or recycled water.
58 Several mitigation
measures advocated by the unions have been adopted by the Commission and are now applied to all new projects and have made California energy facilities the cleanest and safest in the nation. The Commissioners have complimented the

58 See Exhibit N, Beacon Power Plant: https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/beacon-solar-energy- project (last visited 2/17/20), https://www.cnet.com/news/california-approves-giant-thermal-solar- plant/ (last visited 2/17/20), ; Genesis Power Plant
http://www.nexteraenergyresources.com/news/contents/2010/091210.shtml I89

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
unions on the record for their contributions to Commission’s decision-making process.59

Union participation in solar photovoltaic permitting has led to mitigation of construction and operational impacts to air quality, biological resources, habitat, and public health.
60 And union participation in fuel transport and processing facilities has led to facility improvements to reduce air pollutant emissions and contributions by operating facilities to air district regional pollution reduction efforts, including a recent settlement which resulted in the execution of a $292,189.00 Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement between the facility and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.61

59 When approving the Elk Hills project, Presiding Commissioner Michal Moore praised and thanked CURE for its participation: “[w]e never would’ve gotten to some of the places that we did, and the resolution that we did, if it hadn’t been for the – the dogged efforts of [CURE]…we came to a good place, and probably couldn’t have gotten to that good place without some of the tension and – and rigor that was applied. So, thank you very much.” (Elk Hills Power Project, Docket No. 99-AFC-1, CEC Business Meeting Transcript, pp. 24-25 (Dec. 6, 2000).) During the evidentiary hearings, a Commissioner “thank[ed] CURE for the technical help that Phyllis Fox [CURE expert] offered us, and certainly offered me an education that I wasn’t going to get any other place.” (Elk Hills Power Project, Docket No. 99-AFC-1, Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing, p. 61 (Oct. 26, 2000).) In another proceeding, the California Energy Commission recognized the quality of CURE’s participation, saying that “CURE intervention[s] ... have been responsible and thoughtful.” (Sunrise Cogeneration and Power Project, Docket No. 98-AFC-4, Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing, p. 67 (May 25, 1999).) 60 While solar photovoltaic power plants can drastically cut California’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, they require development on hundreds to thousands of acres and have a variety of impacts on California’s resources. Unions’ participation in the public review process has resulted in developers mitigating environmental impacts to biological resources, state jurisdictional waters, soil and water quality, air quality and public health. Joint Statement of Palo Verde Solar 1, LLC and California Unions for Reliable Energy (July, 2010); Joint Statement of Palen Solar 1, LLC and California Unions for Reliable Energy (October, 2010). A coalition of labor and community members achieved similar results regarding the Panoche Valley Solar project. (Joint Statement of Panoche Valley Solar, LLC and San Benito Residents for Responsible Development (June 18, 2015).) 61 See Exhibit O, Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement With Contanda Terminals Llc To Mitigate Air Quality Impacts From The Contanda Renewable Diesel Bulk Liquid Terminal Development Project In The Port Of Stockton, available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahU KEwifsoXQ_9TnAhXPtp4KHWMQD9EQFjAAegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.valleyair.org %2FBoard_meetings%2FGB%2Fagenda_minutes%2FAgenda%2F2019%2FSeptember%2Ffinal%2F2

2.pdf&usg=AOvVaw34t6RM2URTOBKLeK-ZHdkq (last visited 2/15/20).

I90

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
California unions were also the first to identify the significance of exhaust emissions from construction equipment and to advocate that such equipment be required to use oxidizing soot filters to reduce emissions. The environmental settlement between CE Obsidian Energy, LLC and CURE in 2003 included a requirement that all large construction diesel engines and drill rigs were required to be equipped with soot filters.62 California Energy Commission staff now routinely recommends that these filters be used to reduce construction emissions.

With regard to toxics, construction unions have historically advocated for investigation, disclosure and mitigation of contaminated soils, among other hazards and impacts, from construction of development projects. For example, in 2006, building trades unions challenged the City of Richmond’s approval of a condominium project without adequate investigation of contaminated soils. The unions worked tirelessly to reconcile discrepancies in agency reports. Ultimately, the Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed to test the soil, even though the agency had already closed its investigation of the development site. DTSC then discovered antimony, a toxic metal that causes severe public health risks, in the soil at levels that exceeded the threshold for hazardous waste in California. As a result, the developer agreed with the labor unions to implement additional mitigation to address the contamination, public health and air quality issues raised by the labor unions.
63 California unions were also the first to identify the danger of acrolein emissions (even before the State officially recognized the level of risk), and advocated that an oxidation catalyst be required to reduce this risk. 64

California unions have left their mark on water quality and water use. In San Diego, the hotel workers union obtained changes in the La Salle Hotel project that enabled public access to San Diego Bay and minimized impacts on water quality.
65 Concerned with the use of Delta water for cooling for the High Desert

62 See Joint Statement of Obsidian Energy, LLC and the California Unions for Reliable Energy, July 2003.
63 Contra Costa Times, Geluardi, John, Council OKs report on site for condos, RICHMOND: Group opts for more information on environmental impacts (May 4, 2006); Joint Statement of Toll Brothers, Inc., International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 302, Plumbers and Steamfitters, Local 159, Sheet Metal Workers, Local 104, Donald H. Brown and Javier Campos (May 2, 2006). 64 AFC (98-AFC-04).
65 Joint Statement of La Salle Hotel Properties and UNITE HERE Local 30 (November, 2008).

