that's what we're going to go
for.
Good morning and welcome to the
rules and legislation committee
of Thursday December 4th.
Before I call roll I will give
speaker card instructions.
If you're looking to speak on a
any agenda item.
Please fill out a speaker's
card and return that card to the
clerk representative before the
item is called for discussion
excuse me city council staff
order in the chambers.
I did actually that means you.
Additionally.
in the meeting now.
As for the council rules of
procedure speaker cards are due
ten minutes after the start of
this meeting this meeting was
called to order at ten thirty
two school so speaker cards are
due at ten forty two AM.
This morning.
You can do turn in a car to any
clerk representative at the
front desk.
Our role for this meeting our
councilmember Brown present
councilmember five.
President.
Councilmember Ramachandran.
present showing four members present at this time before we get on with the
business of the agenda do you have any announcements? No announcements. Starting
with item one approval of the committee minutes from the meeting of November 13
and the meeting of November 20 we just need a motion I'm sorry you do have a
speaker on this item. Blair Beekman. Hi Blair Beekman we're on to item two the
the approval of previous minutes, I'm assuming.
Thank you.
Okay, yeah, for item two, this is approval
of recent minutes here at November 13th and 20th.
On the 20th of November, you worked on the issue.
You wanted to bring back how to talk about
the ALPR purchasing and flop contract
for a council meeting and that was postponed
at that November 20th meeting.
You allowed for public comment.
Thank you immensely for that.
I've been writing you letters.
I've been trying to write more clear letters to you
that hopefully it's really important.
I feel that we have to be practicing
that a lot of people are upset about the flock process
and that it really seems that we have a chance
to talk about it more openly.
And that if this item eventually comes back in January
and goes straight to City Council,
I felt, I feel it should be returned as an item
that more as an information item
and not as a full agenda item.
It seems a lot more discussion is needed.
I spoke to the concepts of,
we can be having a review process in the next six months
and consider a new contract vendor
and we can make short, you know, three-month contracts
with Flock until we work out a new vendor
if a new contract is absolutely needed with Flock.
And I think we need to seriously consider
reducing the amounts of AOPRs we need overall.
Reducing the amounts can actually create
the same amount of public safety for neighborhoods
and we have to be having that conversation as well.
So there's a lot to be talking about.
I don't think things can just be quickly approved.
I hope we can have dialogue and discussion
and that brings community harmony
and really good practices.
Thank you Mr. Beekman for your comments.
Do we have a motion?
I believe there was a motion by Brown
and just need a second.
Second.
On the motion for item two,
the minutes for November 13th and 20th moved
by Council Member Brown, second by Council Member Fyfe.
Starting with Council Member Brown.
Aye.
motion to move the motion.
Council member five Aye.
Council member on the chondrin I.
Chair Jenkins aye motion passes
with a vote of four eyes.
Moving on sorry motion passes
with a vote of four eyes moving
on to new scheduling starting
with item three point one.
A resolution support of the bay
area air districts timely
the commission building appliance standards with appropriate flexibility.
To ensure equity and business development on the December 9th Community and
Economic Development Committee agenda and just noting that this item would be going to.
Committee next week it does need urgency.
Is there somebody from the district to office to offer the urgency finding a urgency finding.
Yes, this is council member long.
So for the first item,
the reason that we have an urgency finding around this
is these particular zero emission appliance rules.
We want to have a vote on this
in time for the December 10th hearing
that the Bay Area Air District is having.
So there's an urgency around getting out our stance
as a city prior to that.
have to do it in the next
meeting.
So the question would be if
it's going to committee it
would have to go to so if it's
going to committee on the
night.
In the meetings on the tenth
full city council hasn't waited
on it.
Just the chair sorry to just
noting the presence of
councilmember want we do need
to.
Adjourn into a special meeting.
Okay I'll entertain once again
I'll entertain a motion.
have a motion to adjourn to this special meeting.
Move by councilmember five with a ghost second by councilmember brown.
Councilmember brown.
Councilmember five.
Councilmember Ramachandran.
And Chair Jenkins.
Aye.
Motion passes with a vote of 4 ayes, voting at 1038 we have adjourned to a special meeting.
Thank you.
Councilmember Brown.
Okay, so to the chair.
So, would then your recommendation be for this item to just go.
Oh, it'll miss it all together or is it it's not sufficient for it to just pass through committee. No
So not in time. Okay
Can we have it go to full council in some way the next full council is on the 16th? Yeah
Fair enough. Councilor I'm Chandra. Thank you
We're talking about a 1.5 million dollar contract that we don't have notice for what it is about
I would be very reticent to bring that straight to full council not being able to see it
be the right thing to do
so if there's interest in
bringing it in January I'm open
to that.
Council member long I believe
that will not meet the deadline.
That yeah that would not meet
the deadline so you're you're
welcome to go and speak for.
Your office all right but full
city council it doesn't seem
like we're going to have enough
time because I mean the next
meeting's not till the sixteenth
okay yeah I think if it can get
of the key thing is that it
would be meaningful.
But it if it gets to see the you.
You can always go through CD but if it gets to CD you can't go
there and say that's the support of full city council until
full city council has weighed in on it.
Yeah which I understand okay.
This will be going to.
CD on December 9th going to item three point two.
hundred and fifty thousand.
For Oakland Public Works Bureau maintenance and internal
services commodities and services contracts.
As a fourth and table one in amount not to exceed two
million two hundred thousand dollars.
And adopting appropriate sequel findings.
On the December sixteen city council agenda on consent.
The rule twenty four reason the proposed contracts increase.
Is to provide parts and repairs for the aging city sewer lines
and equipment with Mr.
thank you, Mr Battersby and provide sewer Roach treatment to ensure city sewer is maintained
as mandated by federal consent decree. It is urgent for the city to have adequate contract
amount at any time. Thank you, Richard Battersby assistant director Oakland Public Works. Yeah,
we're rule 24 requesting this to consent. It is a routine contract increase extension
activity but with the contract approval and purchasing delays we've been encountering
lately.
We weren't able to get this in front of you in time to make the regular schedule.
The urgency factor is we have certain seasons when we perform activities on the sewer system
including vector control.
We have certain insects that tend to habitat inside the pipes.
