Under a plan proposed by managers who oversee the Rent Adjustment Program and unanimously approved Tuesday by the City Council, landlords will be required to submit information annually to the city about their units.

Failure to do so would bar them from seeking rent increases exceeding certain caps or responding to tenants’ petitions opposing higher rents.

In addition to giving city officials and the public a better picture of what rent prices and evictions look like across the city, the rent registry would allow Oakland to more actively enforce its rent rules, said Chanée Franklin Minor, manager of the Rent Adjustment Program.

Currently, tenants have to file petitions to fight notices of rent increases, then obtain a legally binding decision from the city program on how much more they’ll have to pay.

But with a rent registry, city staff could track allowable rent increases and ensure that property owners are complying with the city’s rent and just-cause eviction laws.

Franklin Minor said the next step is to seek bids from companies interested in launching a database.

The city has already allocated about $500,000 in the budget for initial research and startup costs, and the program staff hopes to launch the registry in early 2023.

The rent registry would apply to housing units covered by the city’s rent control ordinance, which includes those in most multifamily properties built before 1983, as well as those covered by the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance. The ordinance includes most rented units or single-family homes built in 1995 or earlier, as well as units whose rents are regulated by local public agencies such as the Oakland Housing Authority.

“Having more data to inform policies is exactly what we need,” Councilmember Loren Taylor said.

Councilmember Carroll Fife said the registry is one way “to make sure housing is equitable. I’m excited and elated about what this means for our city.”

In another housing-related action, Fife swayed the council to place a measure on the November ballot that would authorize the city to build up to 13,000 units of low-cost, social public housing.

The measure does not provide any funding or identify specific projects, but it lays the groundwork for the units to get built. Under the state constitution, the city cannot develop, construct, or acquire “low rent social housing units”  without voter authorization.

“This exemption is a relic of a segregationist past that is necessary for the city of Oakland to be very direct and upfront about resolving,” Fife said. “Article 34 is a law that was passed in 1950 that required voters to decide whether or not low-income units could be built.”

Oakland’s Housing Element Annual Progress Report for 2020 shows the city had only met 43% of its regional housing needs allocation goals for very low-income housing, and just 25% for low-income housing. The new Regional Housing Needs Allocation plan calls for Oakland to build 6,511 units of very low-income and 3,750 units of low-income housing between 2023 and 2031.

Alameda County Health Officer Dr. Nicholas Moss issued an order that goes into effect at 12:01 a.m. Friday that will require people to wear masks in offices, retail stores, restaurants and bars, theaters, family entertainment centers, conference and event centers and public-facing state and local government offices.

“Rising COVID cases in Alameda County are now leading to more people being hospitalized and today’s action reflects the seriousness of the moment,” Moss said in a written statement. “We cannot ignore the data, and we can’t predict when this wave may end. Putting our masks back on gives us the best opportunity to limit the impact of a prolonged wave on our communities.”

But the county order announced Thursday leaves significant gaps in coverage and isn’t being followed by neighboring health jurisdictions around the greater Bay Area, where health officers on May 13 had collectively urged indoor mask wearing amid a rise in cases that began in April. In fact, five nearby counties with COVID-19 hospitalization levels higher than Alameda’s — high enough to warrant federal recommendations that everyone mask up — said that they have no immediate plans to reimpose a mask mandate.

The order also does not apply to the city of Berkeley, which has its own public health department. And it does not apply to K-12 schools through what’s left of the current academic year, which is wrapping up this month, though masks remain “strongly recommended.”

At Oakland Unified School District, which in late April became one of the last to drop its mask requirement, spokesman John Sasaki said “we’ll have to take a look at this new decision by Alameda County to determine how we will move forward.”

The county’s mask order does apply to children in all other youth settings, including childcare, summer school and youth programs, “as practicable.”

For people performing in live events — theater, concerts and professional sports — as well as those who are exercising or doing water-based sports, masks can be removed while performing, the order specifies. People participating in religious rituals can also take off their masks if necessary.

Many county residents seemed already to be on board.

At a Grocery Outlet in Oakland on Thursday, about half the shoppers wore masks, including Bobby Rosta, 70, who said his family is in the midst of a COVID-19 outbreak.

“My son-in-law has it and my wife and daughter,” said Rosta, who lifted groceries into his SUV. “I support it. COVID is still around. It’s in my house now.”