I91

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
Power Project, CURE cited State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 75-58 regarding the use of fresh water for power plant cooling. In the Sutter power plant case, CURE identified the significant impacts that would result if the project were cooled using groundwater.
66 CURE consistently advocated that the projects use dry air cooling, but the applicants claimed that this would be prohibitively expensive.

After CURE showed that the additional cost would be relatively modest, Calpine agreed to use 100% air cooling for the project at the Sutter plant.

Unions’ environmental achievements in CEQA proceedings are also explained in a 2005 report published by the Planning and Conservation League entitled Everyday Heroes Protect the Air We Breathe, the Water We Drink, and the Natural Areas We Prize: Thirty-Five Years of the California Environmental Quality Act. 67 Labor unions’ long record of environmental achievement is well documented.

It is unclear whether Ms. Hernandez is ignorant of this history, or simply chooses to misrepresent the facts.

D. Labor Unions’ Interest in Enforcing CEQA

Although motive is irrelevant,
68 building trades unions in the modern era
have a genuine interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable

66 See California Energy Com., Application for Certification for the Sutter Power Plant Project, Apr. 1999, p. 3 (see excerpts in Attachment C).
67 Exhibit P, Everyday Heroes Protect the Air We Breathe, the Water We Drink, and the Natural Areas We Prize:, Thirty-Five Years of the California Environmental Quality Act, Planning and Conservation League, Project Manager and Acting Executive Director: Karen Douglas (2005), available at
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahU KEwib5v6s_sznAhXOvJ4KHab8BtUQFjAAegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcl.org%2Fmedi a%2Fprior-c%2FCEQA-Everyday-Heroes-full_report.pdf&usg=AOvVaw04CF- ustMmZ_LMzfQvwQcD (last visited 2/15/20).
68 Courts take a liberal approach when applying standing requirements to CEQA actions. Bozung v.

LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 272 (“strict rules of standing that might be appropriate in other contexts have no application where broad long-term effects are involved”); Save the Plastic Bag Coal. v. City of Manhattan Beach (“Save the Plastic Bag”) (2011) 52 Cal.4th 155, 165 (the beneficial interest must be direct, substantial and generally special in the sense that it is over and above the interest held in common by the public at large), citing Code Civ. Proc. § 1086; see Bozung v. LAFCO, 13 Cal.3d at 272 (allegations that a plaintiff will be harmed based on “geographical nexus” with the project is sufficient to show beneficial interest even where nexus extends beyond political I92

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
development and protect the health, safety, standard of life and economic interests of their members. Labor union members construct industrial, commercial, residential and other development in California. They also operate and maintain industrial facilities throughout the state. As a result, labor union members are first in line to be exposed to any hazardous materials, air contaminants and other health and safety hazards that exist on a project site. Labor union members also live, work, recreate and raise their families throughout California. Accordingly, these members and their families are directly and adversely affected by impacts on public services and the environment.

Environmentally detrimental projects can also jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for industry to expand locally, regionally or statewide, and by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live in those areas. Degradation of the environment and public health can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities. Labor unions are also concerned about projects that carry serious environmental risks and public service infrastructure demands without providing countervailing employment and economic benefits to local workers and communities.

For these reasons, labor unions, including the union members of EBRRD, have a strong interest in enforcing environmental laws, such as CEQA, which require the disclosure of environmental and public health impacts and ensure a safe working environment. These laws also ensure informed analyses of economic, environmental and social factors before deciding whether the benefits of a project outweigh its impacts.

boundaries.) Workers also have associational standing. (Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1515, 1522 (entity has associational standing if: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit); Board of Social Welfare v. County of Los Angeles (1945) 27 Cal.2d 98, 100-01 (“Where the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the [petitioner] need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result, since it is sufficient that he is interested as a citizen in having the laws executed and the duty in question enforced.”).

I93

February 17, 2020

4218-007cmc

printed on recycled paper
III. CONCLUSION

Thorough and accurate CEQA review is required for all discretionary development projects in the State, including housing projects, “regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial.”69 Union and community participation in the CEQA process is essential to ensuring that the CEQA process is conducted openly and accurately.

It is the City’s duty to ensure that this Project is not approved until the City completes a legally adequate CEQA document for the Project, uninterrupted by specious threats of litigation from either the Applicant or uninvolved third parties.