Bell is our only vendor for that particular proprietary product. And also
CDN Power is a generator repair specialist. We need to have a contract
capacity because they service the generators that ensure our sewer lift
station and our storm drain lift stations remain operational. This is
critical during the storm season. And the last one, paste supply. We get
construction materials and also safety equipment. I'm available if there's any
questions on the side. I'm going to item 3.3 one item 3.3
adopted resolution authorizing the city administrator to waive the city of
Oakland's local small business enterprise program requirements and
requests for proposals competitive process and enter into a professional
services agreement from January 1 2026 to December I'm sorry January 1 2026 to
December 30th 2020 31st 2027 with Lynn marine to provide for the removal of
abandoned derelict and sunken vessels in the Oakland estuary for a total
amount not to exceed one million four hundred and fifty six thousand two
hundred and fifty eight dollars and this is asked to go before the December 16th
City Council agenda on consent the rule 24 reason the current estuary conditions
will worsen heading into winter which adds to the safety concern for people
living on boats. Additionally under the Bay's plan implementation of the
McEater Petrie's Act, a live aboard vessel is unpermitted, filled, and not
allowed in the estuary. BCDC takes the position that if such a vessel is
anchored in city waters and the city does not remove it, then the city violates
this act this act gives BC DC authority to issue a cease and desist order against violation and if the violation continues
BC DC can levy fines against violators up to six thousand dollars per day. So I asked on
Tell council member long we would I'd have questions with this. It's uncommon for a council member to
be the sponsor of a
resolution authorizing a contract can
Council member won't you speak to it and who wrote the step the report? Yeah, this came to us from both the city administration
CAO as well as OPD and so especially as the chair of Public Safety as well as
You know the representative for district to you can note right now that we will accumulate fines
$6,000 a day and
DC did infer that they would actually be increasing
those fines even more so, and so there's urgency
around this that we wanted to put in place.
It's really important, especially given the winter
conditions that we get this by the 16th,
and not wait until after the break.
Okay, I'll have another question.
Council Member Ramchandra.
Thank you, I apologize.
My comment that I said for 3.1 was actually 3.3.
I'm completely supportive of 3.1.
The $1.5 million contract concern that I have
is so that it doesn't go straight on consent
with no discussion and no notice
because we don't have information about it today.
3.3 is the one where I feel strongly about it
going to committee first or if it's going to full counsel
on non-consent at a future meeting.
But 3.1 I'm good with, I've got them.
Okay, and so to the administration
or somebody can help me understand contracts are not,
when we have contracts on the agenda,
they do not come from council members.
So can someone help me understand
who the report is coming from?
And yeah, it's just uncommon.
I just need some type of understanding.
Yeah, Tracy, can you comment on this?
Thank you.
T. Jones, Oakland Police Department,
Police Services Manager.
The report was written by myself
and city administrators office.
So I would like to amend it to coming from OPD
instead of council member Wong's office.
Okay. Okay.
We just want the job to get done.
So we're fine with that.
Okay. So let's amend that.
Let's send it to committee public safety on the night.
Is that impacted?
Do you have an urgency finding to send it to the ninth?
It would be the same urgency finding that's stated.
If the, of my apologies,
candidate from the city administrator,
and maybe I'll have the city attorney
upon the rule 24 if that language is immiscible
for the item to be noted as urgency finding.
I will, through the chair, to the committee,
I'll read the urgency requirements
that are stated in Sunshine.
It's for this body to make the finding
and then the finding would need to be made again
before the committee hears the item.
So the local body by a two-thirds vote
of those members present adopts the motion
determining that upon consideration
of the facts and circumstances,
it was not reasonably possible
to meet the additional notice requirements
under the Sunshine Ordinance.
And the need to take immediate action on the item
is required to avoid a substantial adverse impact
that would occur if the action were deferred
to a subsequent special or regular meeting.
that is your standard for bypassing the noticing requirements in the Sunshine Ordinance.
And so the urgency finding remains the same. Okay, thank you. That's correct.
December 9th, Public Safety. Noting on item 3.3, the firm will be changed to OPD and this will be
going to the December 9th Public Safety Committee and the urgency vote will be required before the
Committee can dispense with the item. Going to item 3.4 conduct a public
conduct a public hearing and upon no adopt the resolution confirming the
report and notice of liens for delinquent real property transfer taxes
with penalties interested in administrative and assessment charges
and overruling any protests and objections related to the liens
included in said report and authorizing the recordation of liens and directing
the notice of lean and assessment charges to be turned over to the county
tax collector for collection this is asked to go before the December 16th city
council agenda as a public hearing the rule 24 the resolution requires a
public hearing which must take place at a city council meeting going to item 3.5
receive an information report from the city auditor on the audit recommendation
follow-up report as of June 30th 2025 this is asked to go before the December
16th City Council agenda on non-consent the rule 24 the item was previously
scheduled at Rules Committee on October 23rd to be added to the December 2nd
City Council on non-consent. Is the auditor here? I'm Dina Shoop with the office of the
city auditor. Good morning is there any urgency in this matter there's no need
for urgency finding but is there any urgency that it needs to go on December 16th?
This item was previously scheduled to the December 2nd city council meeting and it was
the city clerk's office made a bit of a mistake and didn't schedule it so.
Okay.
We're hoping that it's here, that it's heard on the 16th.
Does it need to be heard before the end of the year?
Yes, please.
It does need to be heard or?
It does need to be heard. Okay. Yes. All right. Thank you. Going to item 3.6. Adopt an emergency
ordinance repealing current Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 15.12, the Oakland Fire Code
adopting and making local amendments to the 2025 edition of the California Model Building
Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 9, also referred to as the California
fire code, recodifying said code as Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 15.12, the Oakland
Fire Code and adopting CEQA findings on the December 16th City Council agenda on non-consent.
The Rule 24 reason needs to be adopted by the end of the California year to allow our
local amendments to be filled with the state, ensuring that the local rules will be enforceable
starting in January next year and just noting that they're from should say
Oakland Fire Department. Going to item 3.7. Is there something from the
administration? No, it's not time for comments. Anything from the
administration on that item? Candace from the city administrators office. Yes,
apologies. Yes, as the clerk stated this item is to be it was inadvertently
but I think we need to consider
a general plan to make sure that
we are able to make sure
that we're not only listed
as the mayor, it should be
from Oakland Fire Department
and if the committee is
amendable, we are okay with the
item going to consent rather
than non-consent.
Is there any objections to it
going to consent?
Councilmember Fife?
I would like more understanding.
I would like it to go on
non-consent because I want to
We have time for some discussion on the item.
Noted, thank you.
Do you want to send it to Public Safety?
I would like to hear it in committee if possible,
but I also understand that we're doing what we do,
which is making decisions at the 11th hour,
and I would prefer that these items go to committee
before they come to council.
So if we have time to hear this
and then bring it back to a full city council meeting
before the end of the year, I would prefer Public Safety.
one and I'm going to make sure
that we continue to go to the
December ninth public safety.
I have not spoken with the
chair so let's.
To find out I don't know if the
schedule.
Is impacted I think there might
be three or four items already
on the schedule.
There's five so let's put it on
public safety if the chair needs
to call a special meeting to get
started early.
We could do that.
I am a through the chair this
campus was named yourself I'm
but I do know that they are currently at this time
five items scheduled there.
So this would be the six items scheduled to that meeting.
I do have OFD seven, excuse me, seventh item.