Deltrina Johnson, 67, said her gospel choir is once again masking up after a handful of members caught the disease.

“Yes people are tired of it, but it’s a minor inconvenience,” she said. “I would sooner wear masks than have to shut down businesses. I would say health and safety is more important than a little something over your mouth.”

Nate Tran, 29, who was unmasked at the grocery Thursday, wasn’t opposed to putting one on again.

“It’s like wearing a T-shirt at this point,” said Tran. “And I forgot my T-shirt today.”

But there’s bound to be new friction over the masks, which have been hotly debated throughout the pandemic, even in the Bay Area where residents have been more willing to go along with health orders. In August 2021, a patron at High Scores Arcade in Alameda sprayed a staffer with mace after being told to put on a mask, owner Shawn Livernoche said.

The arcade stopped requiring masks only a few weeks ago after asking staff and patrons how comfortable they would be with the change. Livernoche said High Scores will do whatever county health officials say is needed to help keep people healthy and stay open and in business.

“Whatever they suggest we do, we’re going to be on the side of safety,” Livernoche said. “Some people take it as a personal slight that we would ask them to wear a mask. But the fact is, that after a 15-month forced closure because of COVID, we’re barely hanging on.”

The order comes amid a nationwide resurgence of cases caused by cousins of the highly contagious omicron variant that swept through the country over the winter. In California, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now lists 14 counties at its “high” community level, reflecting case levels that are putting such a strain on the health care system that it recommends face masks indoors for everyone.

In the Bay Area, that includes Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano and Santa Clara.

San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa and San Mateo counties are at the medium level where masking is recommended for those at higher risk from the virus, although Alameda County said in a statement it expects to reach the high level soon if trends continue. Almost the entire state and most of the country are at the CDC’s high transmission level, reflecting how rapidly cases are spreading.

Even so, other local health officers saw no need to join Alameda County in its latest mask mandate.

“At this time, we do not have any plans to require masking indoors, although we continue to strongly recommend it for everyone,” Santa Clara County said in a statement.

“While we are seeing a a surge in cases, hospitalizations remain relatively stable at the moment and well below the peaks we saw during earlier waves,” Contra Costa Health Services spokesman Will Harper said.

In Berkeley, Health Officer Dr. Lisa B. Hernandez said the city’s data don’t currently warrant a new mask mandate. The current case rate is 40 per 100,000 people, a steady decline from a high of 65 cases per 100,000 on May 16. And she said residents who are eligible are 94% fully vaccinated, 81% have had booster shots, and they continue to “use tools to lower their own risk.”

Los Angeles County, at the CDC’s high transmission rate but medium community level, isn’t yet reimposing a mask requirement generally, though they are required on public transit. The Los Angeles Daily News reported that Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said she expects the county to reach the high community level later this month, at which point masks would be required indoors again.

Bay Area Rapid Transit has continued to require face masks aboard its trains even after local and federal transit authorities removed their requirement. Oakland International Airport said it will require masks again in light of the county policy.

Alameda County health officials said the number of reported cases have surpassed the peak of last summer’s delta variant wave, though they remain below last winter’s peak. But even those numbers are likely undercounted, because people are home testing and likely not reporting all infections.

Kimi Watkins-Tartt, Director of Alameda County’s Healthcare Services Agency’s Public Health Department, said, “We are seeing the same pattern of disproportionate impact on hard-hit communities play out again with rising cases.”

“Many Black and Brown residents are frontline workers who can’t work from home and are in workplaces where they frequently interact with the public,” Watkins-Tartt said. “A masking order will limit the spread of COVID in these vulnerable communities.”

As a result, landlords of the city’s regulated units can raise the rents a maximum of 3% starting July 1 instead of 6.7%, which would have been allowed by the current ordinance that ties rent increases to the regional Consumer Price Index.

“With gas prices nearing $7 (per) gallon, the increased costs of food and everyday expenses, I could not, in good conscience, allow this exorbitant spike to take effect,” Councilmember Carroll Fife, who pushed for further reduction of the rent increase cap, said in a statement after the vote. “Thousands of Oakland residents will rest a little easier knowing their housing is secure.”

A 6.7% rent increase would have been the largest in the ordinance’s two-decade history, which during that period ranged from 0.6% to 3.6%.

