Good afternoon and welcome to this special City Council meeting of Tuesday
December 16 2025 before I call roll I will go over speaker card instructions
for this meeting. If you'd like to speak on any agenda item please fill out a
speaker's card and return that to a clerk representative before the item is
called for discussion. As the rules of procedure have established you have two
two hours I'm sorry hour and 30 minutes to sign up from the start of this meeting
this meeting started at 1.03 so that time will be 2.33 p.m. if you're looking
to submit an online speaker card they were due 24 hours before the start of
this meeting. On roll for this meeting our councilmember Brown present
councilmember Fife present councilmember Gallo present councilmember
council member.
President- council member
Houston.
President council member
Ramachandran president
councilmember under president
councilmember Wong president
and chair Jenkins.
President showing eight
members present at this time.
Before we go to the agenda do
you have any announcements
absolutely- there are a number
of people out here to speak I
know everybody is excited about
So every speaker will be given one minute.
The order of the agenda will be as followed,
consent followed by flock,
followed by rules of procedure,
then we'll take the agenda in order after that.
Flock will be first.
Okay. After consent, flock, rules of procedure,
then we'll go in order from there.
Just a reminder, as you are entering the chambers,
you are required to have a seat.
If the chamber is full and there are no seats available,
you can go to hearing room 1 for overflow.
You will be able to view the meeting there.
If you signed up to speak,
you will have time to come back to
the chamber to address the council for public comments.
Moving to item 4,
modifications of the agenda and procedural items.
Any modifications? Seeing that.
Moving to item 5,
which is the consent calendar starting with item 5.1 approval of the draft minutes from
the meeting of December 2nd, 2025 item 5.2 is a resolution regarding a declaration due
to the local AIDS emergency item 5.3 a resolution regarding the declaration of a medical cannabis
emergency item 5.4 resolution due to the declaration of a local emergency on homelessness item
5.5 an ordinance for vacant property tax
amendments
item five point six in ordinance for the Oakland Municipal Code chapter ten point twenty speed limits
administrative updates
I don't five point seven in
ordinance for economic activation zones
I don't five point eight in ordinance for planning code amendments to streamline conditional use permits
I don't 5.9 in ordinance for flex streets program. I don't 5.10 a resolution for the 27th Street complete
streets construction contract award. I don't 5.11 a resolution for Oakland Public Works sewer division
cooperative agreements
I don't 5.12 a resolution regarding the Oakland business relief program
I don't 5.13 in ordinance regarding amending the Oakland campaign Reform Act
Item 5.14, a resolution honoring the life of the extraordinary Coach John Bean.
Item 5.15, an information report for performance audit of the Kids First Children's Fund.
Item 5.16 includes multiple pieces of legislation regarding amendments to Ordinance Number 12187,
the salary ordinance.
5.17 a resolution for HDL software LLC local tax software solution and printing
and mailing services and a 5.18 in Orsa resolution for the Rob's payment
scheduled for school years 26 to 27 and a 5.19 a resolution awarding a
professional services contract to Francisco and Associates and a 5.20 a
resolution regarding updates to environmentally preferable purchasing
policy and a five point twenty two a resolution for sustainable fleet
transition grants acceptance match appropriation and purchases and a five
point twenty three a resolution regarding the purchasing contract for
traffic maintenance materials and a five point twenty four a resolution ensuring
a competitive market for a prowl construction and a five point twenty
a resolution for Electric Bike Lending Program, item 5.26, a resolution for
acceptance of funding and technical assistance for Bay Rinn Decarbonization
Showcase Program, item 5.27, a resolution for an MOU between the City of
Oakland and the City of San Leandro, item 5.28, a resolution for terms for an
exclusive negotiation agreement, item 5.29, a resolution in support of the
Bay Area District zero emission building appliance rules and a 5.30 a resolution
for grant agreements with friends of Peralta, Hacienda, Historical Park and a
5.31 a resolution for an addendum to affiliation agreement between University
of San Francisco and the city of Oakland and a 5.32 a resolution for OPD citizens
option for public safety grant item 5.33 a resolution for a contract with
Bright Research Group and ROKA for training services, item 5.34 resolution
for contract amendment with the University of Pennsylvania for cease
fire lifeline evaluation, item 5.35 a resolution authorizing the city order in
the chamber, item 5.35 a resolution authorizing the Lynn marine contract,
Out of five point thirty six in emergency ordinance for amendments to the Oakland Fire
Code just noting that approval of this item it will be introduced and final passage in
the same meeting and that is your final consent calendar.
Security please make sure that everyone has a seat if there are not enough seats please
direct folks to the overflow room.
Any comments on consent?
Seeing none let's go to public speakers.
Oh, come on up director.
There are equal workforce development.
Let's see, I got to figure out which number this is,
I'm sorry.
This is in regards to item 5.28,
terms for an exclusive negotiating agreement.
I want to thank council member Fife.
And then staff just wanted to expand
on one of the further resolved clauses
that is already in the draft resolution,
just as a point of clarification.
And that is with respect to the Surplus Lands Act.
A disposition is exempt from the Surplus Lands Act
if the property is subject to a valid legal restriction,
which prohibits residential housing,
and if that restriction is not imposed by the city.
It must also be true that there's no feasible method
to satisfactorily mitigate
or avoid the prohibition on the site.
And in this case, the North Gateway property is encumbered
with such a restriction due to the presence
of environmental contamination.
And this existing deed restriction can only be lifted by the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control, DTSC, and only after DTSC approves a plan to remediate the site
and only after that plan is implemented.
And we believe that it would take several years and cost the city at least $120,000
to develop a plan that DTSC might approve, however there's no guarantee that DTSC will
approve a remediation plan and commit to granting a waiver.
If DTSC did approve a remediation plan, the remediation itself would also be time-consuming
and costly, but the actual timeline and costs are impossible to predict at this time, and
the cost and risk to the city could be significant.
And there's more information about this in an informational report that was provided
to the city council on June 7th, 2022.
Thank you.
Anything else from the administration?
Anything else from staff?
All right, no staff coming up.
Let's go to the public speakers.
As I call your name, please approach the podium in any order.
Please state your name for the record so we can assign you the appropriate amount of time.
As with standard practice, speakers in the chambers will be taken first, Zoom speakers
will be taken immediately after.
Please raise your hands so I can easily identify you if you are on Zoom.
Sanford Forte, Prescott Chair, Kevin Dally, Juan Canem, I have you for two items.
Josephine Guzman, I have you for two items.
Jennifer Finley, I have you for four items.
Jack Fleck, Hannah Zuckerman, George Spies,
David Peters, I have you for multiple items.
David Gassman, Colleen Corrigan, Brian Culbertson,
Mrs. Asada Olabala, I have you for multiple items.
Derek Barnes, David Boatwright.
David Boatwright, I have you for, looks like two items.
Bob Rahabie, sorry if I said that incorrectly.
Kevin Hester, Javier Gonzalez,
Ira Dixon, Blair Beekman, I have you with multiple items.
Isaiah Daniels, Eric Turner,
Stanley Cooper batcher butcher maybe with curbside trucks trucking Miguel Lopez our
nail price Ralph cans I have you with multiple items Mr. Hazard I have you with multiple
items Stephanie Tran and Raffini I'm sorry I can't read the last name looks like G maybe
or refini in any order please begin mr. bar right have you with two cards so how
much time do I get two minutes or one minute okay while item 513 seems to
level the spending ground for current office holders it is imperative to
encourage good strong potential candidates to run and support their
debate participation even if they lack significant funding while it doesn't
initially result in flashy expensive pamphlets it can lead to word-of-mouth
support more practical and positive ideas and less money demonizing the
other candidates is what we need. And then on item 528 the Costco item I
think it's a great revenue generator it sounds like the city's not for it given
the comments that were just made but any word on the informational meeting we
were going to have. If your name was called and you were in chambers please
approach the podium if you wish to address the council. To make it quicker
if you were able please line up if you're able and just come to the mic.
Council member Fife. I just wanted to clarify through the chair to the public
if I may because we had our director of economic and workforce development
speak is is our staff still here director can it I think thank you for
for speaking earlier if you could just clarify for the public there I think
there's a misunderstanding of the statement that you made I wanted to
clarify that director can it spoke in support of the Costco item and just
reiterated what was stated at the community and economic development
department meeting that we had earlier so if you could without stating the
entire frame can you just summarize what you wanted to state for the public
please yes the administration is in support of the item and I was just
trying to clarify why the surplus lands act does not apply to this item okay
thank you and before the public speakers security please make sure that
everyone has a seat in the chambers if not please direct people to the
overflow room again security please make sure that everyone in the seat and then
chambers has a seat if not direct them to the overflow room thank you please
proceed hello City Council and fellow friends of Oakland my name is Javier
Gonzalez and I'm a small business owner in Oakland I'm a housing provider in
district five and district three and also a member of the rental housing
association I also volunteer assisting Spanish speaking housing providers in
Oakland understand and navigate the housing laws I want to speak today on
the vacant parcel tax regarding the agenda item on the vacant parcel tax
I want to say that I'm encouraged that there's a resolution requiring that the vacant parcel tax independent hearing officer
provide statement of facts when rendering his written decision on formal appeals
Contesting the city fines I'd like to ask the finance director of the city administrator and the city council to also require the SEI
Corporation the SEI corporation is the company that writes the initial
appeals or responses when
Oaklanders receive this
Vacant parcel tax. I'd like to ask that they carry on this statement of fact
Just a reminder to those on the black. Excuse me on the back wall
If you cannot find a seat you do need to go downstairs to the overflow
There are a couple seats to my left if you can find seating you cannot stand against the back wall
It is a fire hazard. Please find a seat or go to the chain. I mean go to the overflow room
You will have ample time to come back up to address the council if you signed up to speak
one second, Mr. Beekman
If you are giving public comment comment come up towards the middle just to line up to access the mic
Please proceed. Mr. Beekman. Thank you. Hi, Blair Beekman. I wanted to speak to items of
5.7 5.10 5.24 and 5.33
For 5.7, that's economic models coming up for the downtown Oakland area.
We've all suffered from the era of COVID.
You're going to be trying new things for the downtown area.
I'm really hopeful that by 2027 or so, we were really talking before the era of COVID
about new economic models altogether.
The current mayor of New York is talking about free transit service, a system of working
where everything isn't just tax and spend and we get services
and then we're highly taxed for those services,
we're really developing new, we should come back to the ideas
of new economic models as we're passing
through this COVID era or leaving it.
And for the downtown area, it's got a lot of tech involved.
There's going to be tech involved with these projects.
We have to be open and accountable with that process.
We have to have it as a community process.
You guys are not offering good examples
of community work today for tech issues.
I hope we can be learning lessons today.
Item 5.10 is complete streets
and 5.24 is PROW construction.
These to me are kind of connected
in that there's a real importance in the ideas of,
there'll be a lot of tech involved.
And for the future of our mobility issues
and overall complete street issues,
to have just good policies in place,
For advocacy, for pedestrian accessibility,
for them to be working towards best practices
with the tech involved also, and same with bicycle people,
good luck we're working on those things in Oakland.
It really is a holistic process in building our good future.
And these are the open good things that we do together.
We shouldn't be canceling each other out
and fighting amongst ourselves.
I hope we can be working together on this stuff.
And finally, for item 5.33, bright training research,
really nice item.
It's been going around Council and Committee for a while now.
It's like cognitive learning training in some way.
It's to help with violence prevention issues.
And this kind of item is so needed at this time,
when we're dealing with so much tech.
When we have been building really good violence
prevention practices around social services,
macro and if we continue those good efforts I mean we can be really asking
federal agencies for continual funding because we're doing these problems these
programs so well and that's it's a fair ask and that's building you know a
community not based on law enforcement and I think believe it or not the Trump
administration will actually respect it they respected the work of San Francisco
and San Jose mayors on the same subject good luck what we can do as well thank
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
My name is Kevin Hester, born and raised in Oakland, California.
I work for a company, McGuire & Hester, founded in Oakland 100 years ago this coming year.
Just want to say that 10 years ago, McGuire & Hester embarked on a mentor protégé in
the city of County of San Francisco with Bruce Geron in Geron Construction.
At the time, Bruce was doing about $2 to $3 million worth of work and had about 10 employees.
Ten years later, Bruce has over 50 employees, and I don't know his whole numbers, but I
want to say somewhere probably the $40 to $50 million.
McGuire and Hester would like the opportunity to replicate this with Cooper Engineering
on a project in the City of Oakland where both of our companies are founded.
We need the City of Oakland to invest in this opportunity for the mentor protege.
Thank you.
Hello.
My name is Isaiah Daniels.
He was kind of tall.
Hello.
My name is Isaiah Daniels and I'm a superintendent for Cooper Construction and Engineering.
I'm presently working here in West Oakland over on the WASP program, some of the neighborhoods
in that area on the west side.
And so I also in favor of McGuire and Hester getting this contract.
We've been working alongside of them, doing city sidewalks.
They not only had an open door for us, but once we walked through that door as a small
Oakland raised company, as we walked through that door, they were welcoming, assisted us
and everything that we needed and we're looking forward to continuing this
relationship that we have with them. I know we have a lot of don't have a lot
of time so I'm gonna cut mine short here. Thank you. Good afternoon, my name is
Eric Turner. I'm a local apprentice from Oakland born and raised. I'm also in
favor of McGuire and Hester getting the contract for the 27th Street Improvement.
Cooper construction gives us opportunity gives opportunity to people like myself
to grow and to learn different trades within the construction.
This contract will help a local construction company grow and hire more residents like myself.
Hello, my name is Ira Dixon. I am born and raised here in Oakland, California.
I'm an apprentice with the local 300, and I am for McGuire and Hester attending the 27th Street contract.
I just want to speak about the kindness that Mr. Cooper and his business offered to me
when I was fresh out of school and trying to attain an apprenticeship.
You know, I called around for too many different companies, and none of them were willing to
give me the chance to work with them.
And then I met Mr. Cooper.
He gave me that chance.
I kindly appreciate it.
like Cooper engineering are important because they gave people who are overlooked the chance
to succeed and further their career. Thank you. Good afternoon council members my name
is Stephanie Tran. I'm a resident of Oakland also born and raised here. I want to express
a little bit of my disappointment that the city is not supporting more local and minority
owned business. Sorry I mentioned item 5.110. Oakland has many skilled and qualified people
from Oakland like everyone here with Cooper construction and engineering that is ready
to do this work and yet they were overlooked. When city contracts bypass
local workers and minority-owned business we miss an opportunity to
invest our public dollars back into our communities and our people and to
advance equity in a real and measurable way. Supporting local contracting should
not just be a talking point it should be reflected in outcome. So I urge the city
to do better let's strengthen our accountability and outreach and
contracting practices, so Oakland-based and minority-owned businesses are
prioritized and involved in the bidding process.
Hi, good afternoon. My name is Keith Butler with Curbside Truck and LLC, District 3 LBE.
Testing. Through the chair, you have your hand covering the tip of the mic so just
pull the mic up and speak into the mic. Hi everyone, my name is Keith Butler with
curbside truck in LLC, a District 3 LBE right here in Oakland. I support McGuire
and Hester being awarded this contract based upon their commitment to work with
Oakland LBEs. Sometimes it's not about the lowest bid and lowest number it's
about what's good for the community. Yeah, excuse me. So in saying that I support
McGuire and Hester. They've been working with me on a couple projects here in Oakland.
Wouldn't it be good for the community to build up the community? So let's work
together. Let's build Oakland together. Let's do something impactful. Thank you.
Hello, my name is Ria Filoe and I'm yielding my time to Stanley Cooper for
item 510. Through the chair before you go there is no seating time during the
Consent calendar so you can't give away your minute
Take the microphone up there you go. Thank you so much
That I'm also in support of the city investing in the community
It's actually why I came out to speak on another item today
And so I'm very much in support of mr. Stanley Cooper and his team being invested in by the city that they live in
Thank you
Okay. Hello City Council members. My name is Stanley Cooper the owner of Cooper construction and engineering and like you heard from everybody
We are we really want to invest in the community. I
Personally want to thank the city council and their staff
I'm in favor of a guar and Hester getting the contract for 27th Street
What would do is would allow companies like myself and others. I have a mentor protege already set in place
So I can learn a lot from a company that's being here for over a hundred years and I applaud them for that
According to the Alameda County grand jury, the SLBE and the LBE has not been
utilized. It's been over 10 years since a mentor protege has been used. This would
help local companies like myself grow. I have a strong presence. I'm a member of
NAMAC and a lot of others and so I really hope that... Hi my name is Bob
He be on the dredge reconstruction company.
Just want to clarify that the mentor protege program
was not established by McGuire and Hester
and Cooper Engineering, they needed to meet 30%
requirement participation by Cooper Engineering.
They did not, they were at 15 and a half percent,
one and a half million short of what would be considered
a mentor protege.
Our price was 10,418,000 dollars
and McGuire and Hester was $11,368,000.
That's a million dollar difference
that the city would be paying to go to McGuire and Hester.
Regwick is a Oakland firm located in Oakland since 2012.
I urge the city to take the million dollars
and give it to all the advocates that are sitting behind me
that are desperately looking for funding
instead of giving it to another company
that's actually a large company like McGuire and Hester.
Hello, I'm speaking about item 530.
Good afternoon council members, my name is Miguel Lopez.
I'm the executive director of Friends of Peralta Sienda
Historical Park, and I'm here in strong support
of this resolution.
At Peralta Sienda, our work is about creating real
opportunities for young people who are often overlooked.
Through paid internships, environmental stewardship,
history, and cultural education, and leadership development,
we help youth build job skills, confidence,
any sense of direction.
Many of our teens enter our programs unsure of themselves,
and over time they become mentors, educators,
and community leaders.
These opportunities extend beyond youth alone.
Our park connects families to food
through a weekly distribution,
serving over 150 households,
and it brings the community together
through cultural celebrations and volunteer stewardship
that keep our six acre public space safe and cared for.
This funding sustains pathways for young people
to learn, earn, and lead
while preserving a historic and cultural site
that belongs to all Oaklanders.
Thank you for continuing to invest
in this opportunity of equity and the future for our youth.
Good afternoon, custom members.
I'm speaking for item 530.
My name is Angel.
My name is Anil, and this is my first time
being involved with Peralta Hacienda.
I started in the Water Keepers Program this past September.
Before joining, I haven't really done much work like this,
but I've really enjoyed learning about gardening
and taking care of the park.
Being part of this program has helped me see things
differently, spending time outside working with my hands
and learning how the park is cared for,
has made me think more about my community and my future.
It also helped me realize that I want to keep being involved
and continue learning new things.
The staff has been really supportive to me and others
from the beginning.
They care about me and take the time to guide me
and help me figure out my next steps.
Through this program, I'm starting
to build work, skills, and confidence,
and I feel encouraged to keep going.
I'm grateful for the opportunity to be part of Pareto,
as Hacanda, and I hope you continue supporting.
Please let him continue.
Excuse me.
Did you have anything else to say?
My bad.
I'm grateful for the opportunity
to be part of Pareto, Hacienda, and I hope you continue supporting programs that help
young people like me grow in a far direction to stay in the right path. Thank you.
Thank you for coming to City Council. Please don't make it to your last time.
Hi, my name is Jesse Rose Warren. Thank you. I have multiple cards. I figured Kevin Jenkins
made us all take a day off work so he could try to beg you all to protect our communities
from ICE and the Trump administration. So you have a lot of really crazy stuff on the
this consent calendar so I'd like to speak to some of those. First of all the
Oakland Fire Code item 5.36. I actually work with transportation. I talked to a
very strong transportation advocate about how troubled they are by a minimum
length or width of these streets of 26 feet. This is problematic because this
will keep people from being able to design streets that save the lives of
bicyclists and pedestrians and what I would like to know is where is the
bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee's input on this item. Why is
it nowhere in the agenda packet? Did they get enough time to review this item?
Because I am noticing a pattern one in which the privacy advisory committee is
fully ignored and their input on something that will endanger our
community to the Trump administration and to ICE and all of these things that
all of you are looking down and don't seem to care about. Where's their input
it on where's the Advisory Commission's input on that item where's the Advisory
Commission's input on this item and how do you expect anybody to join any of
these Advisory Commission's when you continue to ignore them over and over
and over and over and over and over and over again how do you expect anyone to
join any Advisory Commission when you ignore them when it's something as
strong and as important as this art is sent into fascism our communities
being vulnerable to ice and all of these things, and I'd also like to speak on this campaign
finance reform thing that you guys put up in the middle of this consent calendar too.
We have open ethics violations and multiple brown act violations by multiple city council
members and I know you're not paying attention, but whatever.
He's not even in his seat.
Well guess what?
You've had a lot of people talk about your blatant foregoing competitive bidding processes
And we know that someone's hand is in the middle of that.
We're seeing you go over go these competitive bidding
processes when it comes to a corrupt out of state vendor
that is going to endanger our communities
and is leaking their data to ICE.
And you are all complicit in this.
In giving everything to the Trump administration
and making our communities vulnerable
to violent abductions.
You know what I'm talking about.
I talk to you directly.
You're not even looking at me.
You know exactly what I'm talking about.
You maybe take the day off, work for this.
To defend our communities,
you need to take responsibility and do that.
You need to defend our communities.
It shouldn't be my responsibility, it's yours.
So where is this?
This is shameful.
Lies, lies, lies.
Over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Thank you for your comments.
Juan Canem, I should have three minutes.
I'm sorry, can you say your name one more time?
Say it one more time.
Juan Canem.
I'm Juan Canem. I'm a D4 resident. I'm here because uh, well, I'm here because you made me take a day off work.
You're wasting everyone's time and nobody wants flock here, but there are two items on the consent agenda you're trying to put through.
One, as the previous speaker mentioned, is unnecessarily wide roads make the streets less safe.
The fire department spends more time responding to vehicle crashes than it does to fires.
And while I appreciate the need for like large trucks and their ability to get places,
it is also important that we narrow the streets, which means less car crashes,
which means more fire department time to do proactive enforcement.
Here we live in the shadow of the ghost town fire, or the ghost ship fire,
and previously I lived in London, I lived in the shadow of the Granfeld Tower,
and both those, literally and figuratively, both those incidents could have been completely avoided
if there was more proactive inspection, especially when there are shitty landlords who don't
keep their premises up to code, and the first you know about it is when the building is
literally on fire.
So if we free up fire by the time by having less traffic accidents, that would make everyone
a lot safer.
Also, the ridiculous campaign finance reform, basically trying to build up personal allegiances
rather than do things through the city.
if something's important enough to be done,
it should be done openly and transparently.
I know Janani that is bringing this ironically ran
on making City Hall more transparent.
Yet these personal fiefdon pockets of wallets of money
to hand out is very like the late stage room republic shit.
It's trying to build up your personal brand
over the future wellbeing of the city.
Yeah, I think that's all I got to say, thank you.
My name's Ian.
Order in the chamber.
Excuse me, order in the chamber.
Hi, my name's Ian.
I'm here to speak in opposition of the flock contract.
Maybe if we're different.
Excuse me, please pause this time.
We're not on the flock.
Item.
Oh, I was told this was the flock item.
This is not the flock item, thank you.
Good afternoon, Ralph Kans.
I get three minutes.
Good afternoon, Ralph Kans.
Vacant property tax I spoke to previously.
And as your earlier speaker noted, there are problems with the vacant property tax, and
these changes are not going to solve the problems you have with a vacant property tax.
In fact, this is a subsidy for house flippers in Oakland by automatically eliminating the
tax when a house is sold, the LLC comes and buys it, and they go in and they start flipping
it without permits.
As an example, right now, 2901 Seminary has gotten written up, they've got stop work orders,
they keep working.
They claim they're doing $8,000 worth of work.
Right now you go in that house, it's nothing but bare studs.
They've already spent over $8,000.
And they keep working even with a stop work order.
There's a whole lot of problems around the vacant property tax and what's going on with
house flippers.
Now regarding the office holder accounts, some previous speakers have mentioned this
problem.
There's something missing out of the report from the Public Ethics Commission and that
is in 1998 the Alameda County Grand Jury said office holder accounts should be eliminated
because they create an unfair advantage for incumbent.