OFD staff available for further questions if you have it.
That would be helpful if we could ask questions now
because yeah, I just want to understand the timing.
Good morning, Michael Hund, Oakland Fire Department.
I'm happy to speak to any of these items
through the chat.
happy to speak to any of these items through the chair.
This is the emergency ordinance to adopt the fire code.
The key component of this, this is time sensitive,
in a sense that the item needs to be adopted
by the end of the calendar year
to allow our local amendments to be filed with the state,
ensuring that the local rules will be enforceable
starting in January of 2026.
So there's very minimal changes to the code
That mostly should be non-controversial.
The main two items relate to the requirement
of inspections of fire dampers in commercial buildings.
These are basically gates inside the HVAC systems
that need to be inspected by a professional every four years.
That is previously not something that was in the code.
We are gonna be adding it.
The second piece is to require color coding of all fire department connections on the
exterior of buildings.
So these are the only changes that we are bringing to council for full adoption with
this item.
So again, these are non-controversial items that we would like to, again, bypass committee
by way of rule 24 and move straight to council for adoption on December 16th with your approval.
Board of Trustees.
Can we have a seconder and
then we'll go to the city
administration.
Hi again, from the city
administration's office.
We also wanted to make a
suggestion, and if it's
amendable to OFD staff and
the CED chair, since this
item is in regards to a
building and the CED
committee only has three
items on their schedule for
that day, adding that to
that to help spread out the
love for that day.
I'm going to ask if you have
questions or the rules committee
as a whole of the decision of
where it's going to go but we
were recommending as an option
going to C. E. D. just to help
with the time frame and
efficiency of all the meetings
that day.
And the reason I'm asking is
because I was reached out to as
many of us were.
From members of the public to
have more discussion on this
item so I fully understand that
these the issues that are
public to have an opportunity to weigh in on the conversation and share their
concerns. So if the CED chair is amenable to this moving to CED,
then it'll give us still time to get to the December 16th full city council
meeting. I would support that if, if it's okay with the CED chair.
Yes, that is fine. December 9th, CED.
Once item 3.7 adopts a resolution authorizing the city administrator to pay
outstanding,
outstanding invoices to ABC security services for services rendered after the extended contract
expiration date of June 30th, 2025 and fiscal year 25-26 in the amount of $818,989.40 and
extend the ABC contract for up to 15 months to September 30th, 2026 on a month to month
basis for an amount not to exceed $6,750,000 for a total not to exceed contract of $35,300,000
hundred and eighty thousand dollars and to the extent necessary waiving the
competitive request for proposals of qualifications progress excuse me
process in the best interest of the city for such extension to allow continuity
of services while staff conducts a new request for proposals for security
services on the December 16th City Council agenda on non-consent the rule
24 reason expiration of the contract with ABC security services on June
2035 although ABC Security Services has consistently delivered vital security
services the organization has not been fully compensated for these
contributions as a result of the contracts as great exploration the city
has experienced challenges in processing invoices for September and October for
fiscal year 25 to 26 going to item mr. Battersby thank you Richard Battersby
Assistant Director, Oakland Public Works.
We're requesting this item to go on non-consent.
The urgency is this security contract expired in June 2025.
And while there is contract capacity or funding available,
we don't have a current contract.
So we're unable to pay ABC security who's
been providing the security.
This particular contract has been problematic.
The original RFP was done in 2022.
And we've been trying to award it since early 2023.
Most recently, I'd say in June, we
were hoping to award the contract
before the existing ABC contract expired,
but we were unsuccessful.
We're requesting a period of time.
We've estimated 15 months is how long
it will take to conduct a new RFP.
And we do expect our colleagues in purchasing
to be administering the security contract RFP this time
and we will provide additional detail
as that process unfolds and I am available for questions.
Sorry, council member Pice.
No worries.
Because this is a scheduling body
and we're just dealing with scheduling right now,
I'm not going to object to this moving forward
but I am going to express my extreme disappointment
and confusion again waiting till the last minute
which does a disservice to the city of Oakland,
our contractors and a host of other people.
This contract has been in limbo since I was elected
and I've been here for five years now.
So through the chair to our staff,
I will definitely have some questions
that I would like the city administrator to help me
understand and help the public understand
on the transparency of how these processes and RFPs go
because we keep lapsing on paying our existing contractor
and this is not making sense.
It's not adding up what's going on
with our security contract for the city of Oakland.
So I'm deeply concerned.
I'm really tired of waiting to the last minute
and doing these emergency extensions of contracts.
And I don't understand why it's taken so many years.
So I will definitely through the chair
to the city administrator
need some clarity for the public when this comes to the
to be discussed
on on consent
thank you just to echo those concerns
i'm a little perplexed that this is coming to us
before the final
council meeting work and be scheduled if we
new this ahead of time
i will have some questions as well for the department that i will ask prior to
this meeting, but it is a little frustrating.
Through the chair, we share your concerns, and just a detail on the timing, it seemed
the contract was at play for award right up until recently, so once the RFP was withdrawn,
then we had to execute a mechanism to pay these past due invoices.
question.
So that's the concern currently.
Thank you Mr. Battersby.
We gotta keep this to scheduling.
Going to item 3.8, adopt a resolution authorizing the city administrator accepting and appropriating
a summer food, excuse me, a summer food service program grant from California Department of
Education and the United States Department of Agriculture in an amount up to $426,870,
the city administrator to negotiate and enter into professional services agreement with uptown's ink
and flows, friendly school lunches, for food services to support the 2026 SFSP, accepting
and appropriating additional SFSP funding from any source that becomes available and authorizing the
city administrator to amend the above PSAs to increase amounts within the 2026 SFSP term,
Waving the competitive process small local business enterprise program requirements on the January 13th
2026
life enrichment committee agenda
going to item 3.9
Adopt a resolution authorizing the city administrator to negotiate
Terms and enter into an advertising signs relocation agreement without front
Foster interstate LLC a Delaware limited liability
company with such agreement
entering
I'm sorry with such agreement including the following
Allowing OFI to erect up to five new digital advertising signs at certain locations
in the city of Oakland in exchange for OFI causing the removal of
Up to 11 of its of its existing advertising faces at various locations
In the city by date certain with OFI and out front waving its rights to just compensation for the remove signs
$20,000 in annual payments.
Requiring OFI to make payments in advance of up to $2,305,000
for fiscal year 2025-27, biennial budget and annual
payments of up to $750,000 for each new digital advertising
sign for a 31-year term with escalations and a 10-year
removal option in addition to providing other financial
incentives to the city, including negotiated carbon
and adopting appropriate California environmental quality act findings on the February 10th 2026 community and economic development committee agenda and the February 17 city council agenda as a public hearing.
Council member wall.