Fife’s proposed ordinance, which the cCouncil approved on a 6-1 vote with Noel Gallo dissenting and Loren Taylor abstaining, caps rent increases at either 60% of the Consumer Price Index or 3%, whichever is lower.

Like all rent control laws in California, the ordinance can only apply to certain types of housing units. In Oakland, it generally applies to residential buildings with two or more units built before 1983. Excluded are rental units built after Jan. 1, 1983, those regulated or subsidized by government agencies, nonprofit co-ops owned and occupied by a majority of residents, and all single-family homes.

Other Bay Area cities that have capped rent increases based on the regional Consumer Price Index include San Jose at 5%, Richmond at 5.2% and Berkeley at 2.1%.

Chanee Franklin Minor, manager of Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Program, called FIfe’s proposal “sound public policy.”

“The (rent control) formula was drafted 20 years ago, and now we find ourselves in a very different situation with the prolonged housing crisis, as well as the pandemic,” Franklin Minor said. “We’ve heard from many renters fearful of becoming homeless.”

For more than two hours, dozens of people called into the council meeting to comment on the proposal. Tenants urged the council to support it, saying a 6.7% rent increase would push them out of their homes.

“My landlord increases the rent by the maximum amount every year, even while ignoring needed repairs,” said one educator named Alexander.

Others said rent-controlled apartments are the only way they can afford to stay in Oakland, while others said they often move in a constant search for lower rents.

“I was born and raised in Oakland, and between ages of 10 and 18, my family had to move six times,” one Oakland resident who identified herself as Sierra said.

“As a nonprofit worker, I would not be able to continue to afford living in Oakland without my rent-controlled unit,” resident Lauren Chiarulli told council members.

But some landlords urged the council to reject or modify the proposed ordinance, saying they too are impacted by inflation.

Danny Gonzalez, who owns a duplex, said small landlords like himself are being squeezed too by the increase in inflation and other costs.

“It seems to me that the city is closing off pathways for us — Black and Brown people — to close the racial wealth gap through property ownership,” he said in urging the council to consider amending the proposed ordinance to let landlords “bank” the 3.7% of the 6.7% increase that would be cut this year for the next few years, regardless of the CPI.

Councilmember Loren Taylor expressed a similar sentiment, noting, “We are leaning toward more corporate and turning the majority of our housing stock into those that will be owned by large corporations because they can absorb the cost. It gets too difficult to run a rental property here in Oakland and others.”

Taylor, who owns a single-family rental that isn’t regulated by the ordinance, offered an alternate proposal that would essentially cap rent increases at 3%. Gallo supported that motion but the other council members rejected it.

Franklin Minor pointed out that landlords have multiple options for petitioning the city to allow them to pass along costs to their tenants for things such as utility increases, capital improvements or other operating expenses. She said the program staff conducts regular outreach for small landlords.

Council members who supported the ordinance spoke of the housing crisis in Oakland and renters’ desperation.

“This is one concrete way I think we can ensure more families don’t become homeless,” Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas said. She said there’s a need for the city to establish a rent registry to keep data of renters, landlords and price changes across the city.

“There is a tendency in the state to shift dramatically to the lens of the rental property owner,” Councilmember Dan Kalb said. “Shifting to that takes away from the more urgent lens of the renter.

“No ordinance is going to have only great consequences and no negative consequences for anyone – those laws don’t exist, or if they do, they were passed decades ago,” Kalb continued. “So we have to decide where we are going to land, and focus on those who may need protection the most. To me, that falls on looking through the lens of the renter.”

The City Council this week decided to place a measure on the ballot that would require businesses making a lot of money to pay higher taxes and others to pay less.

If passed, the measure would scrap the current tax structure that imposes a flat rate on all businesses’ gross receipts and enact a progressive, tiered rate that increases as a company’s gross receipts grow.

City leaders describe the proposal as a compromise between one presented earlier this year by Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas and Councilmember Carroll Fife and the pushback from businesses that said they need some tax relief because of the pandemic.

The council members’ original proposal would have generated $40 million extra per year for the city, but the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce called that too drastic.

Earlier this week, city leaders, union groups and the business chamber announced they had drafted a measure they could all get behind this election. It’s estimated to generate $22 million annually for the city’s general fund, which proponents say could be used toward services such as reducing homelessness and cleaning up city streets.

Under the current tax structure, a business that makes $10 million a year is taxed at the same rate as a business that pulls in only $100,000, although rates vary by industry.