EBRRD respectfully requests that the City Council disregard the fallacious and mean-spirited letter from the BayHAC, and uphold its Appeal on the merits.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please place them in the record of proceedings for the Project.

S i n c e r e l y ,

Christina M. Caro

A t t a c h m e n t s
CMC

69 14 CCR § 15063(b)(1); Gov. Code § 65889.5(e).

I94

June 22, 2022

VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL

City of Los Angeles City Planning
Commission
Samantha Millman, President
c/o, Cecilia Lamas, Commission Executive
Assistant
Los Angeles City Hall
200 N. Spring Street, Suite 525
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Email: [email protected]

Vincent Bertoni, Director of
Planning
City Planning Department
City of Los Angeles
200 N. Spring St., Suite 525
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Email: [email protected]

VIA EMAIL ONLY
Michelle Carter, Planner
Email: [email protected]

Re: Settlement Agreement for Bronson Residential Tower Project (1715 – 1739 North Bronson Avenue) (VTT-83510-CN-HCA, ENV- 2021-6887-CE; Related Case: CPC-2021-6886-DB-SPR-WDI-HCA)

Dear President Millman, Commission Members, Mr. Bertoni, and Ms. Carter:

This firm represents Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (“CREED LA”) with regard to the above-referenced Bronson Residential Tower Project, to be located at 1715 – 1739 North Bronson Avenue, Case No. VTT-83510-CN-HCA, ENV-2021-6887-CE; Related Case: CPC- 2021-6886-DB-SPR-WDI-HCA (“Project”). On May 13, 2022, CREED LA submitted a timely appeal (“Appeal”) to the Los Angeles City Planning Commission (“CPC”) alleging various legal errors in the City’s environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.

CREED LA is pleased to report that, as a result of direct discussions with 1717 Bronson, LLC (“Applicant”), it has entered into a legally enforceable settlement agreement with the Applicant in which the Applicant has committed to I95
implementing additional measures beyond what the City requires to reduce impacts to air quality and noise identified in the Appeal.

With the Applicant’s agreement to implement these additional measures, the issues raised by CREED LA regarding the Project have been addressed and resolved. CREED LA hereby supports the Project and proposed Project approvals.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Kevin T. Carmichael

KTC:ljl

I96
Office of the City Clerk
Oakland City Hall,
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza,
Room 201
Oakland, California 94612
City of Oakland
Meeting Minutes - FINAL
* Concurrent Meeting of the Oakland
Redevelopment Successor Agency
and the City Council
5:30 PM City Council Chamber, 3rd FloorTuesday, March 3, 2020 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Concurrent Meeting of the Oakland City Council and Successor Redevelopment Agency was held on the above date. Opening with the Pledge of Allegiance, the meeting was convened at 5:41 p.m.
2 ROLL CALL / CITY COUNCIL
The Roll Call was modified to note Vice Mayor Reid present at 6:00p.m.

Sheng ThaoExcused 1 -
Nikki Bas, Noel Gallo, Dan Kalb, Lynette McElhaney, Laurence E. Reid, Loren Taylor, and Rebecca Kaplan
Present 7 -
3 OPEN FORUM / CITIZEN COMMENTS (Time Available: 15 Minutes) There were 48 open forum speakers

4.1 Subject:
2020 California Distinguished School Awards
From: Councilmember Bas
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Honoring The Three Oakland Unified School District Schools Recognized As 2020 California Distinguished Schools By State Superintendent Of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond: Cleveland Elementary School, Crocker Highlands Elementary School, And Lincoln Elementary School 20-0076
View Report
88052 CMS
Attachments:

There was 1 speaker on this item
A motion was made by Nikki Bas, seconded by Noel Gallo, that this matter be Adopted. The motion carried by the following vote:

Excused: Thao
1 -

Aye: Bas, Gallo, Kalb, McElhaney, Reid, Taylor, and Kaplan7 - NO VOTE: 0

I97
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL

4.2 Subject:

Honoring City Administrator Sabrina Landreth
From: Vice Mayor Reid
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution In Honor Of City Administrator Sabrina Landreth For Her Devoted and Unwavering Commitment To The People Oakland And Recognize Her For Her Outstanding Career With The City Of Oakland 20-0230

NO WRITTEN MATERIALS SUBMITTED
View Report
88053 CMS
Attachments:

There were 3 speakers on this item
The Roll Call was modified to show President Pro Tempore Kalb and Councilmember Bas out there seats at 6:55 p.m.

A motion was made by Larry Reid, seconded by Loren Taylor, that this matter be Adopted. The motion carried by the following vote:

Excused: Thao
1 -

Aye: Gallo, McElhaney, Reid, Taylor, and Kaplan5 -

Absent: Bas, and Kalb2 -
NO VOTE: 0
4 ACTIONS ON SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
(Ceremonial Presentations, Reports/Presentations From The Mayor, Council Acknowledgements/Announcements):

The Agenda was modified to show item 4 being heard after item 4.2 The Roll Call was modified to show President Pro Tempore Kalb present at 6:57p.m.