Yes, we are just council member guy and I have co sponsored this piece of legislation to bring needed revenue to the city.
city and you can see the details and would just ask for this committee to go
ahead and agendize this for the February 10th CED. Thank you. Council member
Amatandra. Thank you. I have a question. Have you posted the list of sites that
are proposed publicly and if so why not? No they have not been posted.
the goal is actually by being able to agendaize this several months in advance that that public
posting can happen and we can have a good vigorous community discussion. Okay thank you through this
chair so here's the problem when you when I brought forward a different billboard proposal
I made sure the sites were published when it came to rules for actual scheduling and part of this
reason is to avoid misinformation and confusion when it comes to the public
being scared about where a billboard might be proposed. For example, there has
been a document that has been circulating allegedly from your office
that has reached community members. My office has not circulated any documents.
So councilmember can we keep it on schedule scheduling yes and this is what
happens when you don't notice locations and you give several months of
to believe a way to sow confusion.
And here's why it's super important more than ever.
Lake Temescal is undergoing an $80 million effort
to be saved to try to dredge the lake,
to try to ask the state and federal bodies for money.
It is a site where a billboard could threaten
the presence of the bald eagle as a natural habitat.
Council member.
So as to not sow confusion,
can the sites be published at the same time as noticing,
as was done with the previous billboard contract
that came about.
So just a reminder, let's keep this to scheduling,
if possible.
No, just keep it to scheduling.
OK, what's your scheduling question?
Old until you publish the list of sites.
Because there's lots of chatter going on,
and the possibility of $80 million
of state and federal opportunities being
threatened by this billboard.
My preference for this process is to schedule the item,
And then we will, that list will be published.
This gives us, this actually gives the public
more advanced notice about this.
Would you commit in that process
to removing the Lake Temescal billboard?
Schedule?
Yeah.
This is outside of the scope of scheduling.
So, we're getting outside of scheduling
according to the parliament's area.
Council Member Romm, do you have a scheduling question?
I do. I will restate my request. In the interest of natural habitats for the bald eagle and
other endangered species, and in the interest of a lake needing to decide how it's going
to generate $80 million to save itself from the parks district, will you consider rescheduling
this item until all of the sites are published, as was done with the previous billboard legislation?
No, I'd like to keep this as intended, scheduled for the 10th.
Okay, well to the chair my preference is that we wait to schedule this item until we have notice of the proposed locations
Can I see each arrow William?
Well at this time, we're strictly
Doing scheduling on this so we can keep it scheduled for February the 10th CD
Is it February 10th or 17th?
Yes, thank you chair
Jenkins, I just want to say to through the chair to councilmember Wong I
Apologize to you for the way that you're being talked to today
I and whether I agree with your item or not, that's not what we're here to discuss as the scheduling body
So I want to articulate my support
for scheduling this particular item and we can get into the substance of
Whether the council disagrees or agrees once it goes through the process
This is scheduled well in advance to supply the items that will be published
Once this moves through the process and we should stick to the process
Thank You councilmember
Councilmember I'm Chandra for clarity the process in recent years related to billboards has been published the locations
this is what you can do.
And this is what you can do
when you schedule it at rules
that's what was on the last two
times.
The billboards were brought here.
Thank you councilmember
Chandra- with that we'll go to
public comment.
Thank you I was the cut let me
call the names first please.
Let me let me call the names
first give me a second.
Thank you.
As I call your name please
approach the podium in any
order- please state your name
before you begin so I can-
I didn't fight for the record if
you. Amelia Marshall, Jores Spies, Ranjini Mandal, Kevin Daley, Blair Beekman. I have
you for three items. Chris Powell, Naomi Schiff, in any order and again if you are
participating via Zoom please raise your hand so I can easily identify you.
Starting with Ms. Schiff, I believe she has one card. Thank you. Hello, I'm Naomi
I'm Naomi Schiff, I'm the Secretary of the Board of Directors of Oakland Heritage Alliance.
We are as interested in the natural surroundings in Oakland as we are in buildings.
I don't know if you could see this, but I brought a picture of what it looks like now
when you come into Oakland on 13 or 24, and you'll notice no billboards.
There aren't any billboards in these stretches of 13 and 24.
that Temescal is a habitat.
I believe that you should be including
East Bay Regional Parks District
in the discussion in some way,
and that that is really quite important.
We do not exist in isolation.
Our city hosts many parks that are run by East Bay Regional.
Please include them.
Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Amelia Marshall.
I am a longtime resident of the Laurel District
and 45 year resident of Oakland,
and board member of the Regional Parks Association.
I'm here speaking in opposition to the proposal
to place enormous LED billboards throughout Oakland,
particularly the site proposed for the PG&E property
above Lake Temeskal.
It's ethically wrong for Oakland officials
to take money for these unnecessary
and environmentally damaging monstrosities.
They emit harmful light pollution, waste electricity,
and have no social benefits.
They are made of plastic that will end up in the food chain.
The two proposed for the PG&E property above Lake Temescale
would loom up on the hill like skyscrapers,
flashing, messaging all day and all night, every day,
every night.
And thanks to the East Bay Regional Park District
and their dedicated stewardship life habit.
Thank you, ma'am.
Your time is up.
Rajni Mandel, District 4.
I'm a physician and I'm well accustomed
to pharmacy reps coming into the office
with their perks and literature
saying about how their product is the best
in an effort to change how and what I prescribe,
but I don't take things at face value.
I make my decisions based on facts and original sources,
not from a biased party.
For item 3.9, the billboard contract without front foster,
there has already been information circulated
around the community both by email and online
with images and inflammatory statements
prior to the proposal being made public.
This is a campaign to sway public opinion
and I wonder who is the actual source?
I make my decisions to save patients
based on facts and data, not hearsay.
I would hope that you all who hold the city of Oakland
in your hands would do the same.
I also recommend that the proposal and plans
be discussed with the community prior to the February date
in order to dispel rumors and hearsay.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is George Spees
with traffic violence, rapid response.
And I'm speaking on item 3.6 about the fire code.
First of all, this is not actually an emergency.
The fire department's had this potential code
since the 1st of July, so there's been plenty of time.
Jayden Smith, the assistant fire marshal,
appeared at BPAC recently and noted that
two additional items that weren't mentioned
by the representative here would potentially be included,
And that includes Section 503 and Appendix D,
both of which have items that bear on street design
for emergency vehicle access.
And those would set absolute requirements,
but they bear on street design for traffic safety.
And it's important that this be heard through committee
so that there's a clear understanding
of what is being proposed,
and whether that's amenable to our needs
for proper traffic engineering for traffic safety.
Kevin Dowley, I'm a co-chair of the Policy and Legislative
Committee of the Bicyclist and Pedestrian Advisory Commission.
Also talking 3.6, the Fire Code.
For the last six months, BPAC has been actively
working with the Fire Marshal's office about the fire code.
I am shocked that they are coming in in December with suggesting that go to council without
any text of the amendments yet.