This does nothing, nothing to clean up the mess.
just continues the mess and it's a mess that has become every meeting of this
council now because of the way you're doing it like this meeting today is
sleazy it's a corrupt process and it's going to really do a corrupt result
because you had to go and schedule a special meeting so you could shorten the
noticing requirements for the meeting. Let me tell you 25 years ago there was
no consent calendar at the City Council. If there had been a meeting today it
would start at six o'clock. Every item that was on the agenda at six o'clock
would have been previously fully heard in a committee and it would be fully
heard by the City Council that night. They were meeting every Tuesday night
not once or twice a month as in last month we only met once. When are you
gonna work for the people of Oakland and not for yourselves. Mr. Hazard and
Derrick Barnes, do you wish to? You can go to clean Oakland dot com and you'll see a
lot of vital information. First of all, why do you keep having cannabis as an
emergency item? The federal government is now reducing cannabis to a schedule 3,
not a schedule one but yet you don't do anything with Fentanyl. 49,000 deaths
occurred in 24 on Fentanyl and you don't do anything about it but to keep
cannabis on this agenda you need to hand you approved Fentanyl to be in crisis in
in June of 2024. Shame on you. Also, you have and the Public
Ethics Commission did not support what you have on the
agenda consent calendar, increasing the office holder
account. Mr. Kent just told you, it's a sham. You get paid by
the council, by the administration when you go on
these junkets. But the public never hears the results of those meetings. But you get
paid. So why do you need an office holder account? You're going to take advantage of
candidates where you can dole out to individuals whatever you want to dole out to. Also, you
You got, why do you have waving the small business LBE?
You got six items that you waved at.
Why even have it if you're gonna wave it?
I thought the intent of that was for local businesses, but you wave it every time.
Look at, and then you put it on the consent calendar.
If you're gonna wave it, then put it on the non-consent calendar.
Sometimes these things don't even go through committees.
You use 24 or 28 to bypass committees.
Same on you.
Later, I'm going to speak to what I gave you on item 8
regarding rules procedure that I was unceremoniously
extricated by the president at the council meeting
because I wanted the parliamentarian to give the rules.
You got the rules right here.
Pull the item, pull item number eight
because I'm gonna come back and read
and I'm gonna give you the case law.
So you don't have any excuse, pull the item.
Don't do it because I'll be prepared
to take the next legal step and the courts will.
You're a tough act to follow.
Derek Barnes with East Bay Rental Housing Association.
On item, I think I have a couple of items, thank you.
On item 5.4, I've said many times
that we can't build our way out of this housing crisis.
Not that we should stop building either,
but having a good balance of renter protections
and owner and property preservation
and sustainable production is critical.
We have legacy owners who already provide units
well below market rate.
at members that are providing units at $500 and $700 a month.
And those are the shitty landlords
that someone made a comment earlier about.
How?
Because they can make the economics work,
revenue minus all expenses.
Any positive gains ideally go into the reserve fund
that it's necessary for unexpected costs
that rise when you're managing maintaining older homes.
We already have models that build subsidized housing
and provide incentives for developers,
the part of the production equation that works well
if there's a political environment to support it.
And as we all know, you know,
what you want less of, you tax.
What you want more of, you provide incentives.
And about 80% of our homes in Oakland are over 70 years old.
and it cost a lot to keep them maintained and habitable.
So just keep that in the back of your mind
when you're presenting legislation.
Both private and public nonprofit housing owners
are facing very similar situations.
So on item 5.29, many of us share the Sierra Club's desire
for cleaner air and healthier communities.
But I'm deeply concerned that a structure
without needed resources and time allowances
for small businesses could unintentionally undermine
the region's already fragile housing ecosystem.
So, especially for small owner operators
with buildings that still provide the bulk
of our naturally affordable housing in the city.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Again, if you were in chambers and your name was Connie,
would you address the council?
Please approach the podium.
We are now moving to our Zoom speaker
starting with Sanford Forte.
Sanford, please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Brian Culbertson, you will be after him.
Yes, good afternoon.
My name is Sanford Forte.
This is about public health.
Costco is about public health,
toxic environmental impacts, environmental injustice,
and West Oakland experiencing some of the highest rates
of respiratory illness in California.
Support for Costco at the Army base instead of CAS,
leaving West Oakland by default supports the continuance of this cotoxic inheritance,
this time letting cast continue polluting the developing bodies of West Oakland's children,
and an increase in pollution in West Oakland due to 100s of thousands of additional auto
trips monthly over and through West Oakland neighborhoods.
Projections are for an $830,000 sales tax take from Costco, which is a mere 400s percent
of our next budget. Thus, we're selling out the health of West Oakland's children and
others in District 3 for far less than 1% of our annual budget. What's a child's life
worth in Oakland?
Thank you for your comments, Brian. You are next. Kevin, Dally, you are after Brian.
Hi. My name is Brian Culvertson. I'm a pedestrian safety advocate with Traffic Violence Rapid
response, I'm speaking on 536 about the fire code.
OakDOT and OFD have built a good working relationship
over the past three years in the absence of Appendix D.
Adopting Appendix D, which requires wide roads,
threatens to up-end this positive relationship.
Traffic safety advocates will be watching very closely
to make sure that with the adoption of Appendix D
and the requirement for wide streets.
That the agencies of Oak Dot and OFD
will continue to work cooperatively
to deliver on the shared goal of safe streets.
Some projects that have been really useful
for this compromise
is the International Boulevard Safety Project.
When we added those plastic posts,
we went from seven pedestrian deaths in one year to zero.
So we need this working relationship.
Kevin, go ahead and begin your comments.
This is yeah, Kevin Dalley, Transport Oakland Fire Code 5.36.
I have three areas of the fire code
where the legislation needs clarification or fixed errors.
Legislation says Section 503 will be adopted.
Is this California 503 or ICC 503?
If ICC 503 is adopted,
how do we resolve the conflicts between California Title 24, 3.05, and 503.2.1?
Both sections require 20-foot wide streets. California allows you to include shoulders.
Lastly, there is a major copyright violation in the legislation. The full text of Appendix D is
included ICT on that copyright they will not be happy they do sue it should be removed and only
reference reference only should be in. Thanks for your comments George Spees you run next after
George is Colleen Corrigan. Hello I'm George Spees I'm a pedestrian safety advocate also with
traffic violence rapid response. Measure U bonds have now secured us a fixed pile of money to
to improve our streets.
Selection of contractors based on transparent
and defined process is especially important
on these large projects that run into many millions.
If we want different results,
we should amend the process and the requirements.
Until then, Council should not interrupt the staff process
and only exercise oversight.
We really need to avoid politicizing this process,
Allowing lobbying only encourages corruption,
especially after staff has already completed their selection
based on the defined process that council has set up.
So let's stick with allowing staff to use defined processes
and not change things after the fact.
Thank you.
Colleen, you are next.
Hi there, my name is Colleen Noland.
I'm not sure if I'm the correct speaker.
I would like to speak, but I would not like to take the time of the other calling in question.
Okay, I'm sorry, I thought you were that same calling, so I don't have a card for another
Carleen Colleen, so you will not be able to speak at this time.
Oakland Chamber of Commerce, please state your name.
Hi, yes, it's Josephine Guzman.
Go ahead, Ms. Guzman, you have two minutes.
Great, thank you.
Hey, everyone.
My name is Josephine Uzman,
Public Policy Manager for the Oakland Chamber.
I'm here just in support of both items, 5.12,
the Oakland Business Relief Program and item 5.7,
establishing the Economic Activation Zones.
Together, these items represent a coordinated approach
to economic recovery and growth.
The Business Relief Program lowers the barriers
for small and new businesses to open
and to invest and stay in Oakland.
At the same time, the Economic Activation Zones
create the foot traffic, vibrancy, and the customer base,
those businesses need to succeed.
And these policies just send a clear message
that Oakland is working with its business community,
embracing the creativity and taking the meaningful steps
to be open for business,
while centering local and small businesses.
The chamber looks forward to continue partnership
with the council and the mayor's office
to strengthen Oakland's economy
and support these vibrant and inclusive neighborhoods.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments, Miss Asada.
You are next.
Please begin your comment.
Thank you, Madam Clerk.
I'm starting with item 5.6,
modifying or changing speed limits without enforcement.
Components does not make sense.
5.7, economic activation zones need to have a component
that activates ending the 9% unemployment
African-Americans in the city of Oakland. Five point eight amendments would exclude
support for African-American vendors at Lake Merit. On five point ten, you have seven safety
improvement projects for Lake Merit. And while some areas of the city, there are no safety
improvement projects. 5.12. You need to stop putting any more taxes on the ballot for property
owners. The property owners are outraged with the amount of property taxes they have to
pay. 5.16. You should not pursue hiring a democracy dollars manager for the cost of
of over $140,000 annually
when we need an Oakland Works and a workforce manager
and we need someone to manage the homeless situation.
5.25, who does the enforcement related to e-bikes regulation?
You have no one.
5.26, you need contracts with the city of Piedmont
related to the use of our libraries.
You've gone over almost 15 years without contracts
in place, the city of Piedmont pays you
whatever they want to use our libraries with no contract.
5.27, former, the Oakland Army base is insulting
that we are fighting right now to try to get the soil
toxic hazard contamination issue at McClimans
to be remediated and now you coming up
with the army base can be used for commercial purposes
without remediating the hazard and contaminated soil.
That's outrageous.
5.30, Friends of Peralta Hacienda
constantly comes to the city council
and you constantly fund them while other commercial
and nonprofits don't get the same kind of support.
5.34 ceasefire, your joint ceasefire will not have helped the mafia, Mexican mafia gangs,
the prison gangs, the Asian gangs that you have here in Oakland. The fire station issue
on Skyline Highline, no plan to evacuate those students.
Thank you, Ms. Ola Bala. Moving to David, can you please confirm your last name so I
I can give you the appropriate amount of time.
David, can you please unmute yourself
and say your last name?
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, can you confirm your last name, please?
I said Peters, can you hear me?
Yes, go ahead and begin your comments.
Thank you very much.
I just wanna give a shout out to all the prior speakers.
Oakland speakers are passionate and informed.
And I was reminded that I'm excited
the economic activation zones that are coming online. I want to thank Council Member Brown
for shepherding that through the process. And then, because of my love for people that
are from Oakland, for real real, for really from Oakland, man, Gene Hazard, what is a
weed emergency anyway, bruh? What are we doing? We got real stuff that we need to talk about,
like this amendment, or this ENA, Pennsylvania for Costco.
And so I'm looking at the report
and I wanna point out something in the report
for everybody that I'm surprised
that there was no pushback from Council on.
And so it says, under sustainable opportunities,
environmental, no direct environmental impact.
And so hundreds of jobs to increase the city's tax revenue
significantly at North Great Way,
And you really, you think that's really credible,
that there's no environmental impact
from hundreds on thousands of car trips a week and trucks?
This report is deficient.
And I'm grievously disappointed that in the wake of OBOT
building a coal terminal here,
that we have not learned enough
to care about the West Oakland community.
When some corporation comes dancing in front
with a couple of dollars, we ready to get sold out.
We get, we endure the fires at Schnitzer.
We've got a cold terminal coming.
We've got an aggregate pile coming.
And now you're gonna propose instead of allowing cast,
who, which has been,
we have wanted to move there for decades.
People in this community have been fighting for decades
to get that gross polluter from out of their backyard
onto that site is not property is now just given away
to a true, you know, corporation.
Now I'm all for jobs.
I'm all for tax revenues.
I'm all for all of these things for Oakland.
But why is it that West Oakland always gets the doo-doo and City Hall gets the revenues?
So I get why people are excited to have Costco in Oakland.
I'm excited to have Costco in Oakland too,
but like Mama said,
it ain't always what you do.
Sometimes it's how you do it.
This process has not been doing well by the people in West Oakland,
that have been in this environmental justice fight for us and our neighbors,
and our mamas and our daddies and our kids for decades.
So where is that report from 2022
that the city council got that talked about the exception
to the surplus lands act?
Where's the information that the developer was distributing
in council chambers last week?
There'll be a meeting held in a couple of days
that any of us who are out of town won't be able to attend.
We haven't seen the presentation.
We don't have the information.
Slow down and get into the community.
No more coal in Oakland.
No more gross polluters without community engagement.
Thank you for your comments.
Jennifer Finley, you are next.
I have you with multiple cards.
For the maximum amount of time,
please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Jennifer Finley, District Two.
Council Member Wong, I'm watching your votes as well.
Been very disappointed thus far.
really disappointed with the Council's, it's despicable.
It's absolutely despicable.
There are 36 items on this consent calendar, 36 items.
People get matched three minutes to speak on all of this.
It's one more way that you are trying to bypass public input
and public awareness of what Council is up to
so that you can pass through whatever you like
with whatever rules you're making up at the time.
You've got our local emergency on homelessness,
but we are pushing the encampment abatement plan.
We're trying to get rid of encampments,
doesn't even mention the people.
Business tax relief, why do we do it with this?
Campaign reform, why are we putting more money
into elections and politics?
Do we need more mailers?
Do we need more corruption?
What are we doing here?
I support the Costco ENA.
There's a couples grant on here for a million dollars
of helicopter maintenance yearly.
What happened to the fixed wing aircrafts
and the plan to retire the helicopters
because they were too expensive to maintain?
The fire code, I just want to echo what the advocates said
earlier regarding the width of the streets and the safety.
We need more traffic calming and road diets.
We don't need to be widening streets right now
that's just bringing up risk.
And because of the timing of this meeting
and because I don't know that I'm going to be able
to be here later, I will also ask through the chair,
why isn't the Privacy Commission report
about the flat cameras in the agenda packet?
We've got 14 attachments on an item that was brought in with almost zero notice because
of how you're spreading the rules after it was voted down multiple times, after hundreds
of people have spoken.
Why isn't the Privacy Commission report that, where they voted down, voted down this recommendation
with a number of concerns and a far more detailed discussion than anybody has had at Council?
What are you doing here?
This isn't OK.
Council Member Fyfe, you have been holding it down for us.
You have a fight.
We are with you.
Please stand firm today.
I'll leave it there.
Thank you for your comments, Ms. Finley.
Moving to our next speaker.
Just going to confirm.
Ralph Brown, did you submit a card?
If so, under what name?
Yes, I did under Ralph Brown, given that this is me.
Do not have a card for you.
I apologize moving to our next speaker who's signed up.
Jack Fleck, please unmute yourself
and begin your comments.
Yes, this is Jack Fleck.
I'm with 350 East Bay.
And I just want to thank the council
for moving item 529 up to a resolution today.
And I'd just like to encourage all of the council members
to read the excellent staff report by Shana Hirschfield-Gold
that explains why this is consistent
with the equitable climate action plan
and why it's important for Oakland to pass this,
and also I want to just mention that in regard
to the concerns about equity that have been expressed
by at least one speaker,
there is a phrase, appropriate amendments
that would allow appropriate flexibility
to ensure equity and business development,
so urge you to vote for item 529.
Thanks a lot.
Thank you for your comments.
Marcus Johnson, you are next.
please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
My name is Marcus Johnson.
I have provided and sent an email to council members
and staff with recommendations about 5.28.
And I'm hoping that the council members and staff
will take the time and read the email with the letter
that identifies some concerns that I think are worthwhile for considering this ENA.
Thank you. That's it.
Thank you for your comments, Mr. Johnson.
Colleen Corrigan, you are next.
I have you with one card.
Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Thank you, everyone. Good afternoon.
My name is Colleen Corrigan and I'm here to comment on Item 529.
I work for the Civic Policy Research and Advocacy Organization SPUR,
and I'm also an Oakland resident
and public health professional.
I wanna thank the city council for championing this issue
and prioritizing the health, safety,
and sustainability of Oakland for future generations
by supporting the Bay Area Air District Rules 9496.
The transition to zero-nox appliances
is projected to avert 15,000 asthma attacks
and up to 85 premature deaths annually in California
with a total annual health benefits
of up to nearly $900 million.
You'll hear people in industry opposition
like those today say it can't be done
or that it's too complicated or difficult,
but the evidence in the marketplace and workforce
is pointing in the absolute opposite direction
and the flexibility amendments discussed last week
at the Air District Stationary Source Committee meeting
will provide much needed exemptions for space
and electrical constraints as well as low income residents.
These equity mechanisms will reinforce
broader adoption and fair access.
Thank you again for your leadership
and spearheading this important work.
So Colleen Nolan, did you have a card under a different name?
No, I did not.
Thank you for your honesty.
Neeta, did you submit a speaker card?
If so, under what name?
I did not, but I would like you to explain how I can, please.
Please email cityclerk at oaklandca.gov
and we can assist you with speaker card instructions.
At this time, all names have been called.
Thank you.
Thank you for everybody that came out to speak.
I am happy to say this is one of the first times
every single item has gone through committee
with the exception of 5.1, which is the meetings,
meeting minutes, 5.2, which is the standard
declaration of AIDS, epidemic, 5.3,
declaration of cannabis health emergency,
and 5.4, the local emergency on homelessness.
So every item on the agenda went to committee.
So everyone had an opportunity to comment on every item that was on consent.
So appreciate that.
And noting the amendments with 5.28, if there are no comments from the council members,
I'll entertain a motion.
No, no.
No amendments.
I'll entertain a motion.
So moved.
Council member Fife.
I wanted to ask you to clarify what you said about 5.28, the Costco item.
So I thought there were amendments from the staff but those were not amendments.
That's why I wanted the staff to clarify that was not an amendment, it was just a reiteration
of why there was not, we didn't need surplus lands act exemption for residential construction.
I did have some comments to make, I was hoping that the Department of Transportation staff
could answer a few questions about, um, one of the items on consent. I'm trying to find
the exact number for the, uh, I think it's item 5.10 regarding the 27th street construction.
If we could have, um, department of transportation staff answer a few questions.
thank you Director Rowan. Thank
you for being here at this this
question is specifically about
the fiduciary responsibility of
the city. And what- I'm sure
many in the public have seen
with an accident that occurred
company that we are giving a contract, awarding a contract through this consent calendar,
and I just wanted to get your feelings around if the company Regwick has all of the appropriate
insurances and different things as they were the company that was working in Hayward when
explosion took place and for I'm not exactly sure of what happened. I was just
asking for you to give us your confidence in choosing that provider and
to let the city council know if there's anything that we should be concerned
about with the process that you went through for selecting the vendor. Through
the chair to the council member I actually don't I'm presuming you're
talking about the gas line explosion and Hayward. We don't have any details on
What's happened there? I think that's a an active investigation as far as the contract goes with City of Oakland
That's that is all vetted during the contract execution process that they provide the necessary bonds
They provide the necessary insurance that to meet the the city's requirements
so
Is there any urgency?
to award this contract immediately would it have any impact if we were to wait for that investigation to conclude to ensure that
We are making the right choice and the the company that we choose I
Would leave that to the the discretion of the city council
I have I have no knowledge of what happened in Hayward and I I don't
Think it's wise to ascribe fault at this point during an active investigation sir. No. No, I didn't do that
I'm asking is there an urgency the question this very specific question that I asked was is there an urgency in this moment to
to award a contract and wait for the conclusion
of this investigation?
There is no urgency.
There's no urgency?
Correct.
So what impact would it have on projects
in the Department of Transportation
if we were to wait until the conclusion of this investigation
to find out what happened there?
Through the chair, you would just see a delay
on this specific project.
And what is the totality?
And I'm asking, chair, I apologize,
so that we are doing our due diligence and ensuring that I
just see a potential headline after this.
If there is anything that comes out
that could implicate the city of Oakland in this decision,
the scope of the project would not have any negative impact
If we were to potentially wait to go into contract with this particular vendor?
Through the chair, the only negative impact would be delay.
But it's not like this is part of a series of projects.
This is a complete street safety project.
So the existing conditions as it stands today would just continue.
Okay.
Thank you.
Council member are you
inclined to
Not vote on this right now. I do believe this is in your district, and I believe that's the council member of the district you should have
Priority in saying what we should do is that the will
Well and see that's the concern because I also don't want to cause any particular
Strain on residents that are expecting a certain timeline
But I that was a major incident and I want to understand what happened and who was at fault
That is we will never know and I'm not saying that the vendor had any responsibility at all
But I'm saying I want to know before I make a decision to give 10 million dollars to an organization
When there's there's this investigation that's ongoing
So I would ask that we pull that item for now
This is in my district, I need, this incident just occurred.
I didn't expect it.
So I need a little more time to kind of think about the direction.
So if we could pull the item from the consent calendar at the very least and have a little
bit more conversation with the body about how this moves forward, I want to find out
if that's possible through the parliamentarian.
The opportunity to move things from consent to non-consent
is under modifications of your agenda,
so the time for that has passed,
but of course, if it's the will of the body,
you could pull this item,
defer it to another meeting at a later date.
I think I would like to do that, Council President Jenkins.
Absolutely, to the motion and the seconder,
are you guys okay with that?
Okay, all right.
So noting
five point ten will be removed and put to the next city council meeting is that
January eight six six oh that's early all right councilmember Houston yeah
mine is just a little bit different and I heard the audience and I don't agree
with mr. hazard much but about waving why are we waving and continually waving
the SLBE and the LBE.
Mine is a little bit different.
2001, we came up with the SLBE and the LBE 24 years later.
And you saw these young men coming up here
with opportunities, getting these opportunities from Oakland.
And that's what we need to do.
We need to be embracing these SLBEs and LBEs that's
going to give our youth.
You saw them.
They got up there and spoke.
I don't think it's the opportunity to build a skill set
so we don't continue, continue to waive this over and over.
And that's my BMP.
Thank you.
Any more comments from the council members?
Seeing none, we have a motion and a second as amended.
Just noting that the motion now moved by Councilmember
Ramachandran, seconded by Pro Tem Gayo
to approve the consent calendar
item five point ten to the next meeting which will be January six councilmember Brown aye
councilmember five aye councilmember Gallo wait a minute councilmember Gallo aye
councilmember Houston you're in the queue did you need to speak again was
that no I'll say aye thank you aye councilmember Ramachandran aye
Aye.
Council member Unger.
Aye.
Council member Wong.
Aye.
And chair Jenkins.
Aye.
Motion passes as amended with a vote of eight ayes.
Going to, we are moving out of order, going to item nine, adopt a resolution approving
the Oakland Police Department Surveillance Use Policy, section DGO, sections one through
which is a two point one.
Community safety camera system and the acquisition of security
cameras and related technology awarding a two year agreement
to flock safety.
Proquisition of automated license plate reader and pen
tilt zoom cameras operating system technology and rate
related services at a cost not to exceed two million two
in waiving the competitive multi multiple steps solicitation process
required for the acquisition of information technology systems
and waving the local and small local business enterprise program requirements
you have a hundred and forty two speakers on this item
please proceed
who's taller your jobs
who's taller you're directly rolling
uh...
check
Good afternoon everyone. I am Lieutenant Gabriel Arquiza from the Oakland Police Department's
Real-Time Operations Center, the commander of that unit, as well as working within the
ceasefire section. I'm here to present the Community Safety Camera System Policy as well
as the FLOC contract related to ALPR and the FLOC operating system.
So just a little background on this. The ALPR system was originally approved back in 2023
It wasn't enacted until July of 2024.
At that time, it was a rather unique circumstance
where CHP actually paid for the initial year subscription
for the service, as well as the installation
of the original 290 AOP arc systems
within the city of Oakland.
CHP also installed their own set of cameras
on freeway on-ramps and off-ramps.
Since then, this system has operated.
The data still belongs to the city of Oakland,
But that initial year of service was provided by CHP.
Just speaking about the actual ALPR system that exists now, the cameras are designed
to take photos of the rear of the vehicle and capture that license plate of the vehicle.
The data that's captured by Flock ALPR is owned by the customer, in this case the City
of Oakland.
The data is retained through the Flock safety system for 30 days.
If the data is determined to be related to an investigation, it's downloaded and then
retained as evidence through a separate system consistent with other electronic data evidence.
The data is only downloaded or saved if it's determined to be evidence of an investigation.
And California law enforcement agencies wishing to access OPD's data must complete a sharing
request.
The requesting agency is then required to affirmably confirm they will follow state
law related to the use and sharing of AOPR data in relation to Senate Bill 34 and then
SB 54, that is the California Values Act.
Federal and out-of-state agencies are prohibited from accessing OPD's data through FLOC.
Originally the department itself was managing to make sure that did not occur.
The system now is in place where federal agencies or out-of-state agencies cannot even request
to access OPD's data, or any department within the state of California.
What AOPR does not do, so Flock AOPR is not designed to capture photos of people, does
not utilize facial recognition technology on any of its platforms, the data is not searchable
by demographic data, and then Flock AOPR does not include any personal identifying information.
And then as well Flocki LPR does not contain or capture DMV data or Oakland police's own
record management system data.
So it's not accessing doesn't have access to any of our reports or people's information
that would be connected to a particular vehicle.
Order in the chamber.
That is your first warning.
Next morning you will be asked to you will be removed.
As I said the system was put in the place in July 2024.
There was an annual report that was conducted
related to the use of the technology
between July, 2024 and December, 2024.
And Dr. Beckman from Oakland Police is here
to discuss that annual report
and the information that was contained.
Dr. Carlo Beckman,
project manager at the Oakland Police Department.
So the annual report that we did
covered the time period of July, 2024
through December of 2024.
During that time, there were 188,964,975 license plates.
feeds. The top five alerts that we had were stolen plates, which came in at just over
187,000. Non-owned custom hot list alerts, which created, alerts created by other agencies
using Flock and Share with OPD, that was 28,600. Stolen vehicle alerts were 23,179.