The Roll Call was modified to show Councilmember Bas present at 7:01p.m.

I98
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL
5 APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 2020
20-0217
View ReportAttachments:

The Council approved as amended to the following changes:
1) To Item 7.17, strike Resolution and replace with Ordinance 2) To Item 9.1 & 9.2 strike Close Public Hearing
There was 1 speaker on this item
A motion was made by Noel Gallo, seconded by Lynette McElhaney, that this matter be Approve with the following amendments. The motion carried by the following vote:

Excused: Thao
1 -

Aye: Bas, Gallo, Kalb, McElhaney, Reid, Taylor, and Kaplan7 - NO VOTE: 0
6 MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA AND PROCEDURAL ITEMS (Requests To: Reschedule Items From Consent To Non-Consent To The Next Council Agenda, Speak On Consent Calendar, Register Votes, Change Order Of Items, Reconsiderations, Pull Items Held In Committee):

Council President made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bas to schedule the following item...Madden Fab
7 CONSENT CALENDAR (CC) ITEMS:

Approval of the Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Gallo, seconded by Kalb, to approve the Consent Agenda.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Excused: Thao 1 -

Aye: Bas, Gallo, Kalb, Reid, Taylor, and Kaplan6 -

Absent: McElhaney1 -
NO VOTE: 0

I99
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL

7.1 Subject:

Declaration Of A Local Emergency Due To AIDS Epidemic
From: Office Of The City Attorney
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Renewing And Continuing The City Council's Declaration Of A Local Emergency Due To The Existence Of A Critical Public Health Crisis With Regard To The Human Immunodeficiency Virus ("HIV")/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ("AIDS") Epidemic
20-0208
View Report
88054 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.

7.2 Subject:

Declaration Of Medical Cannabis Health Emergency
From: Office Of The City Attorney
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Renewing The City Council's Declaration Of A Local Public Health Emergency With Respect To Safe, Affordable Access To Medical Cannabis In The City Of Oakland
20-0209
View Report
88055 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution be Adopted.

7.3 Subject:

Declaration Of A Local Emergency On Homelessness
From: Council President Kaplan
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Renewing And Continuing The City Council's Declaration Of A Local Emergency Due To The Existence Of The City’s Homelessness Crisis
20-0210
View Report
88056 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.

I100
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL

7.4 Subject:

League Of California Cities Travel Reimbursement
From: Councilmember McElhaney
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Authorizing Reimbursement For Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney’s Costs Of Approximately $2146 From The Council Contingency Fund For Travel To Washington, DC For Attendance At The National League Of Cities’ Congressional City Conference From March 8 -11, 2020 20-0034
View ReportAttachments:

This City Resolution be Withdrawn with No New Date.

7.5 Subject:

Councilmember Loren Taylor NLC Travel Reimbursement
From: Councilmember Taylor
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Authorizing Reimbursement For Councilmember Loren Taylor’s Costs Of Approximately $2,800.00 From The Council Contingency Fund For Travel To Washington, DC For Attendance At The National League Of Cities’ Congressional City Conference From March 8-11, 2020
20-0175
View Report
88057 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.

7.6 Subject:

League Of California Cities Travel Reimbursement
From: Councilmember Gallo
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Authorizing Reimbursement For Councilmember Noel Gallo’s Costs Of Approximately $2,887 From The Council Contingency Fund For Travel To Washington, DC For Attendance At The National League Of Cities’ Congressional City Conference From March 7-11, 2020
20-0176
View Report
88058 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.

I101
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL

7.7 Subject:

City of Oakland And IAFF, Local 55 Salary Ordinance Tentative Agreement From: Human Resources Management Department
Recommendation: Adopt The Following Pieces Of Legislation; 1) An Ordinance Amending The Salary Schedule Of Ordinance 12187 C.M.S. (The Salary Ordinance) To Provide Wage Increases To Represented Employees In Representation Unit FQ1 Pursuant To The Memorandum Of Understanding Between The City Of Oakland And The International Association Of Firefighters, Local 55 As Follows:

An Increase Of 2.5% Effective The First Full Pay Period Following January 1, 2021; Increase Of 1.5% Effective The First Full Pay Period Following July 1,2021; Increase Of 2% Effective The First Full Pay Period Following January 1, 2022; Increase Of 1% Effective The First Full Pay Period Following July 1, 2022; Increase Of 2% Effective The First Full Pay Period In December 2023; And An Additional Increase Of 2% Effective The First Full Pay Period Following January 1, 2021 For The Classification Of Engineer Of Fire; And
20-0127
View Report
13586 CMS
Proof Of Publicaion 13586 CMS
Attachments:

This Ordinance was Approved for Final Passage.
2)
An Ordinance Amending Salary Schedule Of Ordinance 12187 C.M.S. (“Salary Ordinance”) To Provide Wage Increases To The Salaries Of The Unrepresented Chief Of Fire, Deputy Chief Of Fire Department And Assistant Chief Of Fire Department, Representation Units UR1 And UU1; The Wage Increases Shall Be As Follows: An Increase Of 2.5% Effective The First Full Pay Period Following January 1, 2021; Increase Of 1.5% Effective The First Full Pay Period Following July 1, 2021; Increase Of 2% Effective The First Full Pay Period Following January 1, 2022; Increase Of 1% Effective The First Full Pay Period Following July 1, 2022; And Increase Of 2% Effective The First Full Pay Period In December 2023
20-0128
View Report
13587 CMS
Proof Of Publicaion 13587 CMS
Attachments:

This Ordinance was Approved for Final Passage.

I102
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL

7.8 Subject:

Measure D- Oakland Fund For Children & Youth/Kids First! Extension From: The Life Enrichment Committee
Recommendation: Adopt An Ordinance To Reauthorize And Extend For Twelve Years An Amendment Of The Charter Of The City Of Oakland (Article XIII Section 1300) Establishing The Kids First! Oakland Fund For Children And Youth As Approved By The Passage Of The 2009 Kids First! Voter Initiative Measure D 18-2532
View Report
13588 CMS
Proof Of Publicaion 13588 CMS
Attachments:

This Ordinance was Approved for Final Passage.

7.9 Subject:

Settlement Agreement - Francisco Barriga Salinas
From: Office Of The City Attorney
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Authorizing And Directing The City Attorney To Compromise And Settle The Case Of Francisco Barriga Salinas, Francisco Romero Salinas V. City Of Oakland And Does 1-30, Alameda County Superior Court Case No.

RG16833669, In The Amount Of Eight Hundred Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Dollars And No Cents ($812,500.00) As A Result Of An Auto Collision On October 8, 2015 (Department Of Transportation - Automobile Collision)
20-0229
View Report
88059 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.

7.10 Subject:

CalHome Grant Application Resolutions
From: Housing And Community Development Department
Recommendation: Adopt The Following Pieces Of Legislation; 1) A Resolution Authorizing The City Administrator Or His Or Her Designee To Apply For, Accept And Appropriate Grant Funds From The California Department Of Housing And Community Development In An Amount Not To Exceed $2 Million Dollars Under The CalHome Program For First-Time Homebuyer Mortgage Assistance Programs; And 20-0214
View Report
88060 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.

I103
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL
2) A Resolution Authorizing The City Administrator Or His Or Her Designee To Apply For, Accept And Appropriate Grant Funds From The California Department Of Housing And Community Development In An Amount Not To Exceed $3 Million Dollars Under The CalHome Program For Accessory Dwelling Unit And Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit Programs
20-0215
View Report
88061 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.

7.11 Subject:

Resolution Appointing Oakland Representatives To The EBRCSA Board From: Council President Kaplan
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Appointing Councilmember Noel Gallo To The East Bay Regional Communications System Authority (EBRCSA) Board Of Directors, And Appointing Councilmember Sheng Thao As An Alternate To The EBRCSA Board Of Directors Commencing March 6, 2020
20-0213
View Report
88062 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.

7.12 Subject:

New California State Laws Annual Report
From: Office Of The City Attorney
Recommendation: Receive And Informational Report And Briefing From The City Attorney's Office On All New California State Laws Which Become Effective In 2018.

Said Report Shall Be Annually Presented At The First Rules Committee In February Of Each Year
20-0148
View ReportAttachments:

This Informational Report was Received and Filed.

I104
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL
S7.13 Subject:
2018 FEMA Assistance To Firefighters Grant
From: Oakland Fire Department
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Authorizing The City Administrator, Or Designee, To: (1) Enter Into An Agreement With The U.S. Department Of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) To Accept The Assistance To Firefighters Grant (AFG) Funds In The Amount Of Seventy-Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty-Six Dollars ($74,546.00) With Matching City Of Oakland Funds In The Amount Of Seven Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Four ($7,454.00) To Purchase Equipment And Other Necessary Resources For The Project Period Starting September 3, 2019 And Ending September 2, 2020; (2) Appropriate And Administer Said Funds; And (3) Expend AFG Funds In Accordance With The City’s Purchasing Requirements And Programs/Policies 20-0150
View Report
88063 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.