They have promised us that the amendments would be available in November, but they're
not available.
It's not an emergency.
we can amend the fire code at any point
over the next three years.
We can amend the California Fire Code.
If we don't pass it by the end of the year,
California Fire Code will take effect.
That's okay with me, California is a more
progressive fire code than what Oakland is suggesting.
So let's take it, take it cautiously.
I also recommend that the sections related
Street with, which is section 503 and Appendix D be sent to the Public Works
and Transportation Committee, which has expertise in transportation and also the
chair has this special knowledge of the fire department. BPAC has suggested
amendments. They will be forwarded to whatever committees it goes to and
whatever counsel it goes to. So let's take it easy, take our time and get the
amendments published and let us discuss the items. Thank you.
Hi, William Beekman. I wanted to speak to items 3.1, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.9. About 3.9,
what was just spoken about, thank you for the clarifications from the
previous public the two previous public speakers there is a lot or no that's
item 3.6 actually the fire issue yeah fire code issues they're talking about
really important things there's additional clarifications needed than
what was presented as can be discussed that I think council person five tried
to mention it does need a little more community dialogue good good luck in
those efforts. For item 3.9, the billboard issues, it's a trade-off. You get five billboards
and you remove old-fashioned billboards that are considered kind of blight. It's kind of
a regular practice going on in local communities and cities right now. It's good, in a way,
removing billboards, but you're replacing them with technology that's really questionable.
I come from the ideas of open public practices
and that people shouldn't be surveilled.
And that's what you guys are going to be doing
with these new electronic billboards.
It's not that innovative really.
So, good luck.
Thank you.
I think we need to be as clear as possible about the subject.
So, good luck how we can talk about it.
Moving on to items 3.1 and 3.5.
3.1 is an item about implementation
of zero mission building appliance standards.
I don't know if this is in the construction of building materials themselves
or the appliances within buildings.
In being from San Diego, they have some serious concerns.
They have to be working on these sort of air quality standards.
I hope there can be some good exchanges between you and San Diego at this time,
good lessons learned, how to better air quality management.
It's an important subject.
Good luck what we can really do to respect new developments
in that, how we can help that at this time.
And for item 3.5 is 49 seconds, audit report issues.
These have been items that have been here in Oakland since 2014
to be considering and developing and you're working
and growing and building.
Good luck in these efforts.
Things take time, you know, to build and grow
And what, you know, the breaks that we're having right now,
along with the auditing items, good luck
that community conversation can be of help.
The auditing list offers a great discussion of how to talk
about our community issues.
And if we're just having those conversations openly right now,
that's really key in kind of a rebuilding time we're doing
in Oakland right now.
So good luck in everyone's efforts.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bikman.
Excuse me, Mr. Bikman moving to our Zoom speaker who
signed up for item 3.9.
This is our last speaker who turned in the speaker card.
Mr. Powell, I have you for item 3.9.
You have one minute, please begin your comments.
Yeah, thank you.
My name is Chris Powell.
I'm here on behalf of OFI.
First, I'd like to point out that notice
was provided on the identity of all locations, all
the alternative and primary sites.
already been run in a newspaper so it's not true that that was not posted. Second, I think it's
important to point out that Becker boards, a competitor, has been spreading misinformation
about these sites. The site next to Lake Tamaskal is actually a PG&E substation. It's already
industrial. This site is not going to be located near the lake in some trees where there's bald
Eagle Habitat. This is in a highly industrial parcel that's covered with a PG&E substation
and high voltage equipment. This proposal offers significant benefits to the City of Oakland,
so we respectfully ask that you schedule this for CED. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Powell. Mr. Chair, that was the last speaker as all names were called and all speakers
the public safety. And I think.
three point one has an urgency as well
thank you on item three moved by council member five second by councilmember
Brown with amendments also noting councilmember Ramachandran is no on
item three point strong no on item three point nine councilmember Brown I
councilmember sorry councilmember five I and councilmember Ramachandran and chair
Jenkins. Aye. Motion passes with a vote of four ayes. Going to item four review of
your draft agendas pending list of City Council and committee meetings. Attach
your fine your committee meeting excuse me committee meeting agendas for
item for December 9th rules and legislation for December 11th and your
pending list for fine for all committees along with your draft agendas for
December 16th City Council and rules for December 18th and you do have speakers
on this item. So just for public awareness we are entertaining doing a
special meeting on the 16th because of a really impacted agenda we haven't
discussed it with the rest of City Council we will ensure any controversial
items are towards the back of the agenda if we do do a special meeting. To the
you guys have anything on item number four. Good morning again from the city
administrator's office we do have staff present for a change to the December
9th agenda. Finance and management staff is present at the podium for that item.
Good morning through the chair my name is Jose Segura a budget and management analyst
in the finance department. The finance department requests that item number
eight on the December 9th agenda be rescheduled to January 27th. A more
complete informational report regarding bond issuance efforts will be available
for the 10-day publication for the January 27th FMC committee. So item
number 9 item number 8 on December 9th moving to January 27th is that correct?
Correct. Okay. Chialor Menchandra. Thank you for the update that's fine with me.
Anything else from the administration? Nothing at this time thank you. Seeing
And then do we have any public comment?
Moving to the public speakers.
As I call your name, please approach the podium
in any order, please state your name for the record.
If you are participating via Zoom, please raise your hand
so I can easily identify you.
George Spies, Rajni Mandal, Kevin Daly,
and Blair Beekman in any order.
Hello, George Spies once again
with Traffic Violence Rapid Response.
Recently learned that there's a move
to move parking management and enforcement
to the finance department from Oak Dot.
And we oppose this because parking management
bears on transportation generally
and isn't just a revenue generator,
but is actually a way of managing curb access
and traffic safety along with other considerations.
So the idea that Oak Dot would lose control
over parking management means that they're having a tool taken out of their out of their
pallet of available tools to manage our streets. And that just doesn't make sense. So rather
than thinking about it as just the collecting of parking fines and fees, we should really
think about it as a tool to shape the street. And that's how it would be seen at Oak Dot
and is seen at Oak Dot, but not would I don't believe would be seen that way at finance.
So that should go on, the Transportation and Public Works Committee docket, and I'd like
you to add that, please.
Thank you.
Hi.
This is Kevin Dalley.
I'm a part of the Board of Transport Oakland, I'm seconding George's comment.
Transport Oakland, 10 years ago in 2015, was part of the push to create a Department of
Transportation.
Process went through committee. It went through council right now. It appears that the city administrator is planning to partially
Dismantle oak dot and move parking policy to finance committee. I'm sorry finance department
Which has no?
expertise in the economics of
parking in the last
20 years since parking policy was in the city administrators. Sorry in the finance department
there's been a lot of changes in parking policy.