And hits from OPD, custom hot lists were 5799, with 2,300, over 2,300 felony vehicles.
At the time of the report, OBD had shared access with 50 agencies.
Based on crime data and identifying main egress and ingress locations throughout the
city, the 290 cameras were originally deployed within their six respective areas as follows.
Area 1 had 44 cameras.
Area 2 had 57.
Area 3 had 23.
Area 4 had 55.
Area 5 had 51.
Area 6 had 60.
OPD conducted an internal audit, a statistically relevant audit, of 398 internal historical
searches.
99% of those included a report number or incident number, and 97% included the penal or vehicle
code as required by our policy.
At that time, we had about 246 users who had been trained and a random statistically valid
sample of those 25 users found that all had completed the required training.
At the time of this report, OPD logged a total of 240 enforcement actions based on part of
FLOC.
Based on these actions, OPD was able to generate 112 leads, 55 were cleared by arrests, 34
were cleared by other means such as vehicle recovery, 31 are at the time in progress investigations
and eight warrants were issued. The summarization of all of these outcomes showed that we made
98 arrests, recovered 32 vehicles and 29 guns. And one important thing to note is that we
didn't fully release this to the entire department until around January of 2025. The initial
rollout was intentionally, slowly done throughout the department, starting first with admins,
to criminal investigation divisions,
to our specialized units, ceasefire,
and our special resource sections.
And then once we felt we had a good grasp
on the auditing and controlling the system,
we released it to initially supervisors
and patrol the commanders of, or watch commanders,
and then eventually to patrol officers.
And that began in January of 2025.
Just an update, so since that time
or during the entire period, there's been 232 arrests
that were linked with the AOPR alerts.
68 firearms were recovered in that time period.
There were 17 arrests that were specifically related
to homicides, 108 arrests specifically related to robberies,
and then 573 successful outcomes
that were logged through the system,
which included 400 for 2025 year to date.
One of the main intent of putting the system in
was to address specifically robbery series and carjackings.
So we did an analysis related to robbery series
as we put the system in place and then for this year.
So if you look in 2024, Oakland experienced
14 different robbery series incidents,
and these are a series of robberies
that include four or more robberies.
Of those robbery incidents,
that included 172 separate robberies.
Of those series, AOPR was utilized in 10 of those 14 series,
In eight of those 10 cases,
ALPR directly contributed to the recovery
of suspect vehicles as well as the arrests
of suspects from those cases.
Looking at 2025's data,
the number of robbery series dropped from 14 to six.
The series of six included 46 individual robberies.
An ALPR played a critical role
in all of the investigations related to those series,
and five of those investigations
led to the identification and arrests of those involved.
The other practical use of this system
is by agencies that partner with us
within the city of Oakland.
The two main agencies that we speak about the most
is the Alameda County Sheriff's Office
and the California Highway Patrol.
There is a specific unit that's addressing
stolen vehicles within the city of Oakland
and also the rest of the Bay Area.
That's a task force that includes
Alameda County Sheriff's OPD and CHP.
With utilizing AOPR data,
they made 110 separate arrests related to stolen vehicles.
They recovered approximately 1100 vehicles
and estimated that a quarter of those vehicles
that were covered unoccupied
were as a result of falling up on an AOPR alert.
One thing that's important to notice through our
from 2024, we have a 42% decrease
in stolen vehicles overall within the city of Oakland.
And if you look at, compared to 2023,
it's a 58% drop, where we had 11,986 stolen vehicles
in 2023 compared to 2025, where we saw 5,025.
So moving on to the community safety camera system.
So just background on this, originally,
I wasn't involved in the beginning
of the Flock LPR acquisition.
I was brought in later, when we were talking,
talking about implementing the system but then part of that was talking about
integrating community cameras from the downtown business bids and that was a
work that had been in progress for probably the last five or six years at
least talking about how we can integrate those systems how they can best be used
and then the privacy concerns surrounding them. So the community
safety camera system is separate from Flock ALPR they both run under the Flock
operating system. I try to compare it to something like a phone. The phone is the
platform and the operating system that runs it is what allows you to use
separate apps on that device. So there's three elements. There's a community
private-owned camera or managed devices. There's department-owned managed devices
and then the integration platform itself that allows those devices to be shared
within one system. Related to the community or privately owned devices, it
It requires an affirmative opt-in to share access to historical and real-time data.
And what's very important to note is that the owner or manager of that device continues
to retain ownership over that data.
So that data is not being saved through the flock operating system.
That's being saved by the owner of that device and is basically providing a window for OPD
to access that related to specific investigation.
That data is only saved and downloaded if it's determined to be evidence related to
to a specific investigation and then like I said with AOPR data, if it's downloaded
from this system, it's placed into a separate cloud storage platform consistent with other
electronic data.
Participants do not have access to the OPD system or any of the other participants' data.
Only OPD has direct access to the data captured by its devices.
These would be 40 additional pan-tilt zoom cameras that would be placed within the city
to basically support or supplement existing camera systems in areas that
don't have significant camera infrastructure. The data is only retained
for 30 days unless determined to be evidence and never retained on a
separate storage system and then unlike Flock AOPR the data is not searchable
by any other agency so any camera that belongs to the department itself is only
accessed by the department and any cameras that are sharing into the system
would only be accessed by the department.
That's a warning.
The next one, you will be removed.
The Flock operating system itself,
so it's a technology platform
allowing for the integration
of the community safety camera systems.
That's both the department manage systems
and camera systems that are owned by the community.
There's a potential of integrating additional systems
in the Flock operating system
for a more comprehensive and cohesive approach
to addressing crime within the city.
CS camera system data is not searchable or accessible
by any other agency, and then within the agency itself,
that access is tiered, where tier one personnel
would be able to access live and historical data,
with tier two access allowed for only historical data,
consistent with how we do physical canvases
for video currently.
As part of this, we did extensive data analysis
related to crime.
the real time operation center began kind of as a concept at the end of 2023,
where we saw a large increase in specific crimes,
specifically carjackings and robberies. Uh, we continue to, uh,
dealing, can you continue to be dealing with a high rate of homicide,
but 125 homicides in 2023. Uh,
so part of that was determining why there had been such an increase, uh,
since 2019 where we saw a low homicide numbers between 2016 and 2019.
what strategies we had been using at that time,
how we could reallocate existing resources
to address those challenges,
or if we could replicate that presence
of the community utilizing technology.
So specifically, we're looking at the role of data
as far as where we could put our efforts
in which communities, which areas
that were affected the most,
and using data that influenced our strategies
for where we were placing units
or where we could potentially place technology.
As I referred to earlier,
we specifically started with homicides.
If you see between 2017 and 2019,
we had 75, 75, and 78,
and then we saw a steep increase in 2020
with the highest in 2021,
and then a continued similar level of violence
with 2022 and then 2023.
As you can see, we implemented flock midway through 2024,
and you see a significant drop off immediately following.
Related to carjackings,
this was one of the other intended uses for the system.
We saw in 2023, there was 513 carjackings,
armed carjackings.
In the first six months of 2024,
we were actually averaging 40 carjackings per month.
As soon as the system was turned on in July,
we saw a steep drop to 24 carjackings per month.
We've seen that continue in the 2025,
where we're averaging 17,
and we've seen single-digit carjackings in months
where we haven't seen that since pre-COVID.
This is year to date that I try to keep this consistent
with the previous reports.
So this is from 2023 up until October and similar for 2025.
But there are 568 carjacking robberies in 2023
up until October, and then you see in 2025,
there was 192 through the same time period,
which shows 66% decrease in carjackings.
In 2025, there's been a 41% decrease overall in robberies
and down 53% overall from 2023 to 2025.
It's important to note that that 53% difference
is 3,047 robberies in 2023 versus 1,416 in 2025.
As part of the analysis, we were looking to other cities
to see how they may be affected by similar challenges.
As part of that analysis,
we saw that Oakland was far higher in the robbery rate
than other cities in the Bay Area
and also throughout the country.
If you see the robbery rate per 100,000 in Oakland was 654,
where San Francisco was 254, Chicago was 89,
and then other cities like New Orleans were 131.
Cleveland was, I think, the closest to us at 382.
But it just showed that while we were seeing progress,
we were still continuing to deal with challenges
specifically related to robbery,
which was rather unique to Oakland itself.
Looking at further, who was most affected by those robberies?
In 2025, up until October,
55% of the total robberies in Oakland
were targeting Latino members of the community.
And we saw that they far led any other group.
The second most impacted group
were black members of the community
with 19% of the total robberies affecting that community.
This illustrated that robbery had a far greater impact
on particular communities of color,
which was kind of counter to some of the narrative
that we've seen before.
Specifically related to shootings,
this is 2025 data through October.
We saw that black members of the community
had been shot 158 times.
These were for injury shootings, not just regular shootings.
That was 64% of all shootings,
uh, which was followed by Latino members of the community, uh, which was the
number of 62, uh, which was right around 20%.
Overall, we looked at the communities that were most impacted by homicides.
We've looked at this before as part of the ceasefire strategy, uh, but we
wanted to do a reassessment over, uh, this time period from 2023 until now.
If you looked at 2023, 125 of those homicides, 116 of those victims,
uh, were people of color, which represented 93% of all homicides.
In 2024 that number was 85. We saw 75 of the homicides were people of color which represented
88 percent of all homicides in Oakland and then looking at through September of 2025
51 of those homicides or there were 51 homicides 49 of those victims were people of color which
represented 96 percent of total homicide. Where we saw that we were making progress if you looked
in October of 2023 there were 104 homicides and then through October of
2025 there were 55 which is a 47% decrease since that time we're up to 63
homicides as of the last report and we're down from 120 which is still 47%
the use of technology continues to be utilized we're addressing violent crime
but it's also still being committed to the multi-pronged and holistic approach
by the entire city of Oakland in keeping with the ceasefire strategy. And I just
made this chart. One of the primary uses of this technology is specifically for
deterrence and an enforcement where deterrence is ineffective. But the
concept of deterrence is leveraging technology and allocating resources that
demonstrate OPD's capability of detecting and addressing violent or
disruptive criminal activity to the point that those involved in those
activities choose to either discontinue their involvement or operate elsewhere.
uh, related to accountability, uh, we're focused and using focus and precise accountability
for those who are specifically involved in violent and criminal activity by way of inform
the focus and enforcement with an emphasis on mitigating collateral impacts on the community.
And we intend to use technology and leverage technology to continue that focus and dedication
to the cease-fire strategy.
Uh, the overall goal for us is to get to this long-term violence prevention, uh, with this
extended holistic approach and then we see the parallel but also relevant efforts of
DVP and other community-based organizations to address violence within the community by
providing intense social services to the most at-risk individuals.
Related to the fiscal impact, OPD intends to utilize $2,252,000 over two years in city
funding for the Flock Safety Software.
That is the Flock ALPR cameras, the 290 cameras that already exist, the additional 40 PTZ
cameras that would be managed by the department, and then the operating system itself to support
all of those camera systems.
OPD had authorized $1.5 million over this year and the next fiscal year, specifically
related to Flock.
So no additional funding has been requested from the general purpose fund.
The funds were already allocated in the OPD fiscal year 2526 budget
Related to contract safeguards the data collected is
Property of the city of Oakland and shall not be shared with any other entity without the consent of the city
Any violation this clause would represent a breach for contract allowing the city and the apartment to terminate the contract
And then seek potential damages as part of the proposed contract flock has agreed not to collect
anonymized aggregated data for the purpose of the machine learning.
That specific clause was something that was brought up during the private security meetings
and we added it to the contract and Flock agreed to follow that.
There's additional language within the contract that allows termination of the contract for
the following reasons.
Federal assumption, this is in the extremely unlikely event that the federal government
comes and takes control of whether the department or the city where we no longer can act with
their own agency related to our data.
In that case, the contract would terminate.
As far as contracting with a federal agency,
if Flock enters into a contract with a federal agency
that invalidates or compromises the city's
sole ownership of the city data,
that would be grounds for termination.
Additional safeguards that were put into place,
so the city, the department continues to be aligned
with the principles of the community
in the city of Oakland related to immigration enforcement.
By the department and city policy,
OPD does not assist with any immigration enforcement
regardless of whether it's technology
or physical assistance.
The community safety camera system
shall only be used to access by members of the department
who are authorized to use it.
No outside agency is authorized
to use the Flock community safety camera system.
One of the things that came up, I think,
during the last meeting that's been brought up
during privacy commission, specifically concerns surrounding legal orders.
So any data that's captured by any electronic system is potentially susceptible to legal
obligation, e.g., court orders, search warrants, subpoenas.
This is not isolated to Flock operating system or Flock AOPR.
This includes all social media platforms, cell service providers, personal and smart
phones, cloud storage platforms such as iCloud and Google, and privately managed camera networks.
As the city is the owner of the data captured by flock devices, the City of Oakland would
be served the legal order unless prohibited by law.
The City of Oakland City Attorney Office would have the ability to challenge, contest the
legal order when appropriate.
It should also be noted that the State Attorney General Office has shown a willingness and
ability to challenge federal overreach by way of legal intervention.
Related to staffing, we looked at staffing from the last two years.
In January of 2024, OPD sworn personnel levels were at 711, that's 711 on paper, which is
89 fewer than the last proposed staffing study suggested.
In October of 2025, OPD sworn levels were down to 636 sworn officers with an operational
staffing level of 509.
Since that time, we have dropped down to 618 sworn staffing positions with 497 operational
staffing.
At these numbers, we've had to start disbanding many of our specialized units, and with this
trend that will continue into next year.
Part of the urgency for us was how quickly our progress could be released or reversed.
was demonstrated in 2020. If you looked at the first weeks of 2020 or the first six months
of 2020, there were 37 homicides. If you looked at second half of 2020, you saw a large spike
where we had 72 homicides occurring in that six month period. The trend continued into
2021, 2022, and 2023. You're out of order. Second, you're out of order. Please, please,
Your hands are moved.
Please remove.
Please proceed.
In conclusion, OPD has seen a tremendous progress related to overall crime.
Since we put the system in the place, we believe that continuing to leverage technology will
allow us to continue the progress that we've made and hold the numbers, at least at what
they are, with the intent to push them down further.
We understand that there's an important balance between privacy and public safety.
And we're really committed to that and reassessing this system not just annually but quarterly
to look and see where there can be improvements or if there are any vulnerabilities to the
system itself.
And with that, are there any questions?
So council members, do we want to go straight to public comment?
I know the public, there's 140, 145 members of the public that want to speak to this.
Councilmember Houston?
Yes, I'd just like to thank you, Gabriel, for your thorough report and the clarity and
the reports.
You did a good job.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
So we're going to go to public speakers.
I do want to remind the public no matter what side you are on this issue, please respect
others that have differing opinion.
We want to be able to be sure to hear everyone, and as much as possible, we want to be respectful
with that please call the 145
speakers.
In order before I recall I call
the names I will be calling the
names and batches so please
don't step up into your name is
called if you have someone
seeding time to you.
Please state their name as you
before you being in your
comments so we can give you the
appropriate amount of time.
It is easy if you have a yellow
slip you can hand a yellow slip
to the clerk representative at the table.
So we can give you your time.
Again, I will be calling the names and batches
so I can manage.
Please do not step to the podium until your name is called.
As with standard practice,
Zoom speakers will be taken after the in-chamber speakers.
So if you can just raise your hand when your name is called
and we will get to you after all the speakers
and chambers go.
Francis Francois Luong, Jennifer Tu, Hannah Zuckerman,
James Birch, Jennifer Finley, Becky Hom, Brian Coberson,
Mississauga Ola Bala, Marcus Johnson, Nikhil Scheel,
Malcolm Jen, Linda Warwick, Laura Hill, Keon Bliss,
Larry Levitt, I have that you have time seated to you
by Carol L. Van Stingberg.
Carol, when Larry goes, I need you to stand up
to acknowledge your presence,
that you are giving him your time.
Linda Dervian, I see that you have time seated to you
by Alexis Schroeder.
Alexis, you will need to confirm your attendance
and state that you are giving him your time.
Ali Obad, Tuan Go, Mr. David Boatwright,
Michael Devine, Ahmad A.D. or Amar D. A.D.,
Teodros Hylie, Chris Moore,
Deborah Gelber, Mindy Petunik, Jim Breeden,
Jeffrey Angerman, Elaine Damasi,
Rizilda Almanza, Elizabeth Ann Corcoran,
Julianna Deer, Willow Holiday, Storm Weiner,
Alan Brill, Raelle Atlas, Ron Straholic,
Alex, Mark Wesley Dudley, Blair Beakman,
Alexandra Jesse Nathan in and I will stop there and again please state your
name before you begin please let me know if you have time seated to you people
seating time must be in the chambers are on zoom and acknowledge that they are
giving you their time go ahead sir hi my name is Francois long I am the
resident of district 3 and a member of the state democratic socials of America
I'm here to oppose the expansion of the Flock contract.
The entire process to bring this item forward to the Council has been nothing but shameful
and lacking in FX.
The presentation that preceded public comment was misleading at best.
The officer failed to demonstrate any meaningful correlation between the decrease in crime
and the use of Flock OS.
It is also misleading to imply that FlocOS is limited only to ARPRs when, as demonstrated
by the officer, we are planning to expand its use to private business cameras and ring
cameras, as it is also misleading to say that the data will be sequestered to select officers
of OPD when OPD is a participant of David Boatryde district 4. Given the recent number
of tragic news reports and the high percentage of crimes impacting the less advantaged residents
in Oakland, broader installation of flock cameras will help our understaffed police
department more effectively reduce crime and make Oakland safer and more attractive, and
a more attractive place to live and do business.
No cameras will be aimed at private residences.
I look forward to hearing rational comments
against these cameras.
Thank you.
My name is Michael Devine.
I'm a member of the Jewish community here,
and I've been the victim of a crime a couple times in Oakland
as well.
I come to speak in favor of expanding and extending
the flock contract.
We're seeing a major uptick, especially recently in violence,
anti-Semitic violence against Jews.
We've had one major slaughter in Australia.
We have another one that happened in Brown, which
was potentially a terrorist act.
And that, just per recent news that I looked at while waiting,
there is an interesting fact in their lacking.
In the Brown University mass shooting,
they're lacking sufficient surveillance footage to actually find who did it.
There's been already one false accusation and a person was taken into custody and just
recently now the internet is going after a Palestinian activist without evidence right
now too.
So this will protect us all.
Thank you.
My name is Mindy Petranuk, candidate for Oakland Mayor, District 4.
And I want to give my total thanks to the Oakland Police Department because what they're
doing is tremendous and what they just put forward is absolutely the truth.
And right now we need these flock cameras.
As demonstrated, it does stop crime.
The narrative that says this is going to deport people has got to stop.
Because right now Oakland could become a beautiful city.
We can become a great city, but we need to have these flock cameras.
We need them to both for the robberies, the crimes, the drugs, and if we take this as
a first major step, and this is why I'm calling on the city council, to absolutely support
this and pass it now.
We have to be very tough on crime.
We've been too soft on crime.
And right now, you know, I grew up in New York City, and I can tell you, we can make
Oakland great.
I'm Deborah Gelber, District 4 Oakland, and I'm here to do, to support the FLAC, FLAC
cameras.
And yeah, it just, that was a tremendous presentation.
One thing that I find extremely upsetting is the foot-in attitude towards people dying,
deaths from crime, violent crime, gun violence.
You don't think the carjackings don't kill people?
Yes, they kill people.
The destruction of lives through crimes
against people's businesses, home invasions.
I have a dear friend that lost his son
because he walked in on someone burglarizing his apartment
with a shot and killed.
The flippant attitude about this,
because you think it's cool to be against police,
you know, it's cool, you know, it's disgusting.
It's a, you need a-
Please pause the time.
A moral orientation.
Please pause the time.
So that's what I wanted.
Please remove the gentleman over there.
He's been giving me two, three warnings.
Please remove him.
You are removed.
Thank you.
Ma'am, ma'am, when, you have 15 seconds for,
you have 15 seconds remaining.
Please address the chair.
Okay, so I just wanted to say to other people who want to talk about the question of privacy,
your cell phone invades your privacy more than any flock camera is ever going to.
It follows you everywhere, folks.
Good afternoon, my name is Adi Obad, I'm the president of a small merchant chamber of commerce.
Also as business owners, that is the least that we can
ask from the city council to approve the flat cameras
to deter criminals from the wound crimes in Oakland.
There's no such thing as for ICE, FBI, or other federal
agencies that hold people information, get a hold of
people information from the flat cameras data.
All the agencies already have knows what time you
sleep, what time you eat, what time you take a shower.
TVs at homes are sharing your information.
Phones are sharing your information.
A debit card shares your information.
If the city councils don't approve the fly cameras,
then we will be headed to Washington, D.C.
to ask Donald Trump to send us the National Guards.
And one more thing is regard and one more.
If you don't approve of it, we will ask Trump to send
the National Guards.
So there's no way that you cannot prove it.
Thank you, Ms. Bradley.
Thank you, your time's up, Ms. Bradley.
Massey and District One.
Do I have a timer?
Thank you.
I'm Elaine De Massey in District One.
I'm here to oppose contracting with Flock.
And let me address one thing I've heard supporters say
over these months of meetings.
They say that our concerns for unintended releases
to border patrol are unsubstantiated.
No, the University of Washington Center for Human Rights
Reported the US border patrol conducted thousands of searches using data from 31 police agencies in Washington state often without the knowledge of those agencies
404 media reported last May that a local that local and state law enforcement agencies and flock systems
Sorry for the interruption
law enforcement agencies and flock systems
use block systems for over 4,000 federal searches and it's not only newspapers and watchdog
Agencies that have been reporting on this a cyber attack the breach border patrol data
Releasing license plates and also photographs of faces that was reported
Thank you ma'am. Do you have time security to you?
Can you state the name?
So I just wanted to finish. Can you say the name of the person that's sitting time to you?
Our concerns are well substantiated with a bibliography that we can supply to council members if they need it and our concerns are growing
So we want to help the council members protect our privacy
Hi, please use your name for the record
Rafi Atlas district five
We're gonna actually start by asking or stating that I
And many other folks here have come out in the middle of a workday taking time off of work
to do something that is not our job,
because you are refusing to do what is your job,
and you are showcasing a blatant lack of respect
by refusing to make eye contact with the speakers,
by walking out of the room, having side conversations,
not paying attention, when this is your job.
You are paid to be here.
The rest of us have taken our sick time,
we have taken our PTO to be here,
To do what you are not doing, you've heard all of the arguments, you have the facts,
you understand that Oakland does not feel safe with flocks with these surveillance cameras.
You understand that, but I don't think you are interested in listening or being persuaded.
When Oakland failed, please say your name for the record.
My name is Twan Noh, and I'm seated one minute from that gentleman over there, his name is
Seneca Scott.
Seneca, I do not have a card for you.
but I apologize.
He's in the system.
So you have your one minute.
When Oakland failed to get the Retail Death Grant,
Governor Newsom stepped in and sent a CHP,
who wisely intervened to stop crime
by installing lock safety cameras,
which have been extremely useful
at stopping repeat robberies,
at helping us solve shootings and homicides,
at catching bad guys on our streets.
I am an immigrant.
I want to be clear.
No, we are a sanctuary city.
No immigrants have been deported from Oakland
because of block safety cameras.
However, many criminals, violent robbers
have been taken off Oakland streets.
So to say and to use the ice Trump
false narrative fear mongering on us immigrants.
I'm sorry, you're not even immigrants.
And I was here, the lone voice at City Council at Privacy Commission, talking about the rent surveillance.
Thank you, Mr. Toine, thank you, Mr. Toine, Toine, thank you.
Hello, my name is Larry Levitt, and I live on Rosecrest Drive in District 4,
and Carol Von Steenburg has ceded a minute of time to me.
My wife and I have lived here for more than 30 years.
We've raised our family here, and we love this city.
In the last few years, our home has been broken into once,
our car has been stolen for the second time.
We're happy to see that crime is on its way down
this year in Oakland.
This year, only 1,100 people got their homes broken into.
Only 6,000 people had their cars stolen.
Only 1,600 robberies happened this year
and only 550 people experienced armed robberies.
Only 225 people got carjacked
while they were driving across town.
Only 700 of our businesses got robbed,
and happily, there were only 2,800 aggravated assaults
and only 4,700 victims of violent crime.
All tolls were on pace for over 26,000 crimes
committed in our city this year,
which will be celebrated as a good year.
Let that sink in.
We know every council person cares about crime
and the tolls taken on our businesses,
residents and the reputation of our city. Crime may be down but we all know it's
still way too high. Each of those 26,000 crimes this year has a person and a
family or business on the other end. We applaud OPD for continuing to do their
best with an underfunded and understaffed force. Flock cameras are helping them.