Under the proposed ballot measure, the higher the revenue the higher the rates based on gross receipts, though they’ll still vary by industry.

About 6,000 businesses — including groceries, shops and restaurants — would catch a tax break under the new plan. But some of the highest-grossing businesses in Oakland — mostly those with administrative headquarters with more than $20 million in annual revenue — would pay up to four times more than they do now.

If a majority of voters approve the measure, it’ll take effect Jan. 1, 2023.

The new proposed measure — which the City Council on Thursday will consider asking voters to approve — would eliminate the current flat tax rate structure on businesses’ gross receipts and switch to a progressive, tiered rate that increases as a company’s gross receipts grow. If approved, it’s expected to generate $22 million annually for the city’s general fund, which proponents say could be used toward services such as reducing homelessness and cleaning up city streets.

Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas, who has spearheaded the effort to update the city’s business license tax over several years, said the goal is to “make the system more equitable and fair.”

Under the current tax structure, a business with $10 million in revenue is taxed at the same rate as a business with $100,000 in revenue, although the rate varies by industry. The new proposal calls for the rate to increase based on a business’ gross receipts, with rates that still would vary by industry.

About 6,000 businesses — including grocery, restaurants and others — would see tax relief under the new plan. But some of the highest-grossing businesses in Oakland — mostly companies with administrative headquarters that have more than $20 million in annual revenue — would pay up to four times more than they pay now, Fortunato Bas said Monday.

About 67% of the businesses that would be affected (cannabis and real estate businesses are excluded from the measure because their tax rates were updated in 2019) would have no change in their business taxes, while about 23% would see a tax reduction averaging $110 per business. About 10% of the affected businesses would see taxes increase an average of $9,719 per business, according to a report by Fortunato Bas, Fife and two other council members who are sponsoring the proposal: Sheng Thao and Dan Kalb.

Fortunato Bas first brought a proposal to change the business license tax in 2020, but instead of sending her proposal straight to the ballot then, the council formed a task force to analyze the potential consequences of a tax structure change and get feedback from business owners and other special interests. The task force returned with a recommendation for a progressive gross receipts tax in January that would boost the city’s annual revenue by $32.7 million.

Fortunato Bas and fellow council member Carroll Fife then came up with a modified version of that proposal, one that charges slightly different rates to various categories of businesses and would have resulted in about 97% of the city’s businesses paying either the same as now or less, while 3% would face a higher rate, they said. It would have brought in $40 million extra per year.

Meanwhile, a coalition of labor groups had developed a similar proposal, called Our Oakland Initiative, which also would have given a tax cut to smaller businesses and increased the tax burden on those with more than $1 million in gross receipts.

But business groups like the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce opposed the proposals, arguing they would hurt businesses still reeling from pandemic lockdowns and prompt more companies to flee the city or avoid setting up shop in Oakland. They offered their own measure, which also called for a “progressive” structure but offered more tax relief for businesses and would have brought in significantly less revenue for the city.

After the City Council earlier this year urged all the groups to work together to avoid competing ballot measures that would confuse Oakland voters, they apparently did just that, vowing Monday in a joint press conference that they had come together to compromise and will send just one proposal to the voters, should the City Council approve it at its meeting Thursday.

Multiple council members, labor leaders and business officials spoke Monday, touting the “uniqueness” of the various interests agreeing on a tax issue in a city as politically feisty as Oakland.

“This is a new day,” Fife said at the press conference, cracking a joke about going to the podium alongside one of the leaders of the Chamber of Commerce who is not usually allied with the progressive council member. She called the effort a “win win.”

Chamber of Commerce leaders said they are pleased with the new iteration of the measure, which will bring much less revenue to the city than the earlier labor-backed proposals that the chamber had campaigned against. Zack Wasserman, chair of the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, praised the effort, noting that the new proposal “ensures progressively higher taxes” to fund “services that will create a safer and more vibrant city.”

The money will go to the general fund, meaning it is not earmarked for a particular purpose, but the council members say they want to use the funds to help staff the city and increase services that would help businesses and residents.

“Our priorities for Oakland are clear: support small businesses, fix our streets, clean up trash, address the homelessness crisis, and ensure fire and community safety,” they wrote in the memo to their fellow council members.

The proposal, if approved by the City Council this week, will then go on the November ballot, where it needs a simple majority of voters to be implemented in January 2023.