Let's make sure that this decision
goes to public works and transportation,
that they discuss whether parking policy should be moved.
There are already letters going out to the unions,
warning people that their jobs will be moved around.
This has been done without public comment,
without city council comment.
As council member Ramachandran has said a few times today,
let's get the council involved in things,
give them enough warning that they can take action
if they so choose.
Don't push something through at the last minute.
Thank you.
Hi, thank you, Blair Bikman.
I just wanted to quickly offer an overall view,
a procedural view of your committee process
that we're, as it can be difficult, I think I tried
to say previously, to be addressing items at this time,
for some of our agenda items, to bring things to committee,
I hope is not considered taboo or wrong.
It's a good place to be doing things.
I know a few years ago here in Oakland,
you created a more streamlined process
to bring things straight to council more often.
Maybe this is a time that things can be brought back to committee and that can be okay.
And that we are in a process of really trying to, you know,
reestablish what we're doing here in Oakland.
And working through the committee process,
working as a full community process can be really important.
And we may not be able to be as smooth, quick and agile as, you know,
previous council administration, but that can be okay.
And that we can, you know, if we're working on stuff,
I just hope that this can be a time to offer this,
I hope we can be doing that together, really together,
and working on our issues.
Thank you.
Rajne Mundal, District 4.
I'm happy to see that OPD's annual reports
for surveillance technology will be
on the December 9th Public Safety Committee meeting agenda.
I urge council to review these reports
since there are questions
about whether these technologies are effective
and that there was no data.
The Flock annual report was included in the committee's prior agenda packet,
so I'm hoping it's read and discussed next week, because it includes all the data
about its use and effectiveness.
This includes Crime Tracer, whose report clearly dispels many
of the claims Mr. Hofer has made in court.
I also urge Council to revisit OPD's contract with Flock and the community camera proposal,
as this was an urgent request made by OPD last May,
and I believe it requires full Council review.
I'm disappointed to see that the mayor's appointments
to the Police Commission were removed from this agenda today.
These positions have been vacant for almost two years
and given the crucial role of the search
for a new chief of police,
it is imperative that we have those vacancies
filled quickly with competent, experienced professionals.
The agenda item noted Mayor Lee's selection
of former Alameda Superior Court judge,
Avila Grillo, and former Mayor Gene Kwan.
Please expedite these appointments, thank you.
Thank you everyone for your comments Mr. Chair,
that was the last speaker.
So noting item eight on finance,
December 9th, we'll move to January 27th finance.
I'll entertain a motion.
There is a motion by council member five,
seconded by council member Brown to adopt item four.
As amended, council member Brown?
Aye.
Council member five?
Aye.
And council member Ramachandran?
Aye.
Chair Jenkins?
Aye.
Motion passes with a vote of four ayes.
Moving to item five.
adopts a resolution calling and giving notice for the holding of a special municipal election on June 2nd
2026 for the purpose of submitting to the voters and measure to amend the city's business tax ordinance
open municipal code chapter five point zero four
to provide business tax exemptions for certain small businesses and new businesses opening locations in commercial spaces and
requesting consolidation of the special municipal election with the statewide
in the June second twenty
twenty six.
And directing the city clerk to take any and all actions
necessary under law to submit this measure.
To voters at the June second twenty twenty six election and
making appropriate sequel findings you do have two
speakers on this item.
Colleagues so much time will you need.
Less than five.
Four thirty okay.
Thank you.
Zack Unger, District 1, I believe we have a PowerPoint from K-Top.
I'll start.
I am enormously excited to bring you our business tax relief program.
This is something that Councilmember Johnnie Ramachandran and the mayor's office and I
have been working on jointly since we put the budget together six months ago, and we
are trying to provide some relief to our business community.
Let's see.
It's my first time at this dais.
Do I just advance it there?
Fantastic. Look, we all acknowledge that it is not easy to do business in
Oakland right now. There are a host of issues such as tariffs, crime, permitting
that make it difficult to do to do business in Oakland. So we are trying to
provide some relief in two categories. First of all, we realize that Oakland is
a city of small businesses. About 90% of our businesses gross less than a million
dollars a year and they have fewer than nine employees. What we're doing here is
announcing a one-year gross receipts tax holiday for businesses grossing less
than a million dollars a year in five specific categories. We are trying to
highlight businesses that are really ground-level retail, brick-and-mortar
businesses that activate neighborhoods and bring in foot traffic. This will help
us boost revenues in the long term and reduce those vacant storefronts that are
a scourge for all of our neighborhoods. This is inspired by San Francisco's
successful first year free program and we are excited by the small business
program. So again, the small business program is just for businesses in
categories A, B, E, G and that should say I there, which gross less than $1
million. This will be for the tax year beginning 2027, which is a little
confusing. It is the calendar year of 2026 and of course this only applies to
businesses that are in good standing already.
Those are the five categories of businesses
to which this will apply.
The second part of this is to attract new businesses,
because we all know that we have had a structural deficit
in Oakland, and the only way to get ourselves out of this
in the long term is to grow our economy.
And our business community is what
we need to grow our economy.
So what we're trying to do is incentivize new businesses
to come to Oakland, understanding
that they have a choice.
So this applies to all categories of business,
not just the five that were the small businesses.
And unlike San Francisco's first year free program,
we are not limiting it to specific parts of Oakland.
We want economic development all throughout Oakland.
So this applies to any business relocating to Oakland
in calendar year 2027, which is confusingly to me
always called tax year 2028, but it is calendar year 2027.
And these are businesses that do not already
have existing business locations in Oakland.
And they can realize a tax benefit of up to $1 million.
So because of our tax structure, that
means that a business grossing up to about $80 million
would not have to pay taxes.
And I hope we can attract a lot of those businesses
over $80 million.
Fortunately, there is no financial impact to this,
because we've been thinking about this for a long time.
and we budgeted for it in the budget cycle.
Had we done this first year,
or this small business incentive program in 2023,
it would have cost approximately $1.6 million,
but we budgeted $3 million in order to give ourselves
a large cushion for this.
The new business incentive program is an opportunity cost,
not a hard cost, because the businesses
that are not currently here
are also not currently paying us business tax.
So that is the essential facts on this,
and I want to thank council member Ramachandran,
I want to thank the mayor's office,
and I want to thank our Chamber of Commerce,
all of our chambers of commerce for being here,
for supporting this, for working with us,
and we are excited to change the relationship
between City Hall and the business community.
We can grow our way out of our structural deficit
by making sure that businesses come here,
work here, employ people here,
and fill up those vacant storefronts.
Thank you.
Very efficient.
You left Council Member Ramachandran 10 seconds.
There's many multiple flowing benefits of this proposal.
This is cost neutral.
We already budgeted the double,
almost double the amount that we need for this program.
And when we have every vacant storefront filled in Oakland,
when we're able to support every existing small business
from becoming a vacant storefront, Oakland thrives.