Let's assure that the flock cameras are used responsibly but please don't take
away this key tool which is helping OPD reduce crime in our city. Which we all
know is way too high. Thank you. I'm Lynn Dierdarian. Alexis Schroeder has ceded her
time to me. I'm the vice president of the Oakmore Homes Association in district
four. I speak for over 200 residents, some of whom are here with me today, who
voluntarily donated money to install flock LPRs following armed robberies and
and a brutal armed assault in our neighborhood.
We believe that if we had had flocked cameras at that time,
the crimes might have been prevented
and the criminals apprehended sooner.
Oakland is one of the most transparent,
civilian-governed camera systems in the country.
California state laws are among the most stringent
and restrictive data-sharing laws in the nation.
As safeguards to privacy and civil rights,
Oakland's system has been modified and technically hardened against illegal access and data sharing
in partnership with Flock.
The new Flock contract and OPD use policy carry strong measures to protect the civil
rights and privacy of everyone.
Don't let misinformation deter us from using state-of-the-art tools that help the understaffed
OPD do their jobs more effectively.
on facts and accountability, not fear and speculation. Flock cameras have helped to
reduce crime in Oakland. That is a fact. Please vote yes. Thank you.
Hello council members. My name is James Montgomery. I want to say that for the people here supporting
Flock and the council members supporting Flock, you are doing more to advance Trump's agenda
in Oakland than anyone else.
You are being foot soldiers of a fascist regime.
They are not license plate readers.
They are AI enabled surveillance cameras with a documented history of heinous privacy violations.
OPD is lying to you and you're choosing to believe a department that has scandals like
Celeste Guap, Fong Tran giving out bribes, Michael Chung destroying evidence.
This is the department that you're choosing to believe.
Flock is a billion dollar company
with a vested interest in advancing a fascist agenda.
And you are not listening
to the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
these civil society groups, all of these organizations
that are saying this is a heinous move.
And you are being anti-democratic
in the way you are forcing this through.
Good afternoon, my name's Jeffrey Engerman.
I'm a 35 year resident of Oakland and live in district one.
We're here today to talk about crime,
not somebody else's agenda.
Police department's down, I don't see the camera.
I wanted to make sure I didn't go all my time.
There we go.
Police department's down 200 officers.
We're struggling on the police budget.
We're struggling on the city budget.
We need to work smarter.
We've got technology.
The police department's presentation shows that it works.
We don't want that to go away.
We wanna help increase it.
There are personal protection provisions in place
in the ordinance for personal privacy
things like that. The city is going to spend, excuse me, I believe I have time. My bad.
I apologize. Please proceed, please proceed. I'll go real quick. So you guys want to spend
one to two million dollars to help small businesses grow, right? We want to waive the business
tax and see if we can grow our way out in revenues and not just cut expenditures. So
let's help those small businesses by attacking the crime. Please proceed. Somebody's a chief
the staff like stopped you so pardon me no more seconds I'm right where I was
I thought it was thank you people in the back thank you council members Heather
Thomas district for Oakland is facing a severe capacity crisis OPD is operating
with roughly 500 officers citywide about 28 on the chair if we can pause can
you please wait till I call your name in the batch before you approach the
I thought you called my name.
Sorry.
If your name was called in this first batch, please approach the podium.
Again, we have 145 speakers, so please help me out by coming out in the batch that you
were called.
If your name was called in the first about 45 speakers that I called, please approach
the podium.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
I'm not sure if I'm going to.
Cámara que pues la bordana se me ese musto no estoy dia cuardo porque mira son es que lo pone en solamente para
agarar las placas de los immigrantes, no sotros, somos immigrantes, pero somos trabajadores,
no somos delinquentes. So no estoy dia cuardo porque somos personas trabajadores, no de
Thank you so much City Council I'm here to oppose the cameras because I believe
that they're an unjustly put in areas where there are high populations of
immigrants to surveil our community. I believe that we are workers and we need
to be respected in our communities and I don't believe that these cameras work
and that they should not, that you should be putting your efforts forward to things that actually work in our communities and not
surveillance of immigrant communities. Thank you.
I'm Chris Moore.
gentlemen, gentlemen,
Fritz Hochfeldner also
ceded his time to me.
Fred, are you in the chamber?
Please raise your hand. Thank you.
And we'll say the last name again, please.
My name is Moore, Chris Moore, and in his is, it's H O C H F E N.
L L N E R. Can you just hand the yellow sheet? Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thanks for
letting me speak today. Um, you know, just, just a couple of facts about flock camera.
Um, they do stop robberies. They, they help and you can see, by the way, thank you OPD
for your presentation. Recover stolen vehicles, stop shootings and homicides, catch repeat
defenders and reduce high-speed chases. We know that factually that's that's true
information. You know I get into East Oakland quite a bit and in the little
Saigon district and the gentleman back behind me Dr. Kenneth Anderson with the
Williams Baptist Church. He's at the start of where all the sex trafficking,
sex crimes and all of the the other broken windows and other activities
happen. Flock cameras and they're supportive of that of course because
flock cameras are known to help the community and help the people and help
the majority of the community to help stop crime and be able to feel more
comfortable coming out in the streets again. We know from polling 67% of the
community, that's 300,000 people, but the Chamber polling has said 67% of the
community want more safety cameras in our community. Why do they want that?
because they're tired of the crime. They're tired of the bipping. They're tired of the, their,
their favorite stores being robbed. And the fact is on, of, of, uh, the, the miss versus fact is
Flock systems capture vehicle information, not personal data. We can't hear all these, all
this nonfactual information when we know talking to OPD that we have facts that does not capture
personal data. Flock also the, with the data sharing, the settings are controlled,
by OPD and they follow Oakland's sanctuary ordinance and lastly in 2025
alone flock cameras helped OPD make over a hundred arrests recovered 30 vehicles
and 30 firearms thank you please support hi my name is Amrdi Braar AD
Dr. Anderson are you sitting your time okay that Anderson and then state your
You're making a motion to approve the hearing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you again for the record, sir.
I'm already paid abroad.
Please proceed, sir.
Thank you.
Again, my name is Amriti Broad, and I'm here from the business community, and I'm here
to support the Flock Camera Systems, and I want to thank City Council for consideration
today for taking your time to consider this piece.
We need to support Flock Camera as a system as a tool to the OPD, which is understaffed
and need help as any systems out there.
We need to ensure our local stores, our mom and pop stores, our local businesses stay
out here at City of Oakland to support the tax revenue, to support the tax dollars.
We need to stop the crime tourism which is coming to Oakland because of the lack of infrastructure
we have in place.
So that's where we need all kind of tools, including Flock System to support OPD.
So we could outnumber the people who are coming to Oakland and causing all the damage.
We don't want National Guard here, City of Oakland.
We are a sanctuary city and we very well can defend it.
Thank you.
Again.
Good afternoon.
My name is Becky Haum and I'm with Asian Pacific Environmental Network.
I also live in District 5.
I'm here today to bring up concerns about the flop company and the ability of Oakland
to guarantee the safety of our community.
Flock is not a secure system.
On the technology side, the cameras and website
are very easy to hack.
Flock is an untrustworthy company.
Denver City Council recently voted against
renewing their contract with Flock,
stating that the company has demonstrated
such disregard for honesty and accountability.
One example of this comes from an Illinois
Secretary of State audit where it's discovered
that flocks secretly had worked with customs
and border protection on a pilot program.
This sort of behavior puts our immigrant community at risk.
Please consider the impact of your vote.
Good afternoon, my name's Hannah Zuckerman.
I'm a D2 resident.
The flocks contract is terrible for Oakland
and it does not keep us safe.
We are seeing cities moving away from flocks.
We've Santa Cruz just canceled their flock contract,
paused their readers because of safety concerns.
Folks have gotten up here claiming that floc cameras
prevent crime.
They catch the crime after it's happened.
Why don't we really prevent crime by funding DVP?
Violence prevention programs have been proven to stop crime.
I've spoken with the Fruitvale Merchants Association,
and a lot of them don't believe that this contract is
the right contract.
They want cameras, but they don't want cameras
that share data with ICE.
They're immigrants.
They want to bring back the community ambassadors
and see people on the street,
see lights bring back people to the Fruitvale,
bring back people to our businesses,
and that will help prevent crime, okay?
We do not need data being shared,
and license plate is personal data, it is.
You're sharing personal data.
Hi, Mayor Beekman.
It was stated at the October 2nd PAC meeting
that current CHP AOPRs still have a three year MOU process
Oakland? As there may not be urgency, can Oakland City Government please suspend
this rush confused AOPR public process and come back with this item in February
March 2026? By then we can be working towards a more inclusive comprehensive
community plan that can better consider neighborhood public safety, social
services, and current best practices with tech and data. I've written many recent
letters that a new flock contract can be for three, six, or twelve months at this
time. This can begin a community process of looking for a new ALPR
vendor in the next year. We can then quickly end any new short-term flock
contract when a new ALPR vendor is found. If a two-year flock contract will be
approved today, please work with all parts of the community in the next year
to begin looking for a better principle of new ALPR vendor. Thank you. Hello my
name is Elizabeth Corcoran, D2. Flock is a company backed by the same billionaires
is that back President Trump.
If we build this surveillance system in Oakland,
it will be used to target our community members
as it has been in other cities.
In Oakland, we have made a commitment
to be a sanctuary city,
and that commitment includes OPD, and it includes all of you.
Lastly, I have worked in public health
and violence prevention for almost a decade.
I have also been a victim of violence in Oakland.
But I know, as I suspect you do too,
that surveillance does not improve public safety.
I urge the council to consider the measures
that we know actually prevent violence.
Improving streets with lighting and transportation options,
parks, funding, employment opportunities,
youth engagement, employing safety ambassadors
and violence interrupters.
These is what our dollars should be funding.
This is how we prevent violence.
Not targeting my neighbors
and lining the pockets of billionaires.
Hello Ron Strolich, District 4.
My parents were Holocaust survivors.
They were hunted like animals by an authoritarian,
white supremacist regime that hated my people
because we were different.
My parents were imprisoned in slave labor
and extermination camps under harsh and inhumane conditions.
We're seeing a frighteningly similar playbook
in the US today with another white supremacist regime
that hates immigrants and is willing to defy
all decency to have them gone.
Flock has shown over and over again
that it cannot be trusted with the sensitive data it collects, that it is used by ICE and
other agencies to detain and deport our immigrant neighbors, a yes vote on the flock contract
will make you complicit in this horror show.
I can assure you that history and voters will not judge you kindly.
Like Richmond and Santa Cruz, I urge the Oakland City Council to do the right thing, reject
this nefarious technology.
It's being used against immigrants today and could easily be used against any of us tomorrow.
please vote no and reject this contract thank you my name is Jesse Rosemore and
I want to get ahead of any amendments that you're about to propose after we
all give public comments we know that flock proposes these amendments
for feckless politicians like many of you to give cover for what you're gonna
do and sell out our community to ICE and the Trump agenda I have been working
very hard to reach out to you in good faith individually all of you to try to
warn you the dangers of flock and in that process Kevin Jenkins have you had
the time to read the three page letter from Ron Wyden saying expressly and
succinctly how dangerous this is you've told me that you don't have the time for
that and Charlene Wong your chief of staff told me that that my that because
I didn't do a specific public records request that my claims are invalid
that's absolutely not true and he was gaslighting me and Zach Unger me and my
other district one residents have gotten dismissive and disingenuous arguments
from you at what you call engagement.
Yet when I introduce you to a subject matter expert
from the Electronic Foundier Foundation,
you are suddenly silenced.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your comments.
Hello, my name is Tedros Aylia, District Five.
Okay.
We have two big challenges in Oakland,
limited funds and limited police officers.
Flock bridges both of these gaps
and provides our city with a huge return on investment.
Number one, we leverage the power of the Floc database covering the Bay Area and,
in other words, we get access to all of the assets of multiple cities
and jurisdictions at no cost.
Number two, we capture actionable intelligence
that OPD's skeleton crew does not have to canvas for.
So the investment of $2.25 million, we get tens of millions of dollars
of safety funding in return.
On the flip side, if we abandon Floc, we become the one glaring surveillance hole
in the Bay Area, which is a huge invitation to you-know-who.
So at the end of the day, crime affects all of us,
the documented and undocumented,
and if we don't have a vibrant, busy, safe city,
none of us have anything.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Before the next speaker begins,
I'm going to call some more names.
Is your name called in the first batch?
Jessica Chin, Michael Kennedy, Broadhead,
Jose Dorado, Emily Kays or Kias,
Morgan Pike Liu, O, Michelle Williams,
Zeta Mays, Nita, Marta Isabel, Ralph Kans, Adam Wolf,
Maggie Wolf, Reem Solomon, Cat Brooks.
I'm sorry, I'm gonna say your name incorrectly again.
Rifale, Rafale Way, thank you.
James Breeder, Jim Donatell, Phoebe Jane,
Michelle Dungerwood,
have a card with no name, 4204 Hyland,
or I'm sorry, Hy-Nole, Fritz Hoffelander,
Rick Bellen, Josephine Wee,
Tony Trinh, Gee Wizz,
Elizabeth Duplicate, Julie Anderson,
Audrey E. L. Caleb, Navi,
Anun Awan, Alexandra District Two.
People have wrongly stated that two thirds of Oakland
wants floc when the poll statistic that that data comes from
never even mentioned floc.
The 2025 Oakland Chamber of Commerce poll found that
to varying degrees, 66% or 2 thirds of respondents, quote,
favored using security and surveillance cameras
with civilian oversight, end quote.
They did not poll for approval of the flock company,
so it is a false and disingenuous claim
to say that 2 thirds of Oakland residents support flocks
or support this contract.
Rather, city councilors heard a vast majority
of public commenters on this item say no to flock
and no to this contract.
Vote no on this contract.
And start over with a process that addresses the concerns
that surface through this public oversight process.
Thank you.
My name is James Breed
and I just want to clarify something first.
I thought I was called in the first batch under Jim Breed.
But then in the second, you just said my name again
in the second batch.
So.
Okay.
So James Breed in district two.
I'm the president of Lakeshore Homes Association
which installed eight cameras about two years ago.
I just wanna talk about one of the serial robberies
that he mentioned.
About a year ago, we had a woman getting out of her car
in front of her home, where she was accosted
by a man at gunpoint.
That man and several other young men walked her
into her home, where she was held at gunpoint
and they spent the next half hour ransacking her home
while she was looking at a gun.
She was worried her kid was gonna come home from school
the whole time, walk into that mess.
That is the kind of serial robbery that Flock has stopped.
Yes, it doesn't stop crimes, it gets them after the fact,
but it keeps them from preventing more crimes.
The police, when we were able to tag this car
because we knew the time it left
and we had it off our camera,
the victim was informed that...
Thank you for your comments.
Councilperson Jenkins and council members,
my name is Jessica Chaim.
I'm working in a community bank
and former nonprofit executive in Chinatown today.
I'm here to urge council to prove the black agreement.
Here are the reasons.
Currently OBD has less than 650 sworn officers.
We should try to get them up
while we are trying to hire more officers.
Second, when we try to arrange various program
to prevent crimes,
we should also bring peace of mind to our citizens.
Third, although it's very important
to keep the individual's privacy,
it's more important to provide evidence
to prosecute crime and support the innocent victims.
When I work in Chinatown chambers,
we were able to install some cameras
at the intersection in Chinatown.
It helps with some cases until today.
Therefore, I would like to ask you
to support the Flock Camelot.
Thank you.
Morgan Pike, District 4.
I work in IT for a large healthcare organization.
We have many terabytes of medical data
and financial data in our custody.
Securing that data is a paramount importance to my team and to me.
So it is with some hesitation that I support re-knowing the contract with Flock,
a company that has shown it cannot be trusted.
Oakland has done its due diligence with the Flock contract, but
there's still a chance that our data will be leaked out to the various third parties.
That's a risk worth taking because of the potential benefits of the system.
The data at risk after all are not medical records
or financial records.
It is activity on public streets.
An intangible benefit would be to show support
for our police department.
At a time with severe understaffing and high turnover,
giving our police this tool will not only help them
do their job, but will also show that this body
and the public trust them to use it appropriately.
Hello, my name is Zeta Mays.
I am a resident of district three,
a voter and an ACE member.
I'm here to urge you to vote no
on the flock surveillance contract.
The surveillance technology has already caused
real harm here in Oakland and all over the country.
The flock system collects a vast amount of metadata
that will be further empowered by analytical AI
to not only identify license plates as their claims,
but can also be used to track individuals
through identifying markers such as tattoos,
marks of any kind, clothing,
and can be given to law enforcement and other
agencies
for peaceful protestors, mass surveillance
like this kills freedom of speech.
The license plate readers and camera networks
have already been used across the country
to monitor her, monitor lawful demonstrations,
identify participants and retaliate against people
for exercising their constitutional rights.
Hi, I'm Maggie Wohl from Maggie to Kuda Hall,
I live in District One and I'm a parent here,
urging you to reject Flock in Oakland.
As an author for young people, I talk to them a lot,
and it breaks my heart that most of them
have no faith in democracy anymore
because they're watching the adults around them
sand it down.
I keep telling them that we have to fight.
They keep asking me if it'll do any good.
I wanna tell them that it will,
but actions like those taken by this city council
in regard to Flock has made me look like a fool.
So let's be clear, Oakland has already spoken.
We said no to Flock.
It died in committee multiple times.
It has required procedural resuscitation
to revive this Flock contract.
It is highly likely that Councilman Houston
tipped his hand and accidentally admitted
to violating the Brown Act in a previous meeting,
which exists to protect the people's interests
in order to push this through.
Whether or not you personally, as a voting member today,
think that Flock cameras should exist in Oakland is irrelevant.
You have a sacred duty to represent the people who,
the will of the people, not just a special interest of.
My name is Adam Wolf.
Ray, your seating time?
Can you give him your yellow for sheet,
cause I cannot hear you.
Ray Hay.
Ray Kay.
So we're gonna start you with your one minute
while we move through these cards to see if there's a Ray Kay.
I kinda wanna know which version to read.
Through the chair, do you wanna let
the next person go first?
Sure.
Hi, my name is Michelle Dudgeonwood, district two,
and I want to start by asking why are we even here again
with this?
This has been rejected a number of times
and yet we're back here again arguing a non-point.
One thing I've noticed today is a lot of smug responses
from the people up here.
Some of you are very engaged and watching and listening
and paying attention, and I appreciate that.
I have been watching, and I've seen several smug,
smug looks on your faces while you're listening
to people who are against what you're promoting here.
I think it's deplorable that we're having this meeting here
on a Tuesday at one in the afternoon.
We're either taking time off work,
or we're not getting paid to be here.
This should be happening with enough announcement
and in the right amount of time so that people can be here.
We need to follow the money while you're-
Hello, I'm back.
Adam Wolf, District One, a little out there.
I wanna focus on the logic being used
to justify this expansion
because I think it is deeply flawed.
We're being told that because the city needs
to keep the current camera system running,
we must urgently expand it.
But renewal and expansion are two separate decisions.
The urgency here is about continuity,
yet it's being used to bypass due diligence
on whether expanding surveillance is actually justified.
That urgency is largely artificial.
We've known for a year that this contract was expiring,
and realistically,
if Oakland did not approve this expansion tonight,
Flock would absolutely work with OPD
to allow interim access while the city reworked a new deal.
They do this all over the country.
The idea that cameras would suddenly go dark
unless we rushed through an expansion
just doesn't reflect how these vendors actually operate.
I've also heard concerns that if cameras were paused
or reduced, criminals from across the Bay Area
would suddenly flock to Oakland.
That claim sounds intuitive,
but it is not supported by evidence.
Crime displacement, the idea that criminals
actively seek out cities with ALPRs,
has been studied extensively in the US and the UK.
The consistent finding is that displacement is rare,
often absent entirely, and when it does occur,
It's partial, not a mass migration of crime.
There's no data showing criminals monitor ALPR coverage
and reroute their behavior accordingly.
So pausing expansion is not reckless.
It's unlikely to interrupt OPD's use at all.
And even in the worst case scenario,
the fears being raised aren't grounded in research.
I'm probably not like most speakers tonight.
I do believe that some form of interconnected surveillance
is inevitable in modern society.
But who builds it, who controls it,
and what incentives they operate under matters enormously.
Flock is a growth-driven startup
whose contract terms make clear this data
can be compelled and turned over through legal process
far beyond Oakland's control.
We've already seen ALPR systems used for stalking,
tracking abortions, and sharing immigrant...
Hi, my dear honorable council person.
My name is Josephine Hui.
I am the vice president of the Taisan Family Association.
I am here this afternoon, not only representing myself,
I am representing my patroller team.
We established in 2021st March,
and we have been patrolling every day down in Chinatown
to make sure the streets are safe for our residents
and we create a good business environment for our merchants.
today I have to thanks the OPD they did a very good job on reporting the report
and and we are here to support the Oakland Police Department we need to
have cameras miss we your time is up thank you for your comments hello my
I'm Richard Ballou, District 1, and I see us talking about trust.
The lack of trust in flock is appropriate.
They have clearly demonstrated they can't maintain their own data.
We're now talking about trust in this body.
It has been brought to the Privacy Advisory Council and got thumbs down.
It got brought to Public Safety and got thumbs down.
I don't know how many times we need to tell you a hundred of us at a time that this isn't
the kind of security we want.
There are other vendors.
There is time to find a well-engineered system to accomplish the same purposes.
Ben Franklin said, those who would give up liberty for security.
Emily Katz, District 1, I love this city and I've been a victim of crime in this city,
and I vehemently oppose flocks.
You know, I appreciate the safeguards
that the police department has included in the contract,
but I don't think they're sufficient
and I don't share their trust in their vendor.
Why are we short cutting the diligence process?
As others have mentioned, there's plenty of opportunity
to find a better vendor to do the things
that our community wants.
I also, you know, I think that the things that we can do
if they share our data in ways that we don't want,
termination of the contract,
all of that is after the horse leaves the barn, right?
Once the data is collected, it is stored, it persists.
And so, you know, our recourse then
to terminate the contract with Flock, is that sufficient?
Does that undo harm to our community?
You know, companies like Flock and Palantir
clearly share information with federal agents.
Thank you, ma'am, your time is up.
My name is Phoebe Jane.
I am an executive director of ReproCare,
a national abortion hotline nonprofit.
We supported 4,500 abortion seekers this year
and I live in Oakland.
Oakland should not be setting up systems
that will be used to surveil pregnant women
driving to California.
There is no way to exempt people having abortions
from flock surveillance.
When police criminalize pregnancy,
they rarely cite abortion laws.
They claim to investigate charges like child endangerment
and murder.
Abusive men use abortion bans and threats of police
to terrorize their victims,
and flock is a great tool for them.
Cops in Texas have already used Flock this way
after an abusive man reported his partner
for getting abortion pills from California.
The police used a Flock search with data from other states
for a death investigation into the woman's fetus,
then lied and said they were searching
out of concern for her safety.
Oakland should be a safe haven
from these attacks on reproductive rights,
but you're giving Texas cops a direct line
into our streets.
Audrey, District 3, opposed.
This proposal fails on every promise.
The data is clear that creating safer communities
comes from supporting community-based organizations,
affordable housing and violence prevention,
not partnering with bad tech,
that profits off the creation and use
of surveillance infrastructure that will be exploited
by federal immigration enforcement
and undoubtedly other parties.
The Trump administration has stated their willingness
to use force to access this kind of information
to attack anyone they can profit from.
Considering that Flock has proven itself
an untrustworthy company with no credibility,
this contract leaves all of us vulnerable to technology-facilitated abuse.
This is not about keeping us safe.
This is about wealthy people finding another way to benefit at the expense of Oakland residents.
Wealthy people who care so little about Oakland, they would bring in the National Guard over
a car break-in, who clearly don't know or have forgotten what actual harm to a community
looks like.
No bad contracts that hurt Oakland residents to appease the wealthy for the third time.
No flock.
Hi, everybody.
Hi everybody my name is Tony Trinh. I am the executive director for the Oakland Chinatown
Improvement Council. I represent over a thousand properties, 300 businesses and 15,000 residents
of Oakland Chinatown. I'm here to support Flock OPD and City Council's amendment to Flock's
renewal of the contract. You know I want to tell a personal story about 30 years ago my
grandfather got shot in Oakland Chinatown. I was on America's Most Wanted. We never caught those
two years ago I almost saw my mom die with a gunman robbery and they never
got caught and I see the similar robberies that happened in San Francisco
San Jose and they all have block system and they catch up within a week and in
Oakland the message here is very clear do the crime and you're not going to get
caught because we don't have the technology we don't have the
infrastructure I started this job because I was sick and tired of seeing
this happen and I'm very proud of the City Council here I'm very proud of the
the leadership because you guys are on the right track.
So please continue this.
This is the best thing that's happened for Oakland.
We just need to make amendments.
Julie Anderson District one.
I'm speaking in opposition to flock.
I understand the importance of reducing crime in Oakland.
But flock is not the way flock is a private company out of Georgia.
They have shared data with ice and border control in the past.
I do not believe they will honor agreements with Oakland.