And like the one filed Friday by a coalition of shipping and related companies at the Port of Oakland, these suits also take aim at the project’s environmental impact report, calling it flawed.

Union Pacific Railroad and the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority each sued the city of Oakland for determining in February that the report complies with California Environmental Quality Act requirements.

Instead, the lawsuit alleges, the environmental assessment failed to adequately analyze or mitigate the “public safety risks” associated with the cars, bicycles and pedestrians that will have to cross the railroad tracks to get to the planned 35,000-seat ballpark and surrounding village of 3,000 homes, offices, restaurants, hotel rooms an entertainment center and public parks.

Capitol Corridor runs 30 weekday and 22 weekend passenger trains each week on Union Pacific Railroad’s tracks, which cross Market Street and Martin Luther King Junior Way, as well as Clay, Washington, Broadway, Franklin, Webster and Oak streets, according to the lawsuits. The Union Pacific rail line also has about 15 freight trains per day and other passenger trains from Amtrak.

In addition, Union Pacific plans to run more trains along its unused third track to accommodate a “projected increase in customer demand in future years,” the company’s lawsuit states.

There are eight rail crossings at the street level, but the environmental impact report only evaluated the trains at two of the crossings over the course of a week, the lawsuit claims.

“Among the many significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that will be be caused by the Project are the significant increase of congestion in local and regional roadways and the creation of permanent and substantial hazards relating to the masses of cars and people that will cross the adjacent UPRR rail lines following construction of the Project,” Union Pacific’s lawsuit states.

The suits also allege that the environmental report postpones required mitigation measures to “future agency plans, actions and approvals.” Too, the city failed to make corrections and recirculate the report as required when new information was presented or concerns raised by members of the public during the months-long comment period.

Spokespeople for Oakland’s city administration and city attorney’s office did not respond to requests for comment Monday. But in public meetings last year and earlier this year, city staff has stood behind the report when it’s been questioned.

On Saturday, Mayor Libby Schaaf’s spokesman, Justin Berton, said in a written statement that “litigation was expected as the parties made it clear they intended to file suit long before the EIR process was ever completed. The City stands by the integrity of its process and analysis culminating in the certification of the EIR by the City Council.”

In January, when the city’s planning commission reviewed the report and recommended that the City Council certify it, some commissioners defended it as one of the most comprehensive they’d ever see.

“I spent about four years working in the state CEQA office, and this is one of the more thorough (reports),” Commissioner Sahar Shirazi said.

Monday was the last day legal challenges could be filed over the environmental impact report.

The A’s and some city leaders are hoping to reach a development agreement for the ballpark and mixed-use development by this summer.

But the project faces other hurdles to clear.

An advisory committee recommended that the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission declare the 55-acre Howard Terminal property can be used only for Port of Oakland activities. The commission is expected to vote on the recommendation in June.

One proposal is being pushed by City Council members Nikki Fortunato Bas and Carroll Fife, who formally introduced it Thursday at a council committee meeting. It would eliminate the city’s flat tax rate on businesses’ gross receipts and switch to a progressive, tiered rate that increases as a company’s gross receipts grow. The proposal would annually haul in $40 million more than what businesses currently pay, they say.

The other three proposals, also touted as progressive, have been crafted by labor and business groups. Because the November ballot already will be packed with races and measures, the council has urged the various groups to work together to come up with a compromise version.

“There are so many issues we are asking voters to pay attention to, then we are asking them to analyze four different measures of the same issue. I think that sends a poor message,” Councilmember Sheng Thao said at the meeting.

The effort to revamp the business license tax began in 2020, when Fortunato Bas proposed giving small companies a slight break and raking in more money from the larger ones.

Instead of sending her proposal straight to the ballot back then, the council formed a task force to analyze the potential consequences of a tax structure change and get feedback from business owners and other special interests. The task force returned with a recommendation for a progressive gross receipts tax in January that would boost the city’s annual revenue by $32.7 million.

Fortunato Bas and Fife subsequently came up with a modified version of that proposal, one that charges slightly different rates to various categories of businesses. They say that under their proposal, about 97% of the city’s businesses would end up paying either the same as now or less, while 3% would face a higher rate.

A coalition of labor groups has developed a similar proposal, dubbed Our Oakland Initiative. That proposal also would give a tax cut to smaller businesses, and increase the tax burden on those with more than $1 million in gross receipts.