We are a city that is built on the backs of the strength,
the vitality, the diversity of our business community.
And I'm excited to really bring something that's innovative,
something that other cities have started
to do that's reaping results, and do something
that sends a message that Oakland truly
is open for business.
And for those who say, well, that alone
isn't going to bring business to Oakland, no.
There's a number of things that we
know that various branches of this city,
from the mayor's office to council
to the administration that are doing improve our business
climate.
But I strongly believe that providing incentives
is a necessary step given all that's
going on to give Oakland this not so friendly business
reputation.
I'm really excited that we are all part
of the course of changing that.
Councilmember Brown.
Excellent.
I just wanted to quickly say amazing job
to Councilmember Unger and Councilmember Ramachandran
as well as the mayor's office.
And I know that there were so many amazing partners that
to really help bring the vision to life.
And so I'm super grateful that we were able
to think proactively during the budget cycle
to set this funding aside upon reading the report.
It really reflects all of the hard work
and the intentionality around, you know,
being able to expand this incentive program
to our businesses and even new businesses in 2027.
And I think that it's an amazing handshake
to the economic activation zones
that will be launching in 2026.
So just a lot of really good synergy
and so congratulations, thank you.
Let's go to public comment.
Moving to public comment,
as I call your name,
please support the podium in any order.
Please state your name for beginning.
If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand
so I can easily identify you.
Josephine Guzman, Stephanie Tran and Barbara Leslie.
Good morning council members.
My name is Stephanie Tran, President of the Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce.
We want to express our strong support for the Oakland Business Tax Incentive.
This will provide meaningful relief for current businesses to stay open, retain employees,
and reinvest in our local economy.
Also easing the initial tax burden will also allow entrepreneurs to get a strong start
in doing business in our city.
So we urge you to continue moving this forward.
And again, we thank Mayor Lee, Council Member Ramachandran, and Council Member Unger for
continuing to prioritize practical policies that will strengthen our business community.
Thank you.
Josephine Guzman, I'll exceed my time to Barbara.
Leslie?
Don't worry.
I want yous all the time.
Barbara Leslie, I'm the President and CEO of the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
I want to just thank the Mayor and Councilmember Ramachandran and Councilmember Unger for your
leadership in bringing this piece of legislation forward.
We know how hard you worked on this.
We know you set the stage during the budget process allowing some of the funds to be set
aside for this program.
All of that takes a lot of effort and we really appreciate that effort.
I'm just really excited to be here today and be able to support this item.
Oakland businesses need this.
Oakland voters want this, and this is an opportunity to really build, and as council member Unger
said in his statement, really build and grow the pie.
We talk a lot about growing the general fund and growing the pie so that we have ample
resources to support every priority that this city has, and this is an opportunity to do
so.
So we are very grateful for your leadership.
We are grateful for your vision, and we are looking very forward to supporting this as
it moves through the council process as well as well as in June of 26th. Thank you so much.
Anybody else? Kathy, you're not speaking? Okay. I've got all the chambers, almost all of them.
All right. Is that a motion Council Member Ramachandra? All right. Ramachandra Brown?
On the motion by Council Member Ramachandra and seconded by Council Member Brown to approve
is sending it to December 16.
And I'm sorry.
Forwarding to December 16.
Councilmember Brown.
Aye.
Councilmember Fife.
Aye.
Councilmember Ramachandran.
Aye.
And Chair Jenkins.
Aye.
Motion passes with a vote of four ayes.
And what is the body's preference to consent, non consent?
I should have asked the co-sponsor that the people seem happy.
move on to item six.
I'm going to item six.
Adopt a resolution calling giving notice for the holding of a special municipal election
on June second twenty twenty six.
For the purpose of submitting to the voters a measure that would amend city charter.
Article section two six zero one two among other things expand the ella's eligibility
for members of the police and fire retirement board and change the board meeting frequency
request in consolidation of the special municipal election with a statewide direct primary election to be held in the city of Oakland on June 2nd
2026
Directing the city clerk to make to take any and all actions necessary under law
To submit this measure to the voters at the June 2nd election and making appropriate sequel findings. I
Have no speakers on this item
Councilmember how much time will you need?
Two minutes and 35 seconds. All right, put 235 on there
All right. I guess I am ballot measure guy back at you for another round like a stomach virus
If we could put that up on the screen, please
All right, peepers is a closed-end
Pension fund for police and fire. There are no
Firefighters actively or police officers currently in it. This is for police and fire hired prior to 1976
It's a pension fund, disability, and death benefits.
I have on here that it is funded at 90%.
That is my error.
It is funded at over 100% right now.
This is an incredibly healthy fund.
We just need to make a couple of really minor changes
to how the board administers itself.
This is not a financial issue.
This is just a management issue, because the average age
for folks on the board is,
and folks in the fund is 81 years old.
So, you know, having them come to monthly meetings
and it is becoming increasingly difficult.
So we are trying to change the membership of the board
to allow for elected members
of the current police department or fire department.
So it doesn't just have to be retirees
because it's gonna become increasingly difficult
to get these folks to meetings.
We are expanding the eligibility for non-members
and we are changing the meeting frequency from monthly
to no less than quarterly.
These members all serve without compensation.
That is not going to change.
This is just a pretty simple cleanup,
but because this is in our municipal charter,
we have to go to the voters for this and that's it.
Did I come in under time?
You have 55 seconds.
Okay.
You got anything else?
Better than I thought I was.
Council member Ramachandra.
Thank you, this seems straightforward.
I didn't realize we'd have to go to the voters
for something like this, but like many things we do,
and I'll make the motion.
I do think we have one very small revision
to what was published in the agenda.
Second.
Celia Warren, Office of the City Attorney.
We are suggesting a non-substantive revision
to the version of the draft that's in the packet
for the council's consideration.
On page seven of the copy that I, hopefully,
quietly distributed to all of the members of the body
and that I left in front for the members of the public,
on, as I said, page seven,
you will note some highlighted language.
We'd like to strike the new sentence
that was to be appointed and retired system members
of the board shall serve without compensation.
You'll see that is in red and stricken.
We proposed to revive the original charter language,
which says the members of the board shall serve
without compensation.
The added language was a remnant of the PIFRS Board's
iterations of figuring out what this language should be
and it can be stricken.
The intent is for the board to serve without compensation.
So the language was already there.
We prefer to go back to the original.
We recommend that be part of your motion.
Thank you.
motion to approve the motion.
this will be forwarded to
december sixteen.
And is it the body's desire for this to be on consent.
Yes.
Uh... to the motioners.
I don't know to the clerk of the attorneys, do we have to hear this on nonconsent or can we take it to consent.
as well as I think that we're
looking forward to it.
Thank you through the chair to
the body- there's no requirement
that this be heard on non
consent I'll just note that- the
city charter does provide that
ballot measures proposing
charter charter amendments- must
be considered by the city
council.