Tech companies have a history of lying.
Flock is a tool of mass surveillance.
The ACLU opposes Flock, and so do I.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Jim Donatell,
20-year resident of Oakland, District 2.
I'm also the Flock administrator
for my homeowner's association's nest of eight cameras.
What I wanted to share with you was an incident
we were able to help OPD with.
A large, violent side show.
Between 2.30 and 3.30 a.m.,
116 cars came into our neighborhood.
Shooting firearms, fireworks, dangerous car driving.
We took 337 scans.
50% were tied of the scams tied to four cars.
We packaged the information, gave it to OPD.
They took three of the cars off the street.
That's technology that works.
Let's support OPD.
I believe I was called, I don't know if it was pronounced
Caleb Morin or Marin.
What was that?
Thank you.
Caleb Morin, District 3.
Let me say the quiet part loud.
the law only bends when we break it first.
The Rules Committee to summer 11th
violated the Ralph Brown Act.
It's President Renage on his promise
and used his powers to hide from us.
But we know how Jenkins and Houston work.
They break what won't bend and confuse us for people
who won't do the same.
I will not repeat what thousands warn.
I will restate what we know.
Each fought camera is a weapon.
Destroying it is self-defense.
How one brings down cameras does not concern me.
Legality stopped mattering Thursday.
Today it decides only what Oakland will face,
which law her people break next."
Thank you for your comments.
Moving to the next group of speakers.
June Liu, Samantha Wise.
This is a duplicate.
Crystal Alejandez Valerie Batchelor.
Alberto Parra, or Dara.
Kilo Matson.
Derek Barnes.
Linda O. Young.
Claire Rubnow.
Reen Lopez.
Maybe Carmen.
Ash W. Gina Goldblatt.
Jonathan Burch.
Alejandro Garcia.
Poredos.
Ian Bailey.
Emily Rachel Coogan.
Johnny Castro.
Brenman Turner, or Bretman.
William Tamayo.
Brenda Grisham.
Bradley Morgan.
Rajni Mandal.
Heather Thomas.
Is this a duplicate?
James Tran, Tracey Rosenberg, Sanal C,
Sierra Warwick, Rebecca Gurney,
Ralph Brown, Rajni Mandal,
Kevin Daly, Juan Canem.
Wait, that's a duplicate.
Kelsey Herbert, Kate Steele.
And just in case you're wondering,
yes, I do have one more pile.
So if I haven't called you,
you're probably in the last pile.
Good afternoon. My name is Rifilawe.
I am here once again standing in coalition with multi-generational,
multiracial community from Oakland who is once again asking you to say no to the flop contract.
We're asking you to stand with the people of Oakland and not the fascist government
in office in the White House or the billionaires that are backing some of the community members
who aren't even from the town that are in the room.
A lot of folks aren't even trying to cover up the fact that they are in line with these
fascist powers that be saying things like they want to make Oakland great again, right?
You're reiterating these talking lines that say that people like myself don't matter in
a city that I'm from.
The first time I ever looked at a city budget was in 2012 when this city was looking to
close a number of our public libraries, and the entire time I've sat here, I've just been
thinking man I wish our libraries could take up this kind of time time of energy
and effort libraries that provided me shelter and support and resource as a
community man well good evening good afternoon city council people I am a
delighted to be here I didn't mind taking off from work because this is
important and I didn't show up before but I need to show up now I'm here my
name is Samantha wise I live in district six I have a business in district three
and I have a rental property in District 7, so I'm all over the place.
I've been in Oakland for 56 years, so I know what it looked like and I know what I wanted
to look like today.
And I'm here in support of approving the Flock Safety Camera Program as a lifelong Oakland
resident, business owner, non-profit leader, mother, grandmother, all of these things.
Safety is important.
And I know it's not going to deter crime, but when I was against it originally until
they told me they stopped a car that had somebody's daughter in it. She was
being trafficked and when they were able to pull that license plate and pull
that guy over that girl was brought back to her family and so for me it's
about safety and for me it's about you guys doing the right thing. If we can
save somebody's child and bring them back home from being trafficked.
Good afternoon my name is Valerie Batchelor and I'm a District 6 resident voter and
director of Ace Oakland. I want to remind this council that this surveillance
technology has already been illegally used right here in Oakland. A lawsuit
filed in Alameda County confirmed that OPD illegally shared floc license plate
data with federal agencies including ICE, including FBI, and including the DEA.
According to the report by the Oakland Standard, OPD allowed the database to be
used 200 times for federal investigations including explicitly ICE
the state of the state of the-
Thank you, Ms. Batchelor, your time is up.
Incluso en su das antarios.
Lo residentes de Oakland no de verían de temmer y del trabajo, la escuela, o la iglesias.
Información puede ingrésar en un sistema alque hay es pueda acceser.
Como residente de Oakland no quiero que misudar, rastre, persiga, nipon, empellir, amis de sinos.
Oakland nes una su das antarios que de vería protecter los derechos cíviles.
Por favor, chas en este contrato.
My name is Alberta Parra and I am from district five and I'm a voter and an
ace member and I'm here to urge you to vote no on the flock contract. The
surveillance technology has already caused harm in our communities and all
over the country. For immigrant communities systems like flock have been
used to track people for deportation even in sanctuary cities. Oakland
residents should not fear driving to work church or school knowing that this
data is going to be fed to a national system that's accessible to ICE. As an
Oaklander I want my I don't want my city to track target and endanger my
neighbors we are a sanctuary city that protects civil rights and I want you to
reject this contract my name is Linda Luisa Oakland resident I stand against
flock in Oakland we're not fooled for a minute here we know this information
will be used by hostile agencies like the FBI ice and with the orange madman
in the White House we can be sure this information will be commandeered by him
On 8-15-25 the ACLU released a report that in this orange madman correction
ICE released report that ICE is using flock to help Trump in his deportation
program. 404 media reported that Texas law enforcement used flock data to track
down women leaving the state to get abortions. We are increasingly turning
into a big brother state. These cameras are just another invasion of our
privacy. In Evanston, Illinois flock. Thank you ma'am, your time is up. Hello, I am
Kylo Mattson and I'm a D5 resident and small business owner in D1 and I
strongly oppose flock. I would like to address the statistics
manipulation that OPD put in the supplemental presentation today, the
supplemental presentation that was attached to today's meeting agenda and
OPD's proposal for this two million dollar investment, tries to cite that
Flock security can reduce crime. However, Flock itself has made claims that their
systems reduce crime by 70% in San Marino, California, yet other outlets show that
crime increased there by 5%. OPD cherry picks pandemic era data and tries to say
that crime was reduced by 41 to 53% after the installation
of plot cameras in 2024 in California.
And that in between, and that between 2023 and 2025,
there was a 66% decrease in carjacking and robberies.
Except when you compare this pre-2020 statistics to 25,
there's no statistical difference.
Thank you for the time.
Please vote no on plot.
My name is Gina, District 2.
And I just want to point out the wording of urgency
that we've brought this meeting again today
for the third time when it has been turned down
by Oakland people, and that is what is urgent
to the folks that are pushing this forward.
So I would just like to turn the gaze
at the people who see that as urgent.
What is actually urgent right now
is that we keep ice the fuck out of Oakland.
That's not happening.
And also, I would like to remind you
that we are not stupid and that we know history.
There is a history of folks being corrupt on this body
and using this as a way to put money in their own pockets.
So who's payroll are you on?
The people pushing this forward, that's what I want to know.
And we're watching for that.
Hi, my name is Brad Morgan.
I'm a resident of District 4 in Oakland,
and I love this city.
And thank you all for your time here.
Our neighborhood invested in flock cameras,
and these have already helped identify suspects, car thefts,
break-ins and other incidents and OPD having access
to this has been a critical part of that.
Now I understand concerns about privacy.
It's worth noting that mobile devices prove more
against privacy than do flat cameras,
yet we all use smartphones daily.
Let's keep perspective when we debate public safety tools.
All right?
Flat has a strict policy against this.
It only captures license plates.
National studies have shown that it actually helps solve roughly 10% of crimes across the nation.
These technologies are going to be used.
Rather than ignore it, let's use them for the public good with clear oversight and privacy protection as it's in the contract. Thank you.
My name is Jonathan, District 2. Thank you for my one minute Your Majesties.
I want to start by sincerely thanking you Carol for being the only City Council member here with a semblance of integrity
To the rest of you. We will remember this when you're up for reelection now
I want to know why you keep changing the times for this meeting
Why does it feel like you're trying to pull a fast one on us?
And why does it feel like you have such disdain for us?
Especially when we make the obvious connections between Palestine Palantir and the pigs we have here
You won't gaslight us into believing this is about local public safety when in Dublin as we speak they're having comment on turning the
disgraced women's detention center into an ice slave labor camp.
This is what these cameras will be used for.
In conclusion, it doesn't matter what you look like if you as a politician cede power
to a fascist Nazi regime, guess what that makes you, a Nazi.
And if you choose to do bidding for the CEOs of Palantir, I want to tell you you're not
on their team and you're not on their level.
They don't usually walk among us, but you live in our neighborhoods and will remember
your faces.
Thank you.
My name is Heather Thomas, I'm a District 4 resident, and I'm asking the city to choose
evidence over ideology when it comes to public safety. Oakland does not have the
staffing to respond in real time. OPT has 500 officers citywide, roughly 28 on
patrol per shift, zero in my neighborhood. That is our reality. When response isn't
possible, evidence matters. Flock cameras are vehicle focused tools. They are not
facial recognition and not people tracking. They capture cars and license
plates with time and location, giving police a way to identify suspects when
officers cannot be there, which is most of the time. Residents support using
technology to improve safety. 67% support monitoring privately owned
cameras. 66% support automated cameras. 59% support drones. Safeguards matter. I
I urge the council to approve OPD access to floc data,
choose evidence over ideology.
Thank you.
My name is Yung, no on floc.
The city of San Jose is facing a APLAR lawsuit
brought by ACLU and EFF on behalf
of an immigrants rights group.
In the complaint, it cites that SJPD allowed
4 million searches in their ALPR database
over a period of 12 months.
This is like Oakland, San Jose brags itself
on being a sanctuary city.
You're going down the same route as San Jose
and facing another lawsuit.
The second point I want to make is that flock fear mongers
about only or one type of crime, street crime
while ignoring the costly white collar crimes
like identity theft.
And AARP reports that the cost of identity theft
to individuals amounted to 43 billion in 2023.
And so Flock is its predatory business model.
Hello, my name is Marin Lopez, District Three,
and I've lived in the East Bay my whole life.
The way to decrease crime is to create social programs
that uplift impoverished communities
by meeting their basic housing, health, and food needs.
OPD is trying to use identity to politics
to say they're protecting victims of color
while conveniently ignoring that the vast majority
of people they do and will incarcerate
are black and brown.
Prison is not accountability for criminals,
it is punishment in the form of slave labor.
We need to think critically about what crime is.
Why does OPD only investigate property crime
but not the billions of dollars in wage theft
that is stolen from the working class every year?
We must adamantly reject the narrative
of understaffed police departments
when the historical reality is the police
across the country have never had such lavish budgets
and fancy toys of violence furnished by Israel.
By pushing this through after being rejected time
and time again, you prove that you have a class interest
in maintaining poverty because it reproduces conditions
that lead people to a life of crime in the first place,
which is profitable for the corporations
and landowners you serve.
Hello, hello, my name is Alejandro Disik III.
I'm here to encourage you all to go on flog.
The Democratic Party does not serve working people.
They serve our tech oligarchs.
Notice what was admitted by that fluff-filled presentation.
There was no mention of ICE accessing our data before.
There are no mentions of the false positives
of these cameras.
And there is no mention of flocks connection to Palantir.
Our democratic politicians, which is the entire council,
are serving us on a platter to the prison industrial complex.
This is intentional.
These council members are self-serving
so they can enrich themselves.
The USA wants to create Palestine in all our cities.
We need to prevent this, right?
We can't be reactionary in how we deal with crime.
Right, as other people have more eloquently stated,
we need social programs.
Prevention is the key, how do you prevent?
Why do people do crime?
Because they're impoverished.
We deny dignity to tens of thousands of people in the city.
How do you expect them to survive?
And you guys don't care.
There's no eviction moratorium.
You're not doing anything productive to help working people.
And that's your M.O.
Shame.
Hi, my name is Brennan.
I just wanna say, first of all,
if we have a skeleton crew,
but it gives us the oversight resources
to enforce protections on this contract.
You have repeatedly met opposition on this contract
from both committees and from the general public.
I noticed that you have rescheduled this meeting
to the middle of a weekday and you still ended up
with almost the same amount of people
coming to comment as November.
The public safety situation you claim to be addressing
with this contract is as real as you claim it is.
So why are you choosing to bypass basic democratic standards
to push for this wildly unpopular company
that again, a simple FOIA request would tell you
has illegally leaked data as we have seen
in Evanston, Illinois.
You have failed to address these concerns
as well as the suggestions
from police response call time auditors
to implement the preexisting no cost GPS technology
in police vehicles to reduce call times.
The refusal to hold a democratic open competitive bid
for similar technology companies
with legitimate privacy practices
at the suggestion of council member five is.
Hi, my name is June Liu.
Earlier, I heard the cops say that license plate readers
don't track faces and are not tied to AI.
This is a myth they're trying to sell you.
The way it works is license plate readers
currently might not do that,
but as we heard, Flock is an operating system
that retains all of our data,
and Flock does work and use AI.
it also uses facial recognition.
It actually allows all the existing cameras,
so we're looking at ring doorbells,
we're looking at these license plate readers
that are in place, as these sort of lenses,
and they as the back end will use AI
to watch all of us to see what we look like,
how we walk, and retain all that data.
We live in a fascist society right now,
if you believe there's anything worth pushing back against.
All these people will be criminalized and disappeared,
and they're gonna rely on Flock to do that.
Hi, my name is Ian Bailey.
I would like you to consider that Flock
is a private company with closed code,
closed source code on their application
and devices that are not available to the consumer market.
So if there is a security exploit in their hardware
or their software, you're not gonna know about it.
And there's no one looking over that stuff besides Flock.
and they aren't too keen on reporting any exploits
in anything they make.
Also consider that you could hire any company
to operate your big brother cameras
if that's really what you want to do.
Until I get my mic cut, I'm going to tell you
about my favorite, or least favorite,
security vulnerabilities.
One is that you can pause the app in runtime
and inject malicious code.
Another one is that you can enter the camera
into debug mode by pressing the button in the back
in the right sequence.
Once you do that, you can add...
Before the next week or go, Seneca Scott,
we do have a card for you.
Mr. Twan said you were ceding your time to him.
I don't know if you want to give it to him
or if you want to take the time for yourself.
We do have a card for you.
For me?
I'm Kwan, unlike some of us.
I am an Oakland resident.
Several council members ran on cleaning up City Hall
making it more transparent and yet you're bending over backwards changing
your own rules in order to push through a no-bid expansion of a no-bid contract.
This is why voters in D7 and D5, 80% don't bother voting. Why bother when
City Council is just gonna rubber stamp whatever OPD asked for, not
exercising your Democratic authority over the budget, which is what you're
elected to do. This is an abdication of your responsibilities. None of the data
that was presented by OPD in any way justifies the 24-7 pan and tilt cameras
they intend to deploy. I moved home in 2004. Should I get credit for the
decrease in crime? Should I get 2.4 million? Maybe OUSD should get 2 million
to teach OPD how to demonstrate trends. If this passes we will foyer the number
plates of council members because that seems to be something you're all okay
with. Thank you. Good afternoon, Derek Barnes, D3 resident and someone running a business
in Oakland. For me, public safety is violence prevention, social and economic justice, protecting
the youth, and ultimately saving lives. Oakland needs to improve in all of these areas. Pay
attention to public commenters and the cities, organizations, and districts they represent.
As a black man in one of this country's most targeted groups, what I don't want to return
two is the 90s war on crime ethos that falsely accused innocent people locked
up millions a la mass incarceration didn't solve crimes or apprehend real
criminals flock helps to level this playing field in a resource constrained
city OPD needs help and flock in just one of many tech tools with guardrails
Oakland can use to help Oakland rise please advance this ordinance to give
of OPD, the resources to build strong cases
while minimizing unethical enforcement tactics.
Thank you.
Buenas noches.
My name is Antonio Dorado.
I'm here to speak against flock cameras,
but the question is not about flock cameras.
The question is, what side are you on?
Are you on the side of big money and the hills
and downtown interests, or are you
on the side of the people, the majority that
live in your districts.
Brown and black, low income, working people.
So that's the real question.
What side are you on?
And anybody that comes up here and says
that they speak for the community
and are in favor of plot cameras are liars and hypocrites,
plainly speaking.
There's only one thing that you have to think about,
and that is how you can you best serve your community
and the community you see are right here
and you've heard very clearly
that they do not want flat cameras.
Muna noches.
Hi, my name is Alan Brill.
I've seen in my 45 years here in Oakland,
dozens of you sitting up here, hi Noel,
and I wanna say that I don't wanna talk about justice.
I don't wanna talk about crime control.
I don't wanna talk about what's the ethical thing
for you to do.
You've heard that hundreds and hundreds of times,
but you've chosen, a majority of you have chosen
to come here today behind the democratic process
to try to get something done.
I've been around long enough and I've been an activist
for long enough to say that I just wanna talk
about your future, your future.
Yeah, do some of you wanna be around for a little while?
You have some aspirations for the future?
I wanna tell you, you passed this
and we will not let you forget.
Mr. Twine, please proceed.
Time was seated to me one minute.
I spent an entire day walking the streets of Oakland
and talking to residents.
Many residents and businesses cannot be here
because they were working and taking care of their family.
But the vast majority of people I talked to
were impacted by the violence of crime on Oakland streets.
I talked to immigrants.
None of the immigrants have family members
that were deported.
In fact, zero family members have been deported in Oakland
and flock has been in operation for over a year,
not only in Oakland, but in all neighboring cities of Oakland,
as well as over 40 cities across the Bay Area.
Flock is not some fly-by-night company.
It has wide footprint across the entire state
and the entire country and has solved over 7,000 crimes,
including last month in Berkeley,
putting a child sex trafficker that was torching
a little girl and lighting her on fire,
setting her on fire.
Thank you, Tuan.
Your time is up.
Thank you.
Calling the last batches.
Thank you very much.
Wait, wait, wait.
Please respect speakers regardless
of where you are on the item.
We've done a wonderful job thus far.
We're almost done.
And just to be clear, through the chair
to members of the public, he did not speak twice.
He did have a minute seated to him
by Mr. Scott, who was over there.
And I did not see the card at first.
Thank you.
We're here.
Julia, this is the last batch of names again.
If you're in chambers, step to the podium.
If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand,
we will move to you after.
Julia Feinberg, Juan Abanel, Charlotte Vimish,
sorry if I said that incorrectly,
Chase Fowler, Christopher Kaplan, Emily Loper,
4205 High Knoll, last four digits of the phone number 1429.
Again, Oakland Rising, last four digits
of the phone number 1822.
Susan Seagal, Matthew Sheppard, George Watson, Abigail Elan,
Rakeem Naylor, Nick Carter, Ray, it might be Lewis from Urban
Peace Movement, Andrew Gross, Cholito, Greg Slaughter,
Carlos Tuna, Stanley Cooper, Dante Altamiro,
Stephanie Tran, Orie Loehlinger, Ramesh Charidaran,
Andy Gee, Samantha Knofsky, David Shore.
So that had to be the coolest entrance
I've ever seen in City Hall.
They're coming up on the scooter.
Well, his legs are too short to walk from the bus, so.
Please proceed.
All right.
My name is Emily Coogan from District 1.
This is Athena.
All right.
So we're here to speak against the flock.
Plenty of people have already covered ICE complicity.
I'm going to talk about the polling data.
I'm pretty sure they've been calling me and also
my friends from Mr. Jenkins district across town.
We aren't answering, because we don't know what they're
doing with that data.
And so I understand that pollsters generally
have statistical tools to address who is responding
and not responding, but I'm skeptical that they adequately
considered the fact that people who are against this
were way less likely to respond to those calls.
So a lot of your constituents are against this
who were hanging up on that poll.
So, yeah, what do you say, Athena?
Athena's waited a long time,
even if he doesn't know what to say right now.
So thank you very much.
My name is Rakim Naylor, and I'm here on behalf of the Urban Peace Movement.
Flock is making temporary fixes, not permanent solutions, instead of installing cameras,
install wealth into our youth.
Into the broken, bumpy roads we walk on every single day.
Install healthy foods into our children's schools.
of the public. You'd rather not clean up the public with your 2.5 million dollars.
You would not rather put preventatives. You'd rather put the probers of privacy.
OPD, do you care for us, the people? OPD, do you care for more of the cameras?
OPD, make more jobs, not jails. Get the flock out of Oakland. Get the flock out of
of Oakland. Us the people want flaunt out of Oakland. Change will never make change.
Good afternoon. How was your lunch? My name is Chaney Turner. I represent District 7,
also Oakland Rising. I'm really disappointed that we are here again today. How are we supposed
to trust this body when you are continuously, well majority, continuously to betray constituents.
Ken Houston fell asleep last, at the last meeting here eating lunch.
Since October, majority of community has asked you all to reject it.
Flock was rejected by the Privacy Advisory Commission.
Flock was rejected by Public Safety Committee.
Flock was rejected by rules and legislation.
But yet again, we are still here.
Who does the Oakland City Council serve?
Berkeley Piedmont out of state investors and keyboard magma racist.
Why are majority of you still pushing this item?
Are you afraid to be recalled by them?
Thank you, Chaney.
Your time is up.
Chaney, your time is up.
Chaney, your time is up.
Hello.
My name is David Shore.
I'm a D1 resident, and I'm a member of the Bay Area Jews for Justice.
We also had other members including Samantha Konofsky who was here earlier.
She can make it, but I don't need her time.
Essentially, we're here to oppose this flock contract.
Our organization is made up of hundreds of Oakland Jews,
including a ton in District 1 of Oakland, and we'd love to follow up with you,
Councilman Unger, about this.
We are committed to standing alongside our immigrant neighbors, and
In this community coalition who's been here today, who came out with almost no notice
for one o'clock on a Tuesday, as all of them have talked about, we want to give everything
we can to support these communities who are under attack from ICE and other federal officials.
They should not be under attack by our own city.
They should not be under attack by our own city's police department.
It is beyond disappointing to see our city doing anything to put these communities at
risk and not doing everything we can to stand against them and against these federal officials,
as we are a sanctuary city.
I hope that you can give us a Hanukkah miracle by voting.
All right, good afternoon, Council members.
My name is Stephanie Tran,
president of the Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce.
I'm here speaking on behalf of over 300 business members
in a wide range of industries.
Public safety is urgent for our small businesses,
residents, and visitors.
Many of our businesses are minority and or immigrant owned,
and safety directly impacts whether these businesses
can stay open, whether employees can feel secure at work,
and customers can feel confident
coming back to shop and dine.
The Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce
operates over 50 cameras throughout Chinatown.
These community-led systems have supported
over 100 cases of investigations from robberies
to arson, car accidents, theft, break-ins, and homicide.
Cameras have been a tool of safety
and is especially needed at a time
when we are facing a police staffing shortage.
Responsible use of camera system
must also be guided by clear and responsible rules.
So we urge counsel to support the adoption
of the OPD camera use policy and implementation
to safeguard around the use of technology.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm Dante Altamirano, I'm from District 3.
Too many crimes in Oakland go unresolved
because there's not enough evidence
to hold offenders accountable.
When cases cannot be proven,
repeat offenders face no consequences
and law abiding residents suffer.
Flock cameras are a limited practical tool
that establish facts and accountability
without targeting innocent people.
Council member Fay!
I am speaking to you as a district three constituent,
and you're chillin' over there,
and on behalf of the majority of Oaklanders,
67% of residents support the police
and more police presence.
If not for me, then do it for Bragg and Brown residents
who are disproportionately victims of violent crime
and often deny justice.
Do it for the Asian small business owners
or repeatedly burglarized without accountability.
Do it for the elderly neighbors who
are afraid to leave their homes because
of the risk of violence.
These communities deserve safety, evidence, and justice.
Flockhammers are a necessary step
towards putting Oakland first.
I believe in putting America first.
Thank you, sir.
Your time is up.
Please stop.
Order in the chamber.
Order in the chamber.
Please stop during.
Hello, my name is Ramesh Sridharan.
By way of introduction, I hold a PhD in computer science
MIT. I teach data science at UC Berkeley and I've worked in the technology AI and
software industry for about ten years. So I teach my students about what when X
causes Y. If any of my students tried to do what OPD did and show a graph like
that with the trend line and say this caused that without thinking about the
other causes like ceasefire I would give them a failing grade instantly. This is
not acceptable. I also want to oppose flock on the ethical grounds of
collecting that much data, any time you have that much data in one place, there is always
the temptation for actors to use it for other purposes.