S7.14 Subject:

Amendment To The Salary Ordinance For Various Classifications From: Human Resources Management Department
Recommendation: Adopt An Ordinance Amending The Salary Schedule Of Ordinance No. 12187 C.M.S. (“Salary Ordinance”) To Add The Full-Time Classification Of Ethics Analyst III; To Add The Full-Time Classification Of Sign Shop Coordinator; To Amend The Title Of The Full-Time Classification Of Fire Prevention Bureau Inspector (Civilian) To Fire Inspector; And To Amend The Salary Of The Part-Time Classification Of Senior Aide To Ensure Compliance With The City Of Oakland’s Minimum Wage 20-0166
View Salary Ordinance Report
View Salary Ordinance
13590 CMS
Attachments:

This Ordinance was Approved On Introduction and Scheduled for Final Passage. to the * Concurrent Meeting of the Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency and the City Council to be heard 3/17/2020

I105
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL
S7.15 Subject:

Contract Award For Street Light Standards
From: Transportation Department
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Authorizing The City Administrator Or Designee To Award A Contract To J A Momaney Services, Inc. DBA JAM Services, Inc., A Non-Local Business Enterprise, The Lowest Responsive And Responsible Bidder, To Provide Electrical Equipment, Supplies, Streetlight And Traffic Signal Standards In The Annual Amount Not To Exceed One Million Three Hundred Thirty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety-Two Dollars And Twenty-Five Cents ($1,336,892.25) For The Period Of March 01, 2020 To March 31, 2021 In Accord With Request For Quotation No. 175510, Specification No. 20-285-00 And The General Conditions Therefor On File In The Purchasing Section, And With Contractor’s Bid
20-0173
View Agenda Report
View Attachment A
View Attachment B
View Resolution
View Supplemental Report 2/21/2020
88064 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.

S7.16 Subject:

Broadway Shuttle Operation Agreement
From: Transportation Department
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Authorizing. An Agreement With The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District ("AC Transit”) To Continue Operating The City Of Oakland Broadway Shuttle Between July 1, 2020 And June 30, 2022, At An Initial Cost Not To Exceed $2,367,885, And Authorizing The City Administrator To Increase This Agreement Amount For Expanded Shuttle Hours Or Frequency Of Service Using Any Additional Public And Private Grants And Financial Support Secured Within The Term Of The Agreement
20-0168
View Report
View Report Attach A
View Report Legislation
88065 CMS
Attachments:
this item was approved as amended, changing the date from July 1, 2020 to January 1, 2020.

This City Resolution was Adopted.

I106
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL
S7.17 Subject:

Construction Service Contract With Beliveau Engineering Contractors, Inc.

From: Oakland Public Works Department
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Authorizing The City Administrator, Or Designee, To 1) Waive Advertising And Competitive Bidding And Increase The On-Call Construction Service Contract With Beliveau Engineering Contractors, Inc. By An Amount Of Seven Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($730,000.00) From Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) To A Total Contract Amount Of Nine Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($980,000.00); And 2) Reallocate Additional Funds Of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00) Aggregated From Measure KK Bond Project Funds - Fire Station Roof Replacement (Project No. 1003437) In The Amount Of One Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($170,000.00) And Fire Station Feasibility Study Project (No. 1003435) In The Amount Of Four Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($430,000) To The Citywide Fire Stations Aprons And Hardscape Project (No. 1003436) For Construction And Project Contingency
20-0170
View Report Agenda Report
View Report Attachment A
View Report
View Report Legislation
88066 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.

S7.18 Subject:

Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Plan Funding Approval
From: Transportation Department
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Authorizing The City Administrator Or Designee To Accept And Appropriate A Grant From The California Department Of Transportation (Caltrans), In An Amount Of Seventy Two Thousand Dollars ($72,000.00) To Develop A Local Roadway Safety Plan; And To Commit A Local Match Of Eight Thousand Dollars ($8,000.00)
20-0172
View Report Agenda Report
View Report Attachment A
View Report Legislation
View Supplemental Report 2/21/2020
88067 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.

I107
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL
S7.19 Subject:

Contract Increase For Heavy Equipment Repair And Service From: Oakland Public Works
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 87615 C.M.S., Which Awarded A Contract To Kelly's Truck Rep Air For The Purchase Of Heavy Truck Equipment Repair And Service In The Amount Of $500,000 Annually, To Increase The Amount Authorized For FY 2019-2020 To $1,000,000 And Waiving Advertising And Competitive Bidding Requirement
20-0203
View Report Agenda Report
View Report Resolution
View Report Attachment 1
88068 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.

S7.20 Subject:

Fiscal Year 2018 Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Grant From: Oakland Fire Department
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 87526 C.M.S. By: (1) Accepting And Appropriating Fiscal Year 2018 Urban Area Security Initiative (FY 2018 UASI) Grant Funds In The Amount Of One Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand Dollars ($133,000) For A Cumulative FY 2018 UASI Grant Award Of One Million One Hundred Eighty-Three Thousand Dollars ($1,183,000); (2) Authorizing The City Administrator Or Designee To Expend The Additional Grant Funds In Accordance With The FY 2018 UASI Spending Plan To Increase Funding For Equipment And Staffing; And (3) Authorizing Use Of The General Purpose Fund To Cover The Cost Of Central Service Overhead Charges Affiliated With Said Grant.
20-0164
View Report
88069 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.