Two times at two meetings so it
can I'd say given that it's our
practice to hear it on non
consent why don't we do that.
That's what I was going to say
to the dean.
What does the practice mean?
You got five years experience.
To the dean, do we hear both items, or parliamentaria, do we hear both items on non-consent?
Okay, we'll take it as we get it.
Okay, so this will go to non-consent on the 16th.
Going to item 7.
As opposite ordinance amending the Oakland Campaign Reform Act, two amend sections 3.12.045
to increase the contribution limits to office holders' funds, match the temporarily increased
limits to candidates and candidate control committees, and to extend the sunset date
and amend section 3.12.150 to clarify that office holder expenditures may not be used
for mailing within three months of any election for which the elected official is running
office noting that this item was added at the three-day publication of this
agenda it does need an urgency vote before it is heard I will through the
chair I will entertain that motion and we can dispense with that vote. So moved.
So the urgency is important to get this legislation through I had made a
commitment to my colleagues that I would come in and do cleanup language before
It's been three years and that's
the end of the year and I
intend to do that.
The urgency motion moved by
council president Jenkins
seconded by council member five.
Councilmember Brown, aye.
Councilmember Fife, aye.
Councilmember Ramachandran, aye.
And Chair Jenkins, aye.
Motion passes with a vote of four ayes, thank you.
Can you give me two minutes, please?
45 seconds.
So I stated before, this is clean up language
that councilmember I'm gonna chondron and I brought before you earlier this year there was cleanup language that I needed to do clean up language that councilmember five requested and clean up language that councilmember Wong requested so first.
In fairness this extends the temporary higher contribution limits for candidates
until December 31, 2029, so we don't have an odds versus even split. This evicts the unintended
imbalance that gave the 2026 candidates more time than the higher limits, under the higher limits
than the 2028 candidates. Extending the dates makes the rules fair and consistent for both election
in the coming months, but not
in the next five or ten cycles.
Hopefully, in the future,
someone will address the issues
that we have with campaign
finance, democracy dollars, and
how we move forward with that.
Second, it raises the
contribution limits for office
holders so that they match
temporarily increased limits to
campaign committees.
So this is, they've always been
aligned, the alignment reduces
confusion, it keeps the system
those funds and it's based on
these policies without relying
on democracy dollars, I mean
democracy dollars, where am I?
Without relying on general fund
dollars.
Third, this one was from
councilmember Wong.
The ordinance clarifies that
office holder funds cannot be
used for any mailers within
three months of an election if
the official is on the ballot.
This prevents any appearance
that the office holder funds are
updates ensure that the campaign reform act remains fair modern and transparent
They create consistent rules across election cycles and protect
Against potential misuse of office order funds and strengthens public confidence in Oakland's democratic process. Thank you
Seeing that there's no speakers of councilmember five
I'm gonna have to have you call me Dean Fife
And the public should acknowledge that since I have been deemed the Dean that I should also get the respect for being the upper classman
That said I appreciate the fact that you made those amendments
Based on the body and what some of my concerns were so I wanted to offer you the opportunity to make the motion and I will
second so moved second
Dean five
There was a motion by council president Jenkins second by counts excuse me council
segment by Dean five
to approve the item
with the amendments
16th
going to December 16
consent on consent
Council member Brown. I
Dean five
You're the real Dean, but I
councilmember Ramachandran. I'm sorry your mic I'm sorry councilmember Ramachandran. Aye. And chair
Jenkins. Aye. Motion passes with a vote of four ayes. That was your last discussion item moving to open forum. As I call your name please approach the podium in any order please state your name for the record. If you're on Zoom please raise your hand so I can easily identify you. George Spies, Rajni Mandal, Kevin Daly, and
Bloor-Bekman. This is Kevin Dally from Transport Oakland. The electronic
speaker card and e-comment for rules committee is broken. It is not at all
usable. The entire, the limit, if I want to sign up remotely I have to sign up 24
hours in advance, but the entire agenda specifically new scheduling items does
not show up until 24 hours, until less than 24 hours before the meeting. So by
the time item 3 new scheduling items is online, it is too late to sign on. Of
course I'm a blame for punishment so I sign up for item 3 just in case or show
up in person. We, if we'd had advanced notice of this attempt to bypass
committees with the fire code, we would have had many other people sign up
remotely. This policy discourages public comment. I don't think it is what the
Rules Committee wants. Thank you. Rajni Mundal, District 4. Last week, the federal
judge overseeing the NSA accepted a community petition into the court record.
This petition had over 1,000 signatures from residents of all seven districts
who urge the judge to end the NSA and allow Oaklanders to control their own policing.
The federal monitor again finds OPD not in compliance, especially with investigative
timelines which the city has clearly stated is due to low staffing.
We barely have enough cops for patrol, less than 30 per shift, should we be prioritizing
unattainable NSA goals and timelines at the expense of public safety.
I believe not, and at this point the NSA is directly affecting public safety.
i also believe that it's time to reassess civilian oversight of opd and to
examine the effectiveness of the police commission in this branches of cipra and
oic
i'm actually waiting the city auditors findings of the most recent review
i'm also hard to hear discussions during the mayor's charter reform community
sessions
about reforming section six oh four of the charter which pertains to the police
commission
we need balanced oversight and enforcement which we currently do not
have
and it's hurting our city each and every day
thank you
Blair Beekman, thanks for the meeting today.
Thanks for the previous public comment. I have the same problem. In fact, a few weeks ago
I had the very problem of
signing up on Zoom and then my
items weren't fully understood
what I signed up for for three because of what was explained, the 24 hours
problem.
Good luck in really working on that. Currently if I write back to yourselves
at around 3 p.m. in the afternoon to the city clerk's office on Wednesday with a list
of what, you know, agenda items have arrived, you know, for, to speak at rules on Thursday,
that's acceptable to you and makes it a clear process.
And that's the best way I worked out with the clerks how that can function well and smoothly.
But it is awkward.
Good luck how to really work on it.
And so thanks.
I'm here today.
And thanks for all your patience with me in trying to work it out.
I also wanted to mention the importance with the ALPR vendor issue.
I felt that the judgment that council committee persons and commission persons
from the PAC, they could not make motions to ask how to question
if we can start looking into a new ALPR vendor.
That happened in both committees and commissions.
It was a very narrow interpretation
that you could only speak to the floc item, I felt.
Is there an item now that has been failed?
It was been said at those meetings that an item now has
to come back to the committees and agendas on a new floc vendor.
Is that going to be happening for ourselves?
It has to be a question and I hope we're questioning it.
Good luck and good luck on having open communication
about current Baywassie emergency preparedness for Bay Area.
It's an important issue, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beacomber.
Does that conclude our public comments?
This meeting's adjourned.