We heard about Texas, where cops could search data about women who had abortions.
We have seen reporting from the SF standard that OPD, in violation of state law, accessed
data on behalf of federal agencies like ICE.
This is not acceptable.
We've also seen from security researchers that this kind of information can be hacked
from flock cameras.
In conclusion, please reject flock.
Hi, my name is Susan Siegel.
In an email exchange I recently sent Zach, or referred Zach Unger to an excellent article
that was in the November issue of Street Spirit, which debunked a lot of the claims Flock makes
about how it reduces crime and exposed many of the ways that it has been misused in the
ways that a lot of people have talked about.
So I would urge everybody to check out that article.
It was great.
The man who spoke on behalf of the police department, presenting flock earlier, while
well-meaning I think was extremely naive when he talked about the highly unlikely possibility
that the federal government would try to access any of this.
our current federal government this is extremely likely. I also just the other
day got another notice about a breach. Hello my name is Alex. Myself and several
comrades who will speak after me have prepared a collective statement to share
today. We are a group of residents from all over Oakland united in our
understanding that flock technology poses grave dangers to our community. Let
there be no doubt why we are standing here today. It's because some of you have
already lined your pockets with big tech money and decided to sell us out to fascism and mass
surveillance. Despite our very own privacy advisory commission's recommendation against
flop proposal, despite it not passing through the public safety committee and despite the huge and
undeniable outpouring of community opposition rooted in well-documented facts and evidence
concerning the harms and failures of this technology, you are still considering partnering
with a company that has aligned itself with fascists in no uncertain terms.
We are going to walk you through these details once more for the record.
We want you to know that Oakland is watching each and every one of your votes today.
And we won't forget who you side with. The people of Oakland or Big...
My name is Claire Repnow. I'm in District 1.
In a time when politicians across the country are being voted out for being soft on fascism,
you too should be prepared to pay the political price.
You have already heard from over 100 members of the public, including privacy experts,
immigration advocates, teachers, lawyers, tech workers, parents, small business owners,
students, and many others about the numerous dangers of Flock.
We don't need to go into every detail, but we do want to highlight the timeline of Flock's
expansion that shows just how rotten to the core Oakland's collaboration with Flock is.
In 2024, you quietly approved an agreement with CHP and Flock without public input, even
Even though privacy advocates like EFF, ACLU, and your own Privacy Advisory Commission members
were already raising flags about potential issues of these.
In May 2025, Johnson County Sheriff's Office in Texas searched the nationwide network of
flocked cameras to target and criminalize a woman who saw...
George District Two, in June 2025, CalMatters reported that law enforcement agencies across
Southern California violated state law more than a hundred times by sharing
information from Flock automated license plate readers with federal agents.
It's important to note that OPD explicitly lied to the Public Safety
Committee about this fact when they spoke last month. In July less than a
year after the cameras were deployed we found out that Flock data from San
Francisco and Oakland had been shared with federal law enforcement including
ICE over 200 times violating state and city laws. Later that month those
concerns were brought to the Privacy Advisory Commission both by the public
and by commissioned members when OPD brought forward a proposal to expand the network.
OPD and Flock promised you that everything was okay lying through their teeth.
In August, Congress members Krishnamurti and Garcia, members of the House Oversight Committee,
launched a formal investigation into Flock Group Inc. over its role in enabling invasive
surveillance practices that threaten the privacy, safety, and civil liberties of women, immigrants,
and other vulnerable Americans.
At the same time, it came to light that Flock had launched a secretive pilot program giving
and border patrol access to 80,000 flock.
Lou O, district one.
At the same time, it came to light
that flock had launched a secretive pilot program
giving border patrol access
to 80,000 flock cameras nationwide.
Sometimes without the knowledge or consent
of the local police departments.
In September, in response to public pressure
led by Berkeley Cop Watch and immigrant rights advocates,
the city manager pulled Berkeley's proposed
flock expansion plan and has not reintroduced it since.
In October, Oakland's Privacy Advisory Commission
rejected the OPD proposal by a vote of four to two,
explicitly saying that Flock could not be trusted
to keep Oaklanders data safe.
Also at this time, the Berkeley Public Safety Committee
discovered that BPD had attempted to cover up the fact that,
quote, an external agency had searched ALPR data
for the purposes of federal immigration enforcement.
Later that month, California Attorney General Rob Bonta
sued the city of El Cajon over sharing of license plate data
with federal and out of state law enforcement agencies.
In November, the Electronic Frontier Foundation
published data showing that flock was used
for hundreds of searches related to the 5501 protests
in February, the hands-off protests in April.
Hi, G. Riz.
In November, the Electronic Frontier Foundation
published data showing the flock was used
for hundreds of searches related
to the 5501 protests in February,
the hands-off protests in April,
the No Kings protests in June and October
and other protests in between.
Associated Press published a separate report
that the US Border Patrol is monitoring
millions of Americans drivers nationwide
in a secretive program to identify and detain people
whose travel patterns it deemed suspicious.
Through Flock Alone,
Border Patrol had access to at least 1600 license plate
readers across 22 states,
and some counties have reported looking up license plates
on behalf of CBP, including California.
Accordingly, both police chiefs in Capitola and Santa Cruz
reported that they had unintentionally shared
camera data out of state.
From June, 2024 to October, 2025,
32 law enforcement agencies performed...
Thank you, your time is up.
Lori Loehlinger, District 1.
Also in November, tech expert, Ben Jordan,
published a 40-minute expose showing just how easy it is
for hackers to get the sensitive data
stored on a flaw camera.
Included in this video are photos pulled from the hardware
showing the cameras, which shouldn't trigger
on anything but cars, have loaded images of people
in the factories where they were assembled.
This same month, lawmakers also called
on the Federal Trade Commission, FTC,
to investigate floc for allegedly not enforcing
multi-factor authentication, MFA,
in violation of federal law.
This demand comes as reporters have noted floc accounts
for sale on a Russian cybercrime forum,
multiple instances of flock-related credentials
for government users and infostealer infections,
potentially providing hackers and other third parties
with access to at least parts of flock's surveillance network.
More locally, the ACLU and the ACLU and Electronic Frontier
Foundation are suing San Jose, claiming
that the city's nearly 500 flock cameras
create a pervasive database of resident movements
in a surveillance network
that is essentially impossible to avoid.
Bay Area anti-surveillance non-profit, Secure Justice,
is also suing Oakland, alleging that by illegally sharing
tens of millions of sensitive location data points
from millions of individuals each month since August 2024,
Oakland has exposed countless individuals to grave harm
from the Trump administration's hate-filled policies
and invaded the privacy rights of individuals
not suspected of any wrongdoing.
In November, at the public safety meeting,
we also heard over 100 Oaklanders
who asked the city council to reject Flock.
Seeing the same pattern we have just laid out for you,
over 20 cities across the country
have now canceled their contracts with Flock,
in Oregon, Arizona, Texas, Illinois, to Massachusetts.
My name is O District One.
raising alarm after alarm on the harms and dangers of flock.
Many more including Richmond just north of here
have paused the use of the cameras
as they investigate potential abuses.
For a moment, let's hear from the legislators
and officials themselves from the cities
that have canceled the contracts.
From council member Scott Bauer, Eureka, California,
quote, it's hard to support this tool
when there's so much concern from all of us, frankly,
end quote, flock contract terminated February, 2025.
From Illinois Secretary of State, Alexei Janoulias,
Quote, the reality is that we are dealing
with powerful surveillance technology
and it has been abused, which is extremely troubling,
especially as it violates the law, end quote.
Evans and Illinois Flock contract terminated August 2025.
From city council member Derek Eater, Oak Park, Illinois,
quote, according to our own civilian police oversight
commission in Oak Park, over 99% of flock alerts
do not result in any police action.
While Flock's marketing emphasizes success stories,
the company has been unwilling or unable to provide
meaningful independence.
Hi, I'm Anam from District 3.
And to end the previous statement,
floc contract was terminated in August of 2025
in Oak Park, Illinois.
From Councilmember Melissa Dunn in Sedona, Arizona, quote,
at this point in our history, the only way for us
to make sure that data is not broadly shared or abused
is to not have any.
So therefore, I agree.
We need to cancel the contract.
We need to remove the cameras.
The flaw contract was terminated in September 2025.
From Eugene, Oregon Police Department, the department has identified vulnerabilities
and limitations that raise concerns about the system's ability to meet the EPD's operational
needs, data security requirements, and community expectations.
After further evaluation and internal discussion, the department has decided to discontinue
the contract.
The block contract terminated December 2025 and thank you.
Na'Vi District 5.
So now you two are presented with the opportunity
to legally terminate Oakland's relationship with block.
None of the cities above that we've listed
have seen crime rates spike since ending their contracts.
None of them have gone back because there's no evidence
that block has helped them in the first place.
In the midst of this all, you still choose to bring this vote
to a midday meeting with less than a week's notice
while numerous cities have taken a stand against block,
what have the council people here been doing?
Backroom deals, covering their asses
and hiding from constituents.
Last week on December 11th, 2025,
during the Rules and Legislation Committee meeting,
council members made several brown act
and local ordinance violations in an effort to sidestep
the overwhelming community outpouring of concerns.
At the meeting, Kevin Jenkins acknowledged the presence
of council member Houston,
asking him whether he was participating in this meeting,
as doing so would violate public participation laws.
When affirming, Jenkins made a motion to adjourn
and enter into a special meeting
due to presence of Houston,
which still breaks the required 48 hour notice
for a special public meeting and agenda.
Willow District Five.
Houston along with the representatives
from Councilmember Wang and Councilmember Unger's office
proceeded to lobby peers to move the flock contract agenda
item to full council.
Houston stated that he quote, need that vote
and thanked Councilmember Jenkins
for bringing this item to the agenda again.
Despite the fact that council member Jenkins
repeatedly reassured the public
at the previous rules committee meeting
that this would have to go back to public safety
before it comes to council.
This lack of transparency and clear disregard
for public participation is consistent
with Houston's previous revelatory blunder
at the public safety committee meeting on November 18th
when he stated during the deliberation that quote,
it's going to be hashed out no matter what
because if we've got three votes to one, it's not for it.
It's going to go on non consent anyways.
Today you have also brought to the table amendments
to council rules to make it harder
for working people to attend
and a rewriting campaign finance rules
so that you can get more money to line your pockets.
Thank you.
What we are witnessing in the city council with Flock
with the encampment abatement plan.
Please state your name before you begin.
Storm.
Can you restart our time Teresa?
What we are witnessing in the city council with Flock
with the encampment abatement plan
with changes to city council rules
is procedural gamemanship at best.
But it feels more honestly like a complete disdain
and disregard for the community
and their rights to public participation protections
enshrined in California and Oakland laws.
In 2025, the Oakland government has lost
the trust of the people.
Corruption, bribery, one scandal after another
and a failure to meet the most basic needs of the people
has disillusioned Oaklanders all over.
In some of your districts, Ken Houston's in particular,
less than 20% of registered voters turned out.
In fact, he only got a total of 6,300 votes,
but somehow spent $60,000.
How the fuck does that make sense?
Except for the clear and obvious answer in front of us.
You were bought and paid for.
Some slimy creep from San Leandro with tech money.
This lack of public buy-in to politics
has emboldened some of you to push outrageous policies
like Flock, like the EAP, sometimes illegally,
always without public consideration.
Hi, I'm Nick.
This lack of public buy-in to politics
has emboldened some of you to push outrageous policies
like flock, like the EAP, sometimes illegally,
always without public consideration.
Opportunistically, many have capitalized on this
with crime wave narratives used to increase policing,
the same crime wave narrative that Trump is using
to justify National Guard deployments.
Well, we are here to tell you that we are not just
naively hoping to change your minds
or appeal to your authority.
We want to hold up a mirror that you cannot ignore.
Our goal has been to force you, on the record,
in no uncertain terms, to state whether you are
more interested in serving the interests of big tech
and fascist dictators than the people of Oakland.
One last time, so we are completely clear.
Flock is one of the major tools
that a fascist federal government is using
to create a mass dragnet surveillance network
that can track the movements of individuals
seamlessly and indiscriminately.
The primary use of that network currently
is to track and target immigrants for deportations.
This is clearly and widely documented across the country.
Hello, my name is Cholido from District 1.
The primary use of that network currently
is to track and target immigrants for deportations.
This has been clearly and widely documented
across the country in this state and in this city.
However, this surveillance network
is also increasingly being used to criminalize
all forms of dissent.
We do not know the extent to which this fascist government
plans to crack down, but when it does,
it will do so using flock as its eyes and ears.
By voting to keep these cameras up,
you will be directly complicit in what happens next.
We are here to remind you that there are still some lines
you should still be afraid to cross.
You may have had the luxury of a lack of scrutiny for a while,
but people are starting to wake up.
politicians across the country are being voted out for being soft on fascism.
You too should prepare to pay a political price.
Rheem, District 6.
We will not forget the ways in which this body has consistently sidelined the public
and muzzled our voices.
We will not forget that you are making it a crime to be homeless.
We will not forget that when ICE detained a family in East Oakland this summer,
you did nothing.
We will not forget that when ICE came to Oakland in October,
When three people were shot at Coast Guard Island, you did nothing.
We will not forget that when ICE agents targeted a man dropping off his grandchild at school
in November, you, with the exception of five, did nothing.
The power of this city has always been with the people, the strength of this city has
always been with the people, and those people are watching you now and will hold you accountable.
There are some lines you should still be afraid to cross.
Being the foot soldiers of fascism is one of them.
Thank you.
I am Carlos Tuna. I am from the city of Tuscansico, Oakland.
For the manifestation of the Pacifica, this is the place of the city of the city, cameras and the electric cars.
The place of the city of the city is very difficult.
The city has a place where the city is not only in the region, but also in the desert.
my name is Carlos Tuna and I live in district 5 and I'm an ACE member.
the peaceful protest, for peaceful protesters, mass surveillance chills free speech.
License plate readers and camera networks have been used across the country to monitor unlawful
demonstrations, identifying participants and retaliating against people to exercise their
constitutional right. This is not public safety, it's intimidation. As an Oaklander, I don't want
my city to track, target and endanger my neighbors. We are a sanctuary city and that protects civil
rights so we ask you to please reject this contract now.
My name is Gregory Slaughter. I am the chief steward of ACE Oakland. I live in
Dixter 7. For immigrant community systems like Flock have been used to
track people for deportation even in a sanctuary city like Oakland, should not
I'd have to be feared that driving to work school shirts
could feed data into a nationwide system
that sets it to ice.
Mr. Ken Houston, can I get your attention please?
Okay.
I'm in your district, right?
I have a situation going, I sent you an email,
and I really want you to read it.
We need to get with you before the end of this month
about one of your buildings.
You have been there twice, okay?
If you get a chance, you come over there,
and I'll tell you in private what Street is on.
But you really need to get there.
Yesterday, I left a lady that was in tears
because her grandkids cannot come visit her at this building.
Matthew Shepard, District One, no on flock.
I'd like to thank the council for getting me
to speak at my first council meeting because of this BS.
I'm new to this.
How often does it take something
get voted no on before it goes away.
Many statistics have been shared today, where we look at charts easily explainable by COVID
effects.
If we look at the FBI crime data during the years of 17-24, it has the same shape, low,
peak and then decline.
Are we saying surveillance systems are to thank for a US wide decrease since 24?
Here's a hint, no they're not.
Statistics are funny.
They can be used in ways to support reject claims.
They can be biased.
So without statistics, what are we left with?
Decisions being made from a place of fear at the cost of our rights.
It's a bad investment.
It's taking money that should be put into prevention, which has a far higher return
per dollar.
That's from the Brookings Institute.
What do they know, right?
Let's be radical.
Let's get to the root.
Vivian from District 2, and I'm here to speak out on behalf of myself and 10 employees of
the city of Oakland that could not be here today
in opposition to floc cameras.
Floc has lost contracts with cities
including Austin, Texas, Denver, Colorado,
Park, Illinois, and Sedona, Arizona
because of its unscrupulousness and incompetence.
These cameras can be hacked in 30 seconds
and there's been no conclusive study
without cherry-picked data that shows
that they do in fact reduce or prevent crime.
Floc audit logs obtained through
Colorado Open Records Act showed that Denver's flock data was searched on behalf of ICE over
1400 times in the year beginning June 2024.
Police are abusing the access that flock provides.
There have been reports of police using these cameras to stalk ex-girlfriends and improperly
sharing data with federal agencies and providing bogus reasons for searching databases.
Thank you Vivian, your time is up.
Andrew Gross, District One.
Speaking against, this is a deeply unserious solution, non-solution, to an actual problem.
And I think it's pretty clear that you are unmoved by the bulk of public outrage over
it.
So I see us as being here today to plant firmly in the record that when this increases, when
And this harms the public safety of Oaklanders, that we have a better chance at holding you
accountable in the next election.
And lastly, I just want to point out that $2.3 million is the annual budget for Oakland's
administration of economic development and workforce development.
How is it that we have $2.25 million to spend on an ineffective solution to make us all
less safe, but we don't have the money for things that actually make us more safe?
This is deeply unserious and we expect a lot more from you.
My name is Ray and I'm a representative of the Urban Peace Movement.
And I'm another person that is here, I'm another person that is here opposing Flock.
You guys have heard so many things tonight, there's barely anything that I can say.
However, a vast majority of us in this room and at home can agree that a system in place
that is being used for more than its intended function
should not be here.
I am a native of Oakland, California.
We are currently in Oakland, California.
This is home to the Black Panther Party
that has shown that when you believe in the community,
the community does great things.
Now and forever, the people will always have the power.
Please do not forget that.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
My name is Xochitl, District 5,
currently still working just for five.
Oakland raised me from deep east Oakland to the Fruitvale.
And I must say that I've seen a lot of investments
that were short sighted that had to be pulled in the past.
And I don't want today in a time where budget constraints
are an issue for us to make an investment that makes
really poor decisions.
As we organize with youth, with frontline catalysts,
we talk about systems of community care.
And I wish you were all there at a youth summit
where the youth are understanding the concepts
of street lighting is important for safety.
Understanding that investment in community development
is for safety.
Understanding that community policing
in a way that is really restructured,
in a way that really is rooted in community
from community voice is a way for safety.
It's not flock.
It's not the shortsightedness
that somehow or another has grasped you.
We are amongst times and policies.
Thank you, Sochi, your time is up.
Hello, my name is Keppera Lance-Clark from District 12.
I'm really upset to be here again,
and I'm really confused on how this ended up
on the agenda yet again after you've heard
from multiple constituents, hundreds of people,
how they feel exactly about this issue.
Flock cameras do not keep us safe,
cameras do not keep us safe,
and I refuse to believe as educated and smart
and qualified as you all are,
that you have not heard all of your constituents
tell you and done your own research to realize that this is not a good idea for Oakland.
If you really care about your constituents, if you really care about the people who make
Oakland what it is, you know what the correct choice is.
And I just ask that all of you really look internally and understand why you make the
choices that you make when you vote on this.
What are you hoping to gain?
In this time where our neighbors are getting picked up off the street, they're being stolen,
families are being torn apart, people are dying, there's an attack on our people.
You feel this, you know this.
So ask yourself what is more important to you right now?
is it money or is it your people?
Is it your dignity?
Is it your soul?
Thank you guys so much.
I hope you make the correct choice.
Thank you for your comments.
Moving to the speakers on the Zoom queue.
Thank you for your applause.
If we can give the speakers on the Zoom queue
the same respect so they can get
through their comments as well.
Moving to the Zoom queue, starting with Asada Olabala.
Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Thank you, Madam Clerk.
It's interesting how we get this, uh, overwhelming, uh, participation.
And when we have the NSA for 22 years, little of the public shows up to
deal with the police excessive force and racial profiling of African-American.
I'm also concerned with this position on sanctuary city where you have
collected no evidence related to immigrant status in your city.
And so there's no way to identify anything related to immigrants.
You have in this city, immigrants who are criminal, you have illegal
immigrants who are part of the cartel, the MS-13, the Mexican mafia,
the mafia of the prison system.
And we don't have any ability to deal with it.
I support the flat cameras, but I'm so disappointed that the African
Americans who have spoken don't impact how African Americans are impacted with
these things.
Thank you. Moving to the next speaker, Nita. Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Hello. I am a resident of Oakland, tax paying, home owning, resident living on
Ohlone land that was once genocided by colonizers. I spoke to my council member
about this situation and they asked me a really good question. They asked me
Where were you in the collective sense two years ago when this was first coming up for vote?
Well council members that was a great question where I was as
Along with all those people in that room and along with all Oakland residents in their homes
Whether they know this meeting is happening or not where we were
We are trusting that you would make decisions that would protect us from mass surveillance
from this fascist government.
It might not be happening now but it will come in the future and you are meant to protect
us and not sell us to the highest bidder.
Thank you for your comments.
Emily Loper, you are next.
Hi, good afternoon.
I'm Emily, a D4 resident calling in strong support of approving this flop contract.
As you know, Oakland residents have been very concerned about their basic safety over the
past few years.
Many families in my neighborhood have considered leaving the city or have left because of that.
This technology is a proven tool in helping the city to fight crime, both solving crimes
and deterring them in the first place.
The presentation clearly showed that this technology directly improves public safety
while handling the data responsibly.
As you've heard, polling clearly shows that two-thirds of residents favor using these
cameras to improve safety in our city so I urge you to please represent the vast majority
of residents who support this and improve this contract. Thanks very much. Thank you for your
comments. Brian Culbertson, you are next. After Brian is Emily Wheeler. Hi, my name is Brian
Culbertson from D3. Flock is a notoriously insecure camera company with multiple data breaches
just this year. They can be hacked with a simple button push. If we're going to have cameras,
then Oakland should do a competitive contract for a secure vendor that isn't being sued by the ACLU,
like plate vendor. There's many out there. Illinois Secretary of State recently announced
that Flock gave access to Customs and Border Patrol, triggering a wave of cities to cancel
their Flock contracts and choose different vendors. Oakland should cancel their Flock contracts just
like the cities of San Marcos and Richmond, California, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
Everston, Springfield, and Oak Park, Illinois, Eugene, Oregon, Austin, and Hays County, Texas,
Mountain Lake, Terrace, Lynnwood, Stanwood, Redmond, and Olympia, Washington.
The list goes on. They're being canceled all across the country right now due to this.
Cancel them here too.
Emily Wheeler you are next after Emily is Ralph Brown
Emily
Please unmute yourself and begin your comments
Emily we will come back to you Ralph Brown. You are next. Please unmute yourself and begin your comments
Ralph Brown
Ralph we will come back to you Laura Hill. You are next
Good evening. My name is Laura Hill and I'm a vice president of public policy with the Bay Area Council
we represent over 370 of the region's employers,
including a coalition of 125 employers based in Oakland
who are committed to building a safer and more vibrant city.
We strongly support this item and urge your approval today.
Technology is a vital public safety tool
and it is particularly critical for cities
that are facing significant
law enforcement staffing challenges.
Additionally, according to two recent voter polls,
the vast majority of Oakland residents do in fact
overwhelmingly support security camera networks.
The polling shows support across age, race, ethnicity,
and ideology for visible cameras and ALPRs
as tools to deter crime and make people feel safe.
ALPR technology has been proven to work
and improve public safety in Oakland
and the city needs continued access to this technology
to protect residents, businesses, and visitors.
Approving this contract will help the city deter crime
and ultimately strengthen community safety
and economic vitality.
Thank you so much.
Going back to Emily, Emily Wheeler,
please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Canyon Bliss, you are next, please unmute yourself.
Yeah, my name is Canyon Bliss.
And apart from the suspicious timing
around OPD raising its staffing level crisis
and using flock to supplement that,
this is actually a false choice.
Technology or staffing has never been interchangeable.
In reality, staffing, like AOPR cameras generate leads
but require officers to investigate them
and OPDs reduced staffing means fewer investigators
available to follow up on ALPR hits,
which peer-reviewed research suggests
the effectiveness of this technology
depends on having dedicated investigative units.
Creating that investigation capacity requires staffing,
not cameras.
Even if ALPR increases leave,
a department with 509 operational officers,
only 10 of whom being investigators
based on the public safety committee meeting,
cannot process exponentially more cases.
So these arguments for FLOCK actually highlights the need
to actually invest in people, not surveillance technology.
And rather than trying to displace human investment
with technology, this council would actually be better off
asking for.
Thank you for your comments, Charlotte,
this Mitch, you are next please unmute yourself
and begin your comments.
Hello, my name is Charlotte, I'm a D2 resident.
I'm very tired of hearing about this proposal.
I feel like I'm losing my mind watching this council
not along to nonsensical presentations from OPD.
Here's a few quick questions.
What is a flock-related arrest?
How many of them led to any sort of conviction?
How many of those convictions relied on flock data
and couldn't have been reached any other way?
If it's such a great tool,
why doesn't OPD have those numbers?
Are you really going to settle for a correlation?