I108
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL
S7.21 Subject:

Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Grant-FY 2019
From: Oakland Fire Department
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution: (1) Accepting And Appropriating Federal Fiscal Year 2019 Urban Area Security Initiative (FY 2019 UASI) Grant Funds From The City And County Of San Francisco In An Amount Of Up To One Million, Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,050,000.00); (2) Approving The FY 2019 UASI Recommended Grant Spending Plan; (3) Waiving The City’s Advertising And Competitive Bidding And Purchasing Requirements For Procurement Of Equipment When Required By The FY 2019 UASI Grant; (4) Authorizing The City Administrator Or Designee To Expend Said Grant Funds In Accordance With The Recommended Spending Plan Provided The City’s Hiring And Contracting Requirements And Programs/Policies Are Followed; (5) Accepting And Appropriating Additional FY 2019 UASI Grant Funds In An Amount Not To Exceed Fifty Percent (50%) Of The Original Grant Award; And (6) Authorizing Use Of The General Fund Purpose Fund To Cover The Cost Of Central Service Overhead Charges Affiliated With Said Grant
20-0151
View Report
88070 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.

S7.22 Subject:

Adoption Of Citywide Privacy Principles
From: Office Of The City Administrator
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Establishing As City Policy Seven Privacy Principles To Assist City Departments Develop And Implement Internal Policies That Protect The Privacy Of All Oakland Residents, Visitors, And The Public As Follows: (1) To Design And Use Equitable Privacy Practices; (2) To Limit Collection And Retention Of Personal Information; (3) To Manage Personal Information With Diligence; (4) To Distribute Personal Information With Third Parties Only When Necessary And Consistent With These Principles; (5) To Safeguard Individual Privacy In Public Record Disclosures; (6) To Be Transparent And Open; And (7) To Be Accountable To Oakland Residents, Visitors, And Members Of The Public
20-0165
View Report
88071 CMS
Attachments:

This City Resolution was Adopted.
8 ORAL REPORT OF FINAL DECISIONS MADE DURING CLOSED SESSION &

DISCLOSURE OF NON-CONFIDENTIAL CLOSED SESSION DISCUSSIONS There were no final decisons made in closed session.

There were 6 speakers on this item
This be Accepted.

I109
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL
12 Subject:

Amending Resolution Authorizing Oakland Promise
From: President Kaplan
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Implementing Recommendations Of The City Auditor Regarding Oakland Promise, And Amending Resolution No. 85809 C.M.S. (Actions Taken By The Mayor During The Oakland City Council 2015 Annual Recess) Authorizing The City Administrator To Enter Into A Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) With The East Bay College Fund To Implement The Oakland Promise Initiative 18-2542
View Report
View Auditor Report 2/7/2020
View Supplemental Report - Auditors Presentation 2/20/2020 View Supplemental Report - Kaplan
88072 CMS
Attachments:

There were 3 speakers on this item.
the committee moved the revised Kaplan supplemntal resolution A motion was made by Larry Reid, seconded by Lynette McElhaney, that this matter be Adopted as Amended. The motion carried by the following vote:

Excused: Thao
1 -

Aye: Bas, Gallo, Kalb, McElhaney, Taylor, and Kaplan6 -

Absent: Reid 1 -
NO VOTE: 0
COMMENCING AT 6:30 P.M., OR AS SOON AS REASONABLY PRACTICABLE THEREAFTER, THE NON - CONSENT CALENDAR PORTION OF THE AGENDA:
9 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS WITH STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS:

I110
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL

9.1 Subject:
1750 Broadway: Appeal By East Bay Residents For Responsible Development
From: Planning And Building Department
Recommendation: Adopt One Of The Following Three Options:
1) A Resolution Denying The Appeal (APL19013) By East Bay Residents For Responsible Development (EBRRD) Led By Adams Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo And Upholding The Planning Commission’s Environmental Determination And Approval Of A Major Conditional Use Permit For Building Construction Over 200,000 Square Feet And Regular Design Review For The Project Located At 1750 Broadway, Oakland Ca (PLN18369); Or
18-2484
View Report
View Supplemental Report 2/21/2020
88073 CMS
Attachments:

Upon the reading of Item 9.1 by the City Clerk, the contiuned Public Hearing was re-opened at 8:59 p.m.
62 individuals spoke on this item.

Councilmember McElhaneymade a motion, seconded by Councilmember Gallo, to close the Public Hearing, and by that same motoin, moving option 1 and hearing no objections, the motion passed by 5 Ayes: Gallo, McElhaney, Reid, Taylor and President Kaplan, No: Bas 1 Abstain Kalb 1 Excused: Thao This City Resolution be Adopted.