Meanwhile, major business groups like the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce have opposed the proposals, which they argue will hurt businesses still reeling from pandemic lockdowns.

“Our tax base is too small. We do not have enough business to be taxed. The rate of increase needs to be reasonable, not drastic and desperate,” said Zack Wasserman of the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.

The Chamber’s proposal, which it also describes as progressive, wouldn’t tax big businesses as deeply. Small businesses with less than $1 million in gross receipts in certain  sectors would pay only $60 in annual taxes the first three years. Altogether, its plan would raise taxes about $15 million a year.

The Bay Area Council, a business-sponsored public policy organization, released a study that estimates the task force’s proposal would cause even more job losses than the 2,000 projected by city staff.

“The unintended consequences and ripple effects of this massive tax hike proposal would not only seriously hobble Oakland’s slow recovery from the pandemic but would jeopardize the city’s longer-term prospects for growing the economy, attracting jobs and securing new companies and investment,” Jeff Bellisario, executive director of the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, said in a written statement included with the study.

“It would also place unhealthy reliance on large companies for a bigger share of city budget revenue that could disappear if employers flee to less costly locations,” he added.

But Sara Hinkley, of the UC Berkeley Labor Center, contended Thursday there’s no clear evidence that taxes or any other single factor drives business decisions to locate somewhere or move. An accessible labor market, real estate costs, customer base, public services, safety and cleanliness also are factors that enter into businesses’ decisions.

She also noted that many businesses will be able to deduct the gross receipts tax from their state and federal income taxes.

Proponents of the more progressive tax proposals say it’s time for corporations to pay their fair share, and that increasing city revenue will help it pay for the services that maintain clean, safe streets and reduce homelessness, blight and other issues the business community often cites as problems.

The council committee is to continue discussing all four tax proposals later this month. Although the full council likely will choose only one proposal to put on the ballot, the other initiatives can also qualify if the required number of signatures are gathered.

The lawsuit accuses the city of approving a flawed environmental impact report. that failed to address how the proposed ballpark and mixed-use development would disrupt workers and the transportation of cargo in and out of the port.

It was filed in Alameda County Superior Court by the East Oakland Stadium Alliance, Schnitzer Steel, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, the Harbor Trucking Association, California Trucking Association and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.

The City Council certified the environmental impact report in February by declaring it met California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The report didn’t properly disclose all the impacts the proposed project would have on the environment or how to offset them, the suit alleges.

“The A’s proposal to build a stadium and luxury condominiums, office and retail development will cause major disruptions and impacts to both the surrounding community and the operations of the Port, yet the EIR did not fully address these concerns or mitigate these well-known issues,” Mike Jacob, vice president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association said in an emailed statement. The association has been leading the coalition against redevelopment of the Howard Terminal site.

The environmental assessment “also failed to accurately compare the Oakland Coliseum site as an alternative which would have far less adverse effects,” Jacob continued. “It is simply not proper to ignore or defer analysis or mitigation of so many of the significant impacts identified in the more than 400 comments submitted by community and supply chain stakeholders, and as a result, our only alternative is to pursue legal recourse.”

Monday is the last day the environmental impact report can be legally challenged.

“The litigation was expected as the parties made it clear they intended to file suit long before the EIR process was ever completed,” said Justin Berton, spokesman for Mayor Libby Schaaf, in a statement issued Saturday. “The City stands by the integrity of its process and analysis culminating in the certification of the EIR by the City Council. As the Oakland Planning Commissioners said in their unanimous recommendation in January, this particular EIR is exceedingly rigorous, thorough, transparent, and ensures a waterfront ballpark district will be built with only the highest environmental standards.”

A’s President Dave Kaval said Friday the lawsuit presents yet another “hurdle” for the team, which wants to build a 35,000-seat ballpark at the port along with about 3,000 homes, offices, restaurants, hotel rooms, an entertainment center and public parks.

The A’s have insisted they won’t continue playing in the Coliseum after the lease expires in a couple of years and will remain on “parallel paths” to get a ballpark built in the Las Vegas area in case its waterfront plan is thwarted. It’s “Howard Terminal or bust,” Kaval has often declared.

Although the lawsuit will complicate matters for the city and A’s it’s not expected to stall the ballpark plan for years. The state Legislature passed a law several years ago that says any environmental or other kind of legal challenge of the plan must be resolved within 270 days of the project’s approval.

The A’s and some city leaders are hoping to reach a development agreement for the ballpark and mixed-use development by this summer.

But the project faces other roadblocks as well.

An advisory committee recommended that the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission declare the 55-acre Howard Terminal property can be used only for Port of Oakland activities. The commission is expected to vote on the recommendation in June.

The lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court on behalf of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, accuses the port of failing to adequately analyze how the operation could harm residents’ health and what it can do to reduce that.

“This sand and gravel project would have severe negative impacts on the health of the people in my community,” Margaret Gordon, the organization’s co-founder and a former port commissioner, said in a written statement. “The Port of Oakland commissioners appear to be completely ignoring the public health impacts that would be caused.”

The port’s board of commissioners last month approved a12-year lease allowing Eagle Rock Aggregates to build the facility on 18 acres. The company plans to store and distribute sand that’s used for ready-mix concrete in Bay Area construction projects.

Port officials declined to comment on the lawsuit but have previously said the project offers an opportunity to diversify their tenant base. The operation is expected to generate between $43 million and $60 million in profits and has gotten support from unions whose members will benefit from resulting jobs.

But in its suit, the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project says dust and particulates can blow off the 2.5 million tons of imported sand and gravel to be stored in 25-foot-high piles, adding to the risk of respiratory illnesses already disproportionately faced by nearby residents. Plus, the increased ship and truck trips to and from the facility will increase air and water pollution, the lawsuit warns.

“The result is an environmental analysis that is clearly inadequate under state environmental law and an approval that disregards significant environmental and health impacts to the community in West Oakland, which has long suffered environmental burdens in excess of most other communities in the Bay Area, the State, and the nation,” said Laura Beaton, an attorney at Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger who is representing the plaintiffs.

West Oakland residents are already exposed to more diesel particulates than 98% of Californians and have higher rates of asthma and newborn babies with low birth weight, according to the state’s online tool for mapping air pollution.

The suit adds to those alarming statistics. In 2018 about a quarter of the students at the West Oakland Middle School had asthma or breathing problems, according to the suit. And in 2016 West Oakland children under age 5 experienced 76% higher asthma emergency or hospital visits than the Alameda County average.

Port officials and staff noted prior to the February vote they are doing everything they can to mitigate the environmental impacts without creating too much of a burden on the future tenant. The port will require Eagle Rock to use electric conveyors and prevent its trucks from taking the residential stretch of Interstate 880 between West Grand Avenue and 7th Street

Further mitigation measures would be too costly or burdensome, Port Executive Director Danny Wan said in an interview in January. He said covering the piles with an enclosure would cost about $60 million.

The environmental analysis of the project also has been questioned by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the state Attorney General’s Office, all of whom sent letters to the port during the process.

To make that happen, the City Council would have to declare the city-owned parcel bounded by 14th Street, Clay Street and Oakland City Hall as surplus property, then notify housing developers of its availability.

The three-story, 335-space Clay Street Garage hasn’t been used since December 2016, when it was deemed seismically unsafe and closed down.

Oakland Vice Mayor Rebecca Kaplan and District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife have proposed that the site be transformed into a housing complex with all rental units priced below market rate.

“It is on public transit, it is near jobs and services, and it could help with our housing crisis,” Kaplan said.

Council members Dan Kalb and Loren Taylor joined Kaplan and Fife in a committee meeting earlier this week to support the proposal. In April, the full council is to consider declaring the land available for development.

But developing the parcel could be a challenge. A 2015 analysis estimated the cost of demolishing the garage at roughly $3.3 million to $4.1 million. To entice affordable housing developers, the city may have to pay for the demolition costs, which would come out its affordable housing fund, according to a staff report.

The staff also noted that since the garage abuts City Hall, which is a designated Oakland landmark on the National Register of Historic Places, a developer may face extra costs and regulations to avoid impacting the historic building.

In a memo to their council colleagues, Kaplan and Fife noted Oakland needs to create 6,511 units of very low-income housing and 3,750 units of low-income housing to meet its December 2021 regional housing needs allocation goals.

Oakland leaders are exploring how to do that with city-owned properties. In June, staff will ask the council to review and  prioritize 13 other city-owned sites that could potentially be developed for affordable housing.