Allow me to add my voice to the chorus of educators
telling you that's not how evidence works.
I feel like I'm losing it when the council talks about flock
without mentioning the larger context
of fascist-aligned tech CEOs like Peter Thiel
Garrett Langley, making pretty damn clear they want to build a techno-feudalist future where
challenging corporate power is impossible. Thank you Councilmember Fyfe for raising the very
important point that Big Tech is currently a writhing nest of Nazis obsessed with something
called white genocide. Where is the scrutiny? Where is the due diligence? How are we supposed
to believe anything you say when you side with Kate Steele? You are next. Please unmute yourself
Thank you.
And back to the beginning of your comments.
Hi council members, I'm Kate Steele, a D3 resident, and I urge the council to accept
this proposal and do what San Francisco and other neighborhood cities have done, reduce
crime by employing cameras and APLR technology.
San Francisco has dramatically reduced both violent and property crime rates.
As just reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, the SFPD has said, word has spread among criminals
deterring new ones from trying their luck criminals know that if they come to San
Francisco we will hold them accountable. Oakland must remain in the ranks of
neighboring cities in deterring crime. This city can and should address the
privacy concerns raised with strict contract terms and rigorous oversight
audits. And I was at the no kings protest and I'm not afraid of APLR
technology. And I will continue to go to those protests. Thank you very much.
Juan Abanel you are next. Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Hi, I'm Juan Abanel. I'm an engineer with over a decade of security and safety experience. And
I'm here for the third time to reject the expansion of flock cameras. Flock has demonstrated an abysmal
track record of rushing outdated insecure systems to profit themselves and their billionaire
stakeholders. Even if I believe for a second that flock is suddenly going to stop lying,
experts have already demonstrated that their privacy systems are horrible and have already
had multiple instances of data breaches of not just license plates, but extensive personal data.
They simply cannot and will not keep any of the prospects as being made by OPD.
This is not misinformation unlike the weak data and broken correlation OPD shared today.
We are backed by real studies and experts. Our own privacy advisory commission voted against
lock. The ACLU is against lock. 20 cities have already canceled their contract because of this.
The Secure Justice has sued Oakland to shut down the current floc cameras and who's supporting this?
For up-counsel members, fascists, people who said that today they want the National Guard in our cities.
The right side has never been clearer to me. So again, I urge City Council to vote no on floc.
Thank you.
Rajni Mandel, you are next after Rajni is Brenda Grisham.
Hi, Rajni Mandel. I'm speaking today representing Oakland residents, voters, homeowners, and tenants,
many of whom are present in chambers and who could not be there because of work,
caregiving responsibilities or safety concerns. I'm not able to be there in person tonight
because I needed to pick up my kids from school. So I'll keep this brief out of respect of your time.
We're Oaklanders who care deeply about public safety and recognize the seriousness of our moment
our city is in. With staffing and patrol capacity under real strain, tools that operate under clear
policy and oversight matter. Our position is based on the materials in the agenda packet,
the data the use policy and the reviews conducted by OPD the city administrator and the city
attorney. How Council chooses to refine or amend this item is within your discretion. We support
moving this item forward and urge you to take action tonight to authorize the program as a
measured step towards improving public safety in Oakland. Thank you. Hi this is Brenda Grisham
a resident of District 5 and a business owner in District 2. We are here again today because
this is the organization that's actually listened to both sides except for Carol Fife. We know that
there's not going to be a perfect system. So what we want to do is use what we have. You're not going
to be happy with any other system. It's going to be a problem with everything. The point is we want
to be safe. We want to use what we have. And for those of you that don't trust OPD and saying what
But OPD cannot do their hiring.
Why don't you guys apply?
Thank you.
Jennifer too, you are next after Jennifer
will be Sierra Warwick.
Jennifer, we will come back to you.
Sierra, please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Hi, I have time seated to me from Linda Warwick.
Don't ask that.
Hello.
I'm sorry, say that again.
I have time seated to me from Linda Warwick on Zoom.
Linda, can you confirm that you're giving your time
to Sierra?
Yes, I am.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Sierra.
Thank you.
I'm Sierra, I'm from district four.
I was born and raised in Oakland.
I also want to speak specifically
to council member Ramachandran,
who I actually canvassed for
when she was seeking election.
Council member, I am deeply disappointed in your ambivalence
and your failure to support accountability of the council.
we as the people of Oakland said no to this Flock expansion
many, many times, and the fact that you are continuing
to support it is just extremely disappointing to me.
And I will remember this when we are called on
to be re-electing or electing somebody different
who will actually hear our voices.
I also want to say that the folks who are continually
pushing for Flock naively are trying to divide our community
into these evil criminals versus innocent victims.
And at this time, especially in this like fascist
federal government that we are in.
I want to remind everyone,
especially as a Jewish resident of
District 4, it's not about
criminals versus innocent victims.
Everyone can be a criminal depending
on the policies in place.
We are talking about immigration,
also protest, abortion rights,
like somebody said, community organizing,
also trans-health care,
which nobody has mentioned yet.
We cannot have this mass surveillance in
place and continuing to beef it up and give
these tools to something that can be so easily manipulated.
I also want to say that crime happens because of poverty.
What world do we want?
Do we want one where we
disinvest from social programs?
Because crime will go up if that is the case.
Crime will go up as we disinvest
from programs that support the people.
And as that goes on,
people will continue to say that we need more surveillance.
More and more surveillance.
Crime will go up regardless because we have nothing.
People have nothing.
so I urge you to vote no on this flock expansion. Thank you.
Kelsey Hubbard, you are next. Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Hi, my name is Kelsey. The report presented today did not demonstrate the efficacy of flock
whatsoever, and presenting an obscured, half-truth, data-lacking report is very Trumpy,
and so is nodding your head in blind allegiance to the billionaires.
My mom always told me that when someone shows you who you are, believe them.
We know who Trump, Peter Thiel and Flock are. There are so many other vendor options to choose
from. Why would Oakland choose this one? The only reason to choose this particular vendor is to sell
out to Trump in big tech. Wong, a former Biden Harris official, are you going to sell out to
Trump? Brown, a former educator who won a Changemaker of the Year award. Is this a change your
students would be proud of? Unger, a former firefighter who spent a career saving lives.
Will you pit our immigrant community in extreme danger?
Rahmer Shandran, a daughter of immigrants,
will you hand over our neighbors to ICE?
Look at the people who have been supporting Flock
and those who are against it.
Whichever you choose is who Oakland will be.
We are about to find out who you are.
Please don't sell out.
Thank you for your comments.
Carmen, you are next.
Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Carmen, we will come back to you.
Sunil, please unmute yourself and begin your comment.
Oh, hi, I'm Sunil, a resident of D1, and I'm here to ask you once again to reject the
proposed FLOP contract.
Community opposition to this contract is strong and unmistakable, as you all have witnessed
the last three times this was brought up, and hundreds of us have continued to show
up and speak before City Council, urging you not to move forward, and ignoring that level
public concerns sends the wrong message, especially when those concerns center on
privacy and accountability. Flock and OPD assure us that safeguards are in place
but assurances are not guarantees. I will cede my time because everyone before me
has already said many things that make the point. Thank you. Chad Wickspell, you
If you are next, please unmute yourself
and begin your comments.
Chadwick Spell, go ahead.
My name is Chadwick Spell, the chair of the board
for Oakland African American Chamber of Commerce,
Oakland resident homeowner.
We support the use of flock and expansion,
but we also understand there is no easy answer.
There is no easy fix.
We need public safety, to have businesses,
to have tax revenue, to have employees,
people working to have jobs. But at the same time, City Council, you have a large job ahead of you.
We need to bring everyone together regardless of what happens. We need to make sure we hold
everyone accountable, the police department, ourselves that vote for this, this council,
to where all the promises and accountability and reviews are not only what's posted but even more,
to where we get what we want and accomplish what we need to, and nothing more. Good luck.
Thank you for your comments. Marcus Johnson, you are next. After Marcus is Jennifer Finley.
Mr. Johnson, please begin your comments. Thank you. I'm a my name is Marcus Johnson. I'm a D3
resident as well as a west Oakland native and I support flock and I trust
OPD based on the policies that they have put in place. We have to be consistent
with the neighboring cities and their use of flock. What's interesting is
the fear-mongering and the meanness of some of the opposition but I also want
remind you that I am more concerned with personal devices, appliances, and the toll tag that
actually takes pictures of everybody that's in your vehicle as well as your license plate.
Thank you for allowing me to speak. Jennifer, please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Absolutely not on flock. I was looking for some information this morning and found a video from
a man named Ben Jordan called We Hack Flock Safety Cameras in Under 30 Seconds. It was a very
detailed 45-minute report with more tech than I understand, and he said that he had informally
consulted about these things with Oakland City Council. So I would love, through the chair,
to hear more about those meetings and who was in them and what you learned. Some of his findings
include that these cameras run on a version of Android that has not been updated, that is no
longer service, that's not been updated, has no security patches since 2021, has 900 plus known
security risks. He also talks about flock accounts being for sale. They are selling accounts, they are
selling this access. There is far more tech that I could understand. What better demonstration of
of the imperial boomerang than a former APAC employee selling their surveillance.
Josephine Guzman, you are next. Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Hello, Josephine Guzman, Public Policy Manager for the Oakland Metro Chamber. Oh, am I still
there?
Yes.
Okay, great. The Chamber is here to express strong support for the policy framework for
the OPD surveillance use policy.
The chamber has long supported community led camera networks
across Oakland's business improvement districts,
partnering with downtown Chinatown and others
to support local businesses
and establishing clear standards.
But our support is grounded in the importance
of strong privacy protections.
These safeguards are essential to maintaining the public trust
and ensuring technology is used appropriately.
We just want to continue to have that right balance
between improving public safety
and protecting privacy and community trust.
And we look forward to your continued collaboration
on centering these community needs.
Thank you for your comments, Kevin, Dally.
You are next.
Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Hi, this is Kevin Dally from district four.
Flock has been untrustworthy on privacy for a long time now.
The privacy commission is against Flock.
Thanks to council member five
for being strong understanding against Flock.
Let's look at elsewhere for our cameras.
We can do it.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments going back through.
Emily Wheeler, please unmute yourself
and begin your comments.
Emily, please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Leanne Alameda, did you submit a card?
If so, under what name?
I did under my name.
I don't have a card for Leanne Alameda at this time.
Ralph M. Brown, trying again, please unmute yourself
to begin your comments.
Yeah, just to call in the opposed flock
for namely the fact that the contract language
doesn't actually protect against
or prohibit flock ice access.
It only appears to like, you know,
or encourages to limit it.
But I just want to call out,
I know that majority of council members
really aren't listening right now
because majority of you have been bribed
not only by the Oakland Police Officers Association,
but also AstroTurf organizations like Empower Oakland
and the Abundance Network,
as well as all of these Chamber of Commerce representatives.
But I wanna give a big shout out to Ken Houston.
Do you think we didn't notice you flipping off the audience
from your seat just now?
Do you think that we don't know
that you've been violating the Brown Act
from the Public Safety Committee to this very committee
where you gave up the game and then forced Brown
to actually cover her ass and vote against it.
You think we don't?
Carmen, trying again, please unmute yourself
and begin your comments.
Carmen, let me just run through the Zoom users quickly first.
She's going to the Zoom users.
Emily Wheeler.
Rob, did you submit a card?
If so, under what name?
No, I did not have time to submit a card.
jack london improvement
what names you submit your card under
uh... self
jazz of one house or jack one an improvement district
did you submit a card under a name i don't have a card that it
no i'm just participating through
you do have to submit a card to participate in the meeting
many
pokal did you submit a card is so under what name
I believe I submitted a card under a man to poke hole.
Do not have a card under that name.
Emily Wheeler, last chance.
Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
I have two of these.
Hello, my name is Emily Wheeler.
I'm a resident of District 2.
I am here to oppose the flop contract.
I'm sure you have heard many, many good reasons
to oppose the contract from the fact that despite what OPD is claiming,
Block has a demonstrated history of collaborating with ICE and releasing information to government
from the known security issues, from the fact that although you cannot prove a negative,
there is ample evidence to show that their Block does not reduce crime.
Many cities that have implemented Block contracts have then chosen to cut ties with this company.
If you want to have some weird surveillance networks,
you can contract with a different company.
That isn't quite so insane.
It's very easy.
But the thing I wanted to end my comment with
is that I know a lot of you City Council members,
you ran on this progressive platform,
but then you immediately pivoted
to prioritizing your big money donors
living in the hills or not in Oakland.
And that works for-
Thank you, Ms. Wheeler, for your comments.
Carmen, please approach the podium.
My name is Carmen Beltran, Salazar, and I'm a member of the members. I'm very happy to be here with you, because I've had the opportunity to work with the cameras, but I don't know how.
For the reason why I'm here, I'm very happy. I have many thanks for the families, but for the people who committed to this, I'm very happy.
Hello, my name is Carmen Salazar.
At one point I was in favor of this measure because I have been a victim, but in the time
Even though we are right now, this would just create so much more prejudices for people
who are innocent.
It would just enable the surveillance of those persons.
We are not in the time that we should be doing this in.
And if this is an investment for you, then you can do it in another way and not at this
time where it will just create more problems for innocent families.
Thank you.
Thank you to everyone who came out and speak spoke 142 people 145 people interested in this topic
and we're grateful for every single one of the people that came with that I will open it up to
council members for comments not all at once council member comments council member Houston
have been trying to get to
try and get fooled by this 18% of
individuals and the vast majority of Oakland wants this and I say about 82%
you heard the lady say what two-thirds of it.
With that being said, I know we have eight minutes each as council members to speak, correct?
Thank you thank you.
That's rule eleven states that
each council member gets eight
minutes on non consent items.
So what I like to do is I did a
video.
Across all the districts about
the individuals that aren't here
that could is queued up right
now by K. top and I have eight
minutes to speak.
So please proceed and I like to
and that's something I'm
not going to talk about
when I'm playing this video.
So it's okay top should have
that queued up for me because I
want the public to see that.
This false narrative that
Oakland doesn't want this is
false right and I have this so
who councilmember would like to
donate why don't you start your
video and then I will can you
start my video please okay top.
I later track down due to like, you know, camera footage or whatever.
The flock camera system?
Yes, sir.
Oakland police credited a network of cameras in helping them arrest a suspect within 24 hours of the Laney College shooting.
And now there's a push to expand the city's flock camera system as a tool to help track down suspects and solve crimes.
The Oakland branch of the NAACP supported the proposed expansion.
Until Oakland can fund a fully staffed police department, the city council must seriously
consider the use of cameras to ensure public safety.
Hi, my name is Sauce Stewart and I am a resident and business owner of District 3.
I support the flop cameras.
Please, please approve the cameras.
Thank you City Council for keeping me
and our community safe.
Yeah, my name is Wing Chen.
I'm a person in Chinatown,
Dublin.
I support Fort Kemba in Seoul, in Dublin.
My name is Lidia Arias,
I live on the street.
I'm very happy to be able to see all the people, the people who are in the concert hall, to see the cameras.
I'm very happy and very happy to be here, to be able to discover.
Hi, I'm Willie Lincoln. I'm a voter in District 6 and I'm all for more flock
cameras. City Council please rule in our favor. Thank you. Hi, my name is Tracie
Aqualla and I live in District 3. I'd like to please urge City Council to approve the
flock cameras. I thank you in advance for taking consideration to this matter.
I am a business owner in Little Sago in Oakland.
My business got erupt too many times.
We need more safety.
I need more flat cameras for our safety, for our communities.
Please help us, support us.
Thank you.
Black cameras.
and we were born in Oakland thank you for keeping us safe City Council
thank you for keeping us safe City Council
Hello my name is Angel Low and I'm a resident of Oakland, California
I support the flock cameras.
City Council, please approve the cameras
and keep our streets safe in Oakland, California.
Flock security cameras are absolutely needed in Oakland.
We have to protect the citizens,
we have to protect the small business owners.
They need to have flock security cameras.
My name is Chris Quarn.
I live in District 6.
I was born in Oakland,
and I've lived in Oakland for most of my life.
We support more flock cameras. Thank you City Council for keeping our community safe.
My name is Cody Yan and my family owns a small business and we would like to support
the flock cameras in the City of Oakland to protect its residents and its businesses. Thank you.
Hello, my name is Penelope Davis and I'm an Oakland resident in District 1. I encourage
the City Council members to add more flock cameras to Oakland and City Council members,
Thank you for your work. Thank you.
Hi, my name is Suvalda Acosta, and I live in District 3,
and I support the cameras.
So we ask to City Council to approve the cameras, please.
My name is Kim and I'm a resident of District 5. When my car window was smashed with myself and my two-year-old in it, there was nothing that the police could do even though there were videos of it. Please use block and more technology to make sure that the police are safe.
And my cars have been broken into, my homes have been broken into, my tenants homes have
been broken into and if flock cameras can do something to alleviate this mess, I'm
all for them.
Hello, my name is Tak Ho, I work in District 5.
We want more flock cameras.
Thank you City Council for putting us inside.
Thank you.
Hola! Good morning. My name is Yanuelos.
My name is Drenta. I'm from Oakland, California.
I'm from the district.
We have a lot of vlogs,
a lot of gracias,
like the concert hall,
and a lot of rumors.
Thank you!
We've had three break-ins into our house.
I got in a fight with someone in the backyard.
I had a break-in at my shop.
I live in Oakland,
And we've talked to a bunch of police officers.
It really feels like the flock cameras
are a great step in the right direction.
And we would urge, me and my family would urge you
to please approve more usage of flock cameras
so that we can find people who the police are aware of
and make a dent in some of the safety issues
that are really plaguing all of the residents of Oakland.
Thank you so much and thanks for considering this.
My name is Tiffany, I live in the Fruitvale district and I support these security cameras.
My name is Alex, I live in Oakland, I witness three people shot, murdered in front of me
and I feel that we need help, we need to accept the CHP camera for our safety and the community's safety.
Hello, I'm here with my friend Gerardo, the historian of the University of California, who is the camera expert at the University of Oakland.
My name is Morgan Solom from District 1, and I believe that flock security cameras are a critical tool to help our understaffed, overburdened police department do their jobs effectively.
Please increase flock security cameras in Oakland to help keep everybody safe.
Hola, soy immigrante en Oakland.
En distrito tres, crio que Oakland necesita soluciones que afuncionen.
Y las camaras flock ayudan a prevenir y resolvent crimines.
Todam y familia a poya las camaras.
Hello, my name is Nayelya Alvaran.
I am a registered, bordered, and I live in District 6.
I support to have more cameras here in Oakland.
Thank you City Council for keeping us safe.
Hi, my name is Moises, owner and operator of East Bay Mufflers Local Business.
And I support the flop camera for District 5.
Okay, Tom, can you pause the video, please?
I live in District 5.
So, Councilmember, you have exceeded your time.
So, what I'd like to know is what others...
So, I wanted to finish, because if they can come out deep,
we can come out deep, too.
And I wanted to find out...
Excuse me. Let me finish what I'm saying.
Shut up.
Excuse me. Councilmember Houston,
order in the chamber, please.
I want to find out if any other councilmember
will see me or donate some time
So I can finish up this video. That's what I'm asking councilmember. How much time is remaining on the video
Excuse me order in the chambers will start giving people warnings on nine more minutes. You have nine more minutes. Yes, I do
how many
Excuse me, so what I'm saying is this is this
Count yeah out of order
That's your first warning
Councilmember I will give you four minutes of my time. Okay one second. There's anyone else. Does anyone else want to see time to councilmember Houston?
No
You have four minutes remaining
Council we really appreciate the efforts that you make to keep us safe
I'm Marco Maldonado. I own a property at San Antonio district here in Oakland and I support the safety cameras. Okay time
the city council member. And I.
I'm not sure what district. I'm
council member Houston do you
want to speed up the time on the
videos. No okay. All right. So
there's three minutes and 45
seconds remaining. And I want to
tell you thank you so much city
council we need more black. Hi
my name is a year to hear you I'm
a musician and working musician.
And I support the fat cameras
because actually here not to the
We need the cameras for sure.
My name is Oscar Martinez, I'm a business owner in District 5 and I support floc cameras.
Hi, my name is Maria Sanchez, I live in District 5 and I have the council members, so please
keep the floor cameras.
We really need the residents and merchants because it's a lot of violence and the proof
of district.
I love Oakland, and I love your support, please, thank you.
need more flock safety cameras. The City of Oakland has a man power problem and any kind
of technology that can leverage the man power, the limited lamp man power we have to help
protect and serve the citizens of Oakland, we need more of that. So I support it 100%.
Hello, my name is Sylvia Fortenberry and I am a lifelong resident of Oakland currently
living in District 6. I am a strong supporter of adding additional flock cameras, as I believe
they will help to keep our neighborhoods safer and more secure. I would also like to thank
the City Council members for their hard work, their dedication and their commitment to protecting
Oakland. Thank you.
Hello, I am Alex Cox with oaklove.org.
We're 17 years in District 5 representing the Fruitvale community.
Wanted to say that we want FLOC cameras and thank you City Council for keeping our safety front of mind.
Hello City Council, this is Glenda Arevalo here sending you a message.
We live in District 3 and I am for the camera, security cameras, to be installed in Oakland.
Thank you.
Hi, this is Bob.
I live in District 6 of Oakland, California, and I very much support keeping the flock
cameras in place.
We have one at 55th and International, and I know that troubled people pass by there
and need to be looked at later.
So thank you, Kevin Jenkins, for your support of safety in our neighborhood.
Hi, I'm Oakland resident. I'm in front of my house. I've been here since 2000. Ever
since then, Oakland had gotten very dangerous and unsafe. So I would like the city council
to vote on Flock's off camera, safety camera for Oakland, please, thank you.
I am a District 1 resident in favor of Flock cameras, City Council, please, please add
more.
Thank you.
Hi, I support Flock safety cameras because I'm a small business owner in Oakland, and
I believe it really helps small businesses.
My name is Pablo Martinez, and I support Flock cameras and they are single.
Hi, I'm Rachel.
through the chair thank you president for giving me that so let me share this
eighty three percent of Oakland water in the chamber order in the chamber what
it is you're out of order councilmember Houston you got 30 more seconds please
proceed what I was saying was thank you president once again is that the truth
is the truth you have two-thirds you heard it I have 239 more individuals
that have said this and the city of Oakland wants to safety they won't block
cameras and that's it let's take a vote on it thank you councilmember Houston
councilmember five okay okay any other council councilmember guy oh yes yes
there's some amendments that were introduced for the council and I'd like
to hear from councilmember Wang to present her her recommendations as I am
I'm ready to support it.
Council Member Wong.
All right, you have some amendments.
Yes, thank you.
First of all, I just wanna say that much has been said
about the fear that these cameras would be used as a tool
for ICE to deport our immigrant communities.
And I wanna be very clear, as someone from an immigrant
family who has spent my career fighting for immigrants,
that a vote for this system is not a vote to support ICE,
especially if we amend the proposal for us
with additional safeguards.
Furthermore, I'm voting for this proposal
because the immigrant communities I represent
want these cameras.
Immigrants in Oakland are asking for safety,
not just from deportation, but from violence and crime.
Lunar New Year is around the corner,
and this is supposed to be a time of celebration
and revitalization, and yet Chinatown and Little Saigon
are bracing for the seasonal increase of crime
that comes with this holiday.
This community, my community,
is fearing the worst should be fail to pass this today
and lose access to our network of cameras,
of 290 cameras by January 1st.
A large share of immigrants,
especially undocumented immigrants,
work in small businesses, restaurants, and constructions.
The very sector is being hit hardest by crime right now.
Restaurants are being robbed repeatedly,
pools are being stolen from construction sites,
stores close early because it's unsafe,
And through all of that, workers are losing their jobs.
For undocumented workers, there is no safety net.
Losing a job means not being able to pay rent or feed
a family, not to mention the trauma of being repeatedly
subject to crime.
And after doing a ride along with our ICE operations unit,
it is crystal clear.
This technology is needed to combat human trafficking,
especially to hold traffickers who
are perpetuating commercial sex exploitation
our minors in district two. And finally this technology is critical for
recovering stolen vehicles. Our vehicle death rate is five times the national
average and for any resident losing a car is devastating. But for working-class
low-income Oaklanders who likely lack the comprehensive insurance coverage
that pays for such a loss, needing to pay for a replacement car is an enormous
financial setback. So none of this means ignoring civil liberties, it means quite
I have to make sure that
they're on the right the opposite
opposite with that I've worked
on a set of amendments I also
want to thank council member
younger for his partnership on
this.
I and I will go ahead and
some of it is the public have
access to this.
They do not yeah I can read
read them order in the chamber.
Okay thank you never mind
they're on the desk if you'd
like to get a call so the
Beginning with the section on further resolved. I don't know if I have to read this whole thing just to save time
But this please so read the changes that you're going to do. Okay, just the changes. Yes
so under the section that
discusses the city administrative
Administrator being authorized to enter into that contract at the end of that clause. This is going to add and
The city administrator shall include the following provisions to the contract with flock safety
First Flock shall not ever enable a national lookup feature capability for the city to access or be enabled by any law enforcement
entity
Flock will not reintroduce this option to the software will not allow a toggle on switch to be
For this to be reintroduced to the software available in California and will maintain the hard code removal of the national lookup feature
Flock will not enable the sharing or accessing of data across state lines and
providing for liquidated damages in the event the contractor causes unauthorized sharing
of data, up to $200,000, measured by the cost of unauthorized sharing of data and estimated
costs per records affected and based on the IBM cost of a data breach report of 2025.
For flop to provide real-time alerts, the vendor shall automatically notify both approvers
if A, the vendor grants any new agency access, B, the vendor changes any sharing settings,
and see any unauthorized agency attempts to run a query.
5.
Flocked conduct a quarterly certification.
Each quarter, the vendor shards submit a certification signed under penalty of perjury, attesting
that no federal or out-of-state user accessed or attempted to access Oakland data.
Oakland data is not discoverable in any national or multi-state system, and, c, all access
logs delivered to the city are complete and unaltered, and b, it.
Second amendment.
resolve that Attachment A, DGOI-32-1 community safety camera system is approved with the
following additional provisions, that the CS camera data shall not be as shared with
other agencies for purposes of criminalizing reproductive or gender-affirming health care,
that CS camera data shall not be shared with local or state agencies for the purpose of
federal immigration enforcement, 3, that the CS camera system may be used for environmental
enforcement efforts to combat illegal dumping, and 4, adding a two-key approval system, barring
Exigent circumstances, no sharing relationship,
data access to grant or modification
of sharing permissions may occur
unless approved through a two key system consisting of,
A, the chief privacy officer
in the city administrator's office,
and B, the Oakland Police Department's
information technology director.
And C, in the event of an exigent circumstance,
the city administrator's chief privacy officer
will be informed 72 hours after the exigency ends
and should be reported out to the privacy commission
at the next meeting, excuse me, and be in amendment three.
This is adding a request for proposal process at the end.
So further resolve, this agreement will expire
in December, 2027.
Should the Oakland Police Department
want to continue contracting
for the services contemplated by this resolution,
it shall conduct a request for proposal process
for vendors that can provide ALPR capacity
facilitate the CS camera sharing system system sharing with Oakland Police
Department. Such new RFP process shall be conducted and a vendor selected within
the two-year timeframe of the agreement with floc and be it. Amendment four,
adding an independent compliance audit. This was how many of the data issues
were discovered in other cities. Further resolved, the City Council requests that
the city auditor conduct an independent compliance audit of the system's data
security and compliance with the data sharing protocol and to ensure that data is not being
shared with federal immigration enforcement. The independent compliance audits will take
place at month 410, 16, and 22 of the two-year contract with Flock and BEIT.
Councilmember, you've exceeded your time. How much more time do you need?
I will give you some of my time.
Okay.
How much more time do you need?
Thank you. I appreciate it. But that is, in short, the amendments they've been discussed
reviewed by city administrators often police department
Let's see. We also have the city auditor who also discussed all of this with us
Thank you councilmember
Brown and then president pro tem after that
Okay, excellent. Thank you so much
Councilmember Wong for uplifting those amendments. I think I want to start first by just really
Just super grateful for every community member that came out to speak on this item as you all know
You know for myself and members of the Public Safety Committee. This was our second time
hearing the feedback from community
And you know, I take these all of the comments very seriously
And it's clear that Oaklanders are really divided and I think that so much of this has to do with the current political
landscape
That we are in and so I I did want to dispel some some information as it relates to this this item
I think first off as many of you know prior to getting in this role
I was working at the state level and so as it relates to the license plate readers
we know that you know the state of California approved and
funded the license plate readers across the state and the city of Oakland was awarded this technology
Which was approved by the PAC and voted on the count voted on by the council unanimously
July of 2024
So that's just some background there. I think also in addition
You know as a member of the rules and legislation committee a scheduling body
I think that on many occasions there are items that come before us that actually require the input of all of the council members
And so as the at-large council member representing the entire city of Oakland when my colleagues come to me
I take I take that very seriously. And so here we are today
And so on that note
You know, I took the opportunity to really deep dive and educate myself on
policy both regionally and across the state of California where you where you
have actually many cities regionally that are actually re approving this
policy these policies here in the state of California and so I reviewed the
the policies and the contracts across the state of California our neighbors
San Francisco as well as a jurisdiction in Southern California that is actually
currently being sued by the Attorney General's office and so on that note and
then comparing the policy as was written the city of Oakland's AOPR policy could
benefit from some amendments so if ktop can pull up the slides that I have you
know my goal is to ensure that Oakland's legislation is fully aligned with state
law as well as the essential protections that are needed in the policy and so
while I continue to share strong apprehensions I do want to minimize the
potential risks it presents this technology presents and offer some
amendments for consideration to my colleagues who plan to vote yes on this
item and the goal is to ensure that this these amendments ensure the
responsible use of this technology. And so I'll just quickly go through them.
So the first one really makes clear that, you know, the under state law, the ALPR data
sharing is prohibited under SB 34. And so in the current policy as it is written, it
does not call that out.
And so I thought it was important
that we put that there in writing,
so it prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies
from sharing, transferring, granting access to,
and otherwise making available ALPR information
to federal agencies or out-of-state law enforcement agencies
for any purpose and require agencies
to implement written policies,
but technical controls, audit mechanisms,
and contractual safeguards ensuring full compliance.
So that's the first amendment.
And then the second one calls out,
so basically in 2023 because of some of the confusion
around SB 34 and its language,
the attorney general clearly set out
what is the definition of a public agency,
and so I wanted to make sure that in the city's policy,
We have this also in writing.
And so it says, whereas the California Attorney General
2023 ALPR bulletin clarified that the term public agency
under SB34 excludes federal and out-of-state agencies
entirely and advises that that ALPR camera-derived
information may not be shared with, accessed by,
are made available to such entities directly
or indirectly, including through vendor managed platforms,
regional networks, or cross jurisdictional integrations.
And so this language basically we can avoid,
including this language basically tightens up our policy.
Similarly for item number three,
I found that other jurisdictions call attention
to the California Values Act, which is SB 54,
which basically coincides
with the City of Oakland's sanctuary policies.
So this whereas clause says the City of Oakland,
consistent with SB 54 and its own sanctuary policies,
prohibit the use of city resources,
including surveillance technology systems or data
to support federal immigration.
So also including that as a part of the policy as well.
my next amendment here has to do with vendor compliance
requirements, and so basically it's just a summary
of kind of what was stated above.
And the most important amendment here is three through five
audit logs documenting all attempts,
including denied access, quarterly compliance reporting
to the city, and immediate notification to the city
of any attempted or actual unauthorized access.
And so these safeguards are consistent with San Francisco
and other local jurisdiction policies,
and also consistent with statewide best practices.
And so then amendment number five is pretty clear.
This one has to do with city oversight
and public accountability.
And so it just basically states a robust oversight
of ALPR camera systems include detail reporting audits,
compliance mechanisms is essential
to ensuring transparency, protecting civil liberties,
maintaining public trust, and therefore such safeguards
must be embedded in both departmental policy
and contractual agreements.
And then, let's see, let's see.
So then the next one, item six,
This one focuses in on strengthening Oakland's policy
as well, it says that the city council
finds it necessary to explicitly articulate
these statutory obligations within this resolution
to ensure that the City of Oakland, its police department,
and its technology vendors operate in full compliance
with state law, which is most important.
And I think that is what we're
looking at and can in community
privacy expectations to ensure
that these protections govern the
interpretation and enforcement of
all contractual and operational
provisions and then the last two
member exceed at your time I'll
give you two minutes of my thank
you two more amendments to read
on the record thank you.
And so.
Let's see.
Amendment number seven is
changes in the city of Oakland
do have to have camera data be
shared without a state.
Jurisdictions for the purpose
of inquiry or investigation on
person seeking reproductive
health care or gender affirming
care which is consistent with
state law but then also stated
here in our own city's policy as
well and then the last
amendment here.
I'm basically is a further
resolve clause that the city of
our camera-derived information collected by the city,
its contractors, its partner agencies,
shall be shared with, accessed by,
or used by any federal or out-of-state
law enforcement agency directly or indirectly,
unless such action is required
by a federal judicial warrant or court order,
and that all city systems and vendor platforms
must be configured and operated in a manner
that technically and contractually
forces this requirement and so these amendments provide Oakland with a clearer and more detailed
ALPR policy
Focused on accountability and this is about making sure that we're doing our due diligence
To make sure that this this technology is not used in the wrong way
Thank You councilmember. So we have two amendments on the floor and no motion do either one of you guys want to make an emotion and then
Okay, so let's go to guy. Oh
Why I'm a Chandra and five you're calling on me first. Okay. I
When I appreciate the word the recommendations that are being made and in many ways
I think worse and using different words by saying the same thing and for me
I am in support of flock but I am in support clearly and
communicating with our police department that this information that is collected will be kept in Oakland not shared with federal agencies and other
governmental bodies and
but at the end of the day members of the public I grew up in East Oakland live in East Oakland and certainly we're living on
a different day and
we do need
additional support because when I look at my
police department we're down five hundred officers
and certainly we need cameras on our street like we used to have
was growing up in Oakland I knew
that if there was a red light or a yellow light I better slow down and stop
and secondly I clearly knew what the speed limits were
because when I met with AC Transit
this past week
They gave me the numbers on International Boulevard.
How many people have been hit by autos?
How many people have been killed in our streets?
And I was surprised to see the numbers and hear that.
So we do need additional support
because at one time we had cameras
on just about every intersection.
The cameras are still there, but we turned them off.
And we turned them off.
Well, guess who's getting a lot of the tickets?
We turned them off and therefore,
you know, our activity on the streets grew,
but when I drive over to Alameda,
at every entrance to Alameda,
where there's the tube or the bridge,
there's eight cameras welcoming me to Alameda.
And eight cameras say goodbye to me from Alameda,
and therefore, I go over the bridge,
oh, hell, you can go to open 90 miles an hour
if you want to, and do what you choose to,
because, you know, and then I'll leave you with this last one.
For me to graduate from our schools in Oakland,
at one time, you have to have a driver education class
to graduate so you would understand the laws and the rules
on how to get a driver's license,
and not be out there creative, running all over our streets.
And that's what I see on a daily basis.
And so I'm going to support the flock camera operations
here in Oakland.
And secondly, I mean, I agree with both of your amendments
that you have made, and I'm ready to support that.
I would make a motion.
So to clarify your motion, you're making a motion
with the amendments from council member Wong
and council member Brown?
Yes.
Okay.
Council member, oh, five years before Ramachandra?
No.
Okay.
Not all at once.
There we go.
Thank you.
think this is a really, it's really important to set the fact for all sides
of this argument that these cameras alone are not going to keep us safe and I
am really proud to be part of the council that's investing a historic
amount in a whole lot of other things that complements other aspects of public
safety including technology like more money than we ever have put in as a city
into our community safety ambassador programs doing really serious advocacy pushes at the
state and federal level for more money for ceasefire and other things.
And I think this is one of many steps that we're all taking proactively to make this
city safer.
And I know that's a common goal of everyone on this dais, something that we share.
I am skeptical of all tech companies.
Last year, I was the sole council member to vote no on the ShotSpotter contract.
I really dig deep into thinking, is this technology something I want to support or not?
Does it make financial sense?
Will we get a net positive value out of it?
I can't definitively say Flock is, you know, I know there were some graphs presented that
I have some concerns with. But I think with barely 500 officers on the ground, there are
tools we do need to take advantage, especially because every other city in the Bay Area is
doing it. Oakland will be a glaring gap. Every one of our neighbors, Berkeley, Emeryville,
San Leandro, Alameda, Hayward, San Francisco, Daly City, Concord, Walnut Creek, Fremont,
the list goes on, we will be the only gap. But also, I think the most important thing
to note is there are so many flock cameras that the city does not have any control over
that are privately owned. There are a number of homeowners associations in my district
who have bought into this system. There are a number of business improvement districts
that have bought into this system and similar systems. And so whether we like it or not,
the surveillance is already everywhere. And I don't like it. But it is not something that
This city alone has the power to do,
especially since every city around us
in the entirety of the Bay Area
has the same technologies.
But you know what they don't have?
The number of safeguards that we're putting in,
especially with these amendments.
The fact that we have confirmation from OPD,
and I've really dug into this,
because like I said, I'm skeptical of all tech companies.
the fact that we have changed our flock system
from having, from being able to search any terms
to a drop down list of things you can pick out to search
that does not include CBP or ICE.
I think that's something that, frankly, all cities
that half flock should adopt.
But it is one of the many ways that we are serious
about our safeguards.
And I'm speaking for myself,
but I'm pretty sure the rest of this council
feels the same way.
if there is the slightest indication
that this policy is being violated
and used to harm our most vulnerable communities,
we'll cancel the contract.
This is a two year experiment.
Order in the chamber.
We've had these cameras for two years already.
And what we need to do is be able to continue this
while we have it and see if these additional safeguards
lead to both increased efficacy as well as
not having incidents and i know that
this coupled with the many other
non-opd related public safety efforts that we are taking are gonna help in
conjunction
make our city safer and i know not everyone shares that opinion of mine
i think that
i know that everyone on this council
wants to make build a safer city and this is one tool that i think will help
us get there and i say this
having originally been a skeptic of any of these companies.
So I'm happy to support the amendments.
Is that a second or you will let one of the,
was there a second?
So Houston for the second, Council Member Houston,
I'm gonna go to Council Member Unger Wong,
and then I'll come back to you and fight for you.
Thank you.
So you know, before I start, I just wanna acknowledge
that this is an incredibly fraught topic
and that tensions and words on both sides
have been running high.
But I have spoken with hundreds, thousands of people.
I know my colleagues have too.
And all I've seen are people who are genuinely
coming from a place of concern for their neighbors,
people who are motivated by wanting their family
and other families to be safe.
And I think we have a chance to have a real
and valuable discussion about the merits of the issue.
And this is a chance for us to extend
the presumption of goodwill and fair debate
to people who we don't agree with.
I'm not under any illusions that Flock
is a perfect company and I would never
claim that we can forestall or prevent
every potential negative thing that might happen
in the future, but it's also true
that I can't guarantee that there will be no
negative sequelae if we remove the cameras
and announce to the world that we are no longer using them.
And that's why I think our goal here
is to do the best we can.
We're not aiming for perfection.
We're not aiming for papal infallibility.
And I think that's why the road forward here, by my lights,
is to add as many amendments as we
can to embed safeguards and guardrails into the contract.
And I am very heartened by the volume of amendments here
and the type of amendments here.
Councilmember Wong and I worked together on these.
And Councilmember Brown has a suite
of really excellent amendments.
and with these amendments we are limiting the reach
of the program, limiting the use of the program,
limiting the people and entities and the ways
that they can access the program.
We are clarifying the need and the timeline for an RFP
and implementing penalties against the company for misuse.
And so I also wanna clarify what this program is not.
This is not Orwellian facial recognition technology
that is prohibited in Oakland.
This is not a program that reads our email
or listens into our bedrooms.
This is a camera that photographs license plate,
the sole purpose of which is to connect people
to their vehicles.
I personally don't feel that my license plate
is a piece of closely guarded technology,
but I understand that other people may differ
and I respect that opinion.
Crime has been reducing over the past two years
and we should all agree that's a good thing.
I don't think we can pin crime reduction on any one factor.
I think it's a testament to the work
of our police department to the Department of Violence Prevention to cease fire to the
end of the pandemic and it also coincides with our city's usage of license plate reader
technology and I don't think we can credit any one of those things but neither can we
definitively eliminate any of them and I think that we should all agree that we can celebrate
this reduction in crime and you know again with these amendments that that the three
of us have proposed will this program be perfect no it won't but will we have the strongest
safeguards of any city in the bay area using cameras we will. I think if this was a slam
dunk decision we wouldn't be having this kind of bait. You know anyone looking for surety
certainty definitive black and white answers is going to be disappointed here. But our
job as council members unfortunately is to make the least bad decisions we can with the
incomplete foresight into the future that we have. And I want to thank everyone who
who has taken the time to talk to me.
I think that obviously I don't agree
with everyone that I've talked to,
but I do think that that engagement
and those conversations have really helped
inform me to develop these amendments
and make this program better.
So I thank everyone who's been involved
and I really think we need to double down
on that presumption of goodwill amongst our neighbors.
We're all looking for the same thing.
We're all looking for safety and security
for all of Oakland.
Thank you.
So before I go to council members that haven't spoke,
the city of Toronto. And I'm a.
Which is the ca- cause of why so many cities have relinquished their relationships or amended their relationship with this vendor.
And I want to be clear because there are some of my colleagues that are going to other elected officials saying that Councilmember Fife is anti-technology.
Which is ridiculous. I'm anti-flock. I'm anti-Trump. I'm anti-Peter Thiel. I'm anti a surveillance state.
And if we can do our due diligence by having a vendor which has not been clearly identified
why there was not a procurement process for this particular contract, then I don't know
what we're doing here.
I don't know how we get up and have several press conferences talking about how we are
supportive of a sanctuary city status, but then use a vendor that has been shown to have
a direct relationship with border control.
It doesn't make sense to me because we can ask for another vendor.
So I want to ask OPD, our lieutenant, to come back up and just clarify something that I
am not understanding, which is where we are in the MOU.
If we have Lieutenant – I said I was not going to mess up your name, and I am.
I apologize.
Lieutenant Gabriel.
Can you tell us, I read that this contract expires at the end of December, I believe,
through the chair?
Technically, the contract expired, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Beckman, that
it would have expired in July of 2025 based on when we started the contract.
We were in the process of trying to get this contract through since at least April, and
that's been held up as we've gone through the process.
the actual termination of the service was going to be January 1st if we did not have resolution.
So when did the contract start and who was the contract with?
Sorry, I'd like to make a correction on Dr. Beckman.
So we went through this with the Privacy Commission in 2024 and we went through this body as well
and we executed a series of two MOUs.
One was between us and CHP and the other was between us and floc.
The MOU between us and CHP was for the term of overall three years.
However, in that MOU, we were made an agent of the contract between floc and CHP.
They had that agreement done before we signed our agreement, our MOU, with CHP.
So I believe it was March 29th of 2024 that CHP had signed their contract with Flock.
That summer, in July, I believe, we executed the agreements between us and CHP and then
us and Flock.
So that contract between CHP and floc expired in March of this year.
We have been attempting to go through all of the bodies to be able to have our own contract
because that was always the agreement that CHP would allow that contract to be for one
year and then the city of Oakland would be contingent upon us to continue and execute
our own contract with floc.
I'm going to ask you to clarify a few things, because you said there was a contract between
City of Oakland, OPD and CHP, as one contract, one MOU.
There was one MOU, yes, ma'am.
And then there was another MOU between OPD and Flock.
Yes, so that MOU is what allowed us to be an agent of the CHP Flock contract, ma'am.
How long was that MOU that allowed us to be the agent?
That MOU should have been for one year.
So it would have been from March to March, essentially, through March of this year.
But the other one between us and CHP was three years?
Yes, ma'am.
So which...
Well, the contract, so the contract that made us the agent was for one year, because that's
how long the contract length was.
But the MOU that was approved between us and CHP, which allowed data sharing and a few
other things, was approved for three years.
I would like to know.
And so that would end in twenty
twenty seven.
Yes ma'am it would be the summer of twenty
twenty seven.
So which one are we extending we're extending the actual
contract that was for one year from March to March.
But we're not we're not carrying on with the exact
same language I mean there are several amendments.
That is correct because we have not executed a contract since
then we're going through that process and these amendments
And why one is effective and the other is not why we are not under the same 2027 end
of contract for that particular MOU.
I can only report to you what they are.
This went through legal.
This went through all of the bodies.
But that is how this particular contract was executed.
We were given one year of the contract with CHP and that ended in March of this year.
But we also have three years with CHP.
We have an MOU to do data sharing for up to three years, but it does not include the
contractual piece.
Understood.
Thank you.
Thank you for that.
Of course.
My concern is that we are not acknowledging the role of the Privacy Advisory Commission
and all of the other data that has come forward
around the ease of hacking for this vendor.
I've seen countless YouTube videos about how to do it.
I just haven't had the courage to get up there
and try it myself.
But if what they're saying is true,
then we should be concerned.
And I'm also not clear how we know that Flock
is the best provider if there hasn't been procurement.
How do we know that there is not another provider
that could, that is more reputable, that would not share information with, um, with border
patrol or any other federal agencies.
Because I'm, my concern is not the strength of Oakland's policies and all of the amendments
that we're putting in, my concern is the fallibility of the vendor, right?
And how do we safeguard against them, especially when there's language in, in the legislation
around us being compelled to share information, especially under this federal government,
that we can be compelled to give information regardless of how strong our legislation is.
And I need someone to answer that for me.
Why can't we choose another vendor?
We could choose another vendor.
However, in the time that it would take us to execute that contract, we would lose the
capability of utilizing Flock.
if we do not need an approval
if we do not start working on an
agreement like if we do not
receive approval tonight we will
lose access to those cameras as
of January 1st.
Okay.
So councilmember your time is up
but I will yeah.
No, no, no.
As many as you need.
Two minutes.
Sure.
So can we accept this contract
tonight?
Well, since folks are adding
amendments, if we have to so we
year contract to one year while we go forward with an RFP
process to find a vendor that has a better track record than
block through the chair of May I ask that that be extended to
eighteen months because of the length of the procurement
process that it takes. Yes absolutely. If that would allow
us to do a procurement. So to the motioner and the second
or is that a friendly amendment council member five. Yes okay
Councilman
Opie-d first so I think originally we were looking
On behalf of the Oakland Police Department
We would prefer the contract to be for the full two years in order to go through the RFP process and come back
And again, I think that looking at other vendors is a serious endeavor and we need to get it, right?
And I don't want to rush back into this process. I
I feel like that's fine.
I hope that two years is not rushing.
I hope that 18 months or even 12 months
wouldn't be rushing into a process.
I understand the importance of moving
towards greater public safety, and I
want to make sure that our most vulnerable populations are
protected as well, because we're not even a year
into this Trump administration, where they have said
that they're going to detain and deport 3,000 people
per month.
And so they've not even gotten started yet with the increase to the budget that Homeland
Security has.
So it's not a matter of if, it's when.
We've seen the ramp up of this aggression.
We just saw it in my district.
And so I want to protect all populations.
I support technology.
But I do not want to conflate floc with all technology.
And that's what we're doing here right now.
And I also want to point out, because there were statements
made about violence and people not being able to speak,
there was a public speaker, a man here,
that is using Trump language and white supremacist language
yelling at me while I'm dealing with another situation over
in the corner that was of urgency with my staff saying,
America First, which is a white supremacist tag line,
it's a dog whistle, that we need to be paying attention to
and extremely aggressive in his language.
We need, we have to understand what we're doing here.
So I know people think that it's trying to like say
that this is not something that's a reality,
but we are, we just saw a whole 20,000 minute video
that was produced by the recall right.
And then we're wondering about how, why there's no trust
is because, I apologize, council president.
I want to be clear that there are other agencies that are
advocating behind these amendments that are not in the
room and we've heard from thousands and thousands of
residents about why this is not the right vendor for Oakland.
I am offering my friendly amendment council member to
bridge you and OPD is it possible that we can say 18 to
24 months if they can do it as fast as 18 can I can I don't
we're going to we're going to
take a look at.
At twenty four months.
If they can do it as fast as
eighteen can I would also wane
here council president since
amendment three in the packet
does have the request for
proposal so I actually had a
discussion with OPD yesterday
about a one and a half year
timeline as well but we had
discussed that it's important
to vet this thoroughly and
especially with the involvement
with the P. A. C. that may
extend the timeline further and
So to council member five with 18 to 24 months with us,
asking the city administrator and OPD to at all costs,
take precautions while expedite in this process,
would that be okay for a friendly amendment from you?
18 months is the, I think the highest that I would,
first for me, Flock is a non-starter.
I just want to be clear, it's a non-starter,
But I understand that you all are, you know,
you have your constituents to speak to,
and 24 months is the same as two years,
so I don't understand how that's a change.
Well, I guess what I'm offering with the friendly amendment
is hoping that OPD can get there in 18 months,
but if they get in there in 19, 20 months,
that would be something, but if you're firm
on your 18 months, I'm completely fine with that.
To the motioner in the second,
Are you guys okay with that friendly amendment?
Yeah, I'm fine with that.
And I also wanted to offer that the way
that we can also combine Councilmember Brown's
amendments and mine's, Councilmember Brown's
amendments are mostly for the whereas clauses,
whereas mine are mostly further resolved.
I think the only amendment where we have a conflict
is your amendment seven and Councilmember Unger's