Excused: Thao
1 -
Abstained: Kalb 1 -

Aye: Gallo, McElhaney, Reid, Taylor, and Kaplan5 -
No: Bas 1 -
NO VOTE: 0
Provided The City Council Can Make The Appropriate Findings:
2) A Motion To Direct Staff To Prepare A Resolution For Future City Council Consideration To Deny the Appeal With Additional Conditions; OR 18-2486
This Report and Recommendation be No Action Taken.

I111
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL
3) A Motion To Direct Staff To Prepare A Resolution For Future City Consideration To Uphold The Appeal
18-2488
This City Resolution be No Action Taken.

9.2 Subject:
1750 Broadway Project (Appeal By Residents Of 1770 Broadway) From: Planning And Building Department
Recommendation: Adopt One Of The Following Three Options:
1) A Resolution Denying The Appeal By The Residents Of 1770 Broadway Led By Joseph Hornof (APL19010) And Upholding The Planning Commission’s Environmental Determination And Approval Of A Major Conditional Use Permit For Building Construction Over 200,000 Square Feet And Regular Design Review, For The Project Located At 1750 Broadway, Oakland Ca (PLN18369); Or
18-2490
View Report
88074 CMS
Attachments:

Upon the reading of Item 9.2 by the City Clerk, the continued Public Hearing was re-opened at 11:20 p.m.
46 individuals spoke on this item.

Councilmember McElhaney made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Taylor, to close the Public Hearing, and hearing no objections, the motion passed by 7 Ayes: Bas, Gallo, Kalb McElhaney, Reid, Taylor and President Kaplan,1 and 1 Excused: Thao
Councilmember McElhaney, seconded by Reid to made a motion to direct the City Administrator to include the following mitigations 1. soil sampling 2. additional dust monitoring 3. Window replacement 4. Relocation Plan/Assistance 5. Local hire/participation 6. Local Apprenticeship 7. Private binding agreements submitted to the City Administration as attachments to item
Councimember McElhaney made a motion adopting option 1 the motion passed by 6 Ayes: Gallo, Kalb McElhaney, Reid, Taylor and President Kaplan,1 NO: Bas and 1 Excused: Thao
A motion was made by Lynette McElhaney, seconded by Loren Taylor, that this matter be Adopted. The motion carried by the following vote:

Excused: Thao
1 -

Aye: Gallo, Kalb, McElhaney, Reid, Taylor, and Kaplan6 - No: Bas 1 -
NO VOTE: 0

I112
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL
Provided The City Council Can Make The Appropriate Findings:
2) A Motion To Direct Staff To Prepare A Resolution For Future City Council Consideration To Deny The Appeal With Additional Conditions; Or 18-2491
This Report and Recommendation be No Action Taken.
3) A Motion To Direct Staff To Prepare A Resolution For Future City Council Consideration To Uphold The Appeal
18-2492
This Report and Recommendation be No Action Taken.

ACTION ON OTHER NON-CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS:

Councilmember Taylor made a motion seconded by councilmember Kalb to schedule something about outstanding q
10 THIS NUMBER INTENTIONALLY NOT USED
11 Subject:

City Of Oakland’s Intent To Acquire County Auction Properties From: Council President Kaplan And Councilmember Taylor Recommendation: Adopt Resolution Expressing City Of Oakland’s Interest In Acquiring Certain Properties On Alameda County’s List Of Properties To Be Sold At Public Auction In Order To Preserve & Provide Said Properties For Affordable Housing 20-0143
NO WRITTEN MATERIALS SUBMITTEDAttachments:

This City Resolution be No Action Taken.
13 The Item Regarding the "Bike Share Program Agreement With Bay Area Motivate L.L.C" Was removed from this Agenda Via Rule 28

CONTINUATION OF OPEN FORUM

ADJOURNMENT OF COUNCIL SESSION
(Meeting Shall Conclude No Later Than 12:00 A.M., Unless Extended By Majority Vote Of The Council)
There being no further business, and upon the motion duly made, the Council adjourned the meeting in memory of Connie Fuller at 1:12 a.m.

I113
March 3, 2020* Concurrent Meeting of the
Oakland Redevelopment Successor
Agency and the City Council
Meeting Minutes - FINAL
Americans With Disabilities Act
If you need special assistance to participate in Oakland City Council and Committee meetings please contact the Office of the City Clerk. When possible, please notify the City Clerk 5 days prior to the meeting so we can make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Also, in compliance with Oakland's policy for people with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivities, please refrain from wearing strongly scented products to meetings.

Office of the City Clerk - Agenda Management Unit
Phone: (510) 238-6406
Fax: (510) 238-6699
Recorded Agenda: (510) 238-2386
Telecommunications Relay Service: 711

THE HANGING OF BANNERS, POSTERS, SIGNS, OR ANY MATERIAL ON OR OVER THE

GALLERY BANNISTERS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THOSE ATTENDING MEETINGS.

MATERIALS RELATED TO ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKETS MAY BE VIEWED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, 1 FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, OAKLAND, CA 94612 FROM 8:30 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M.

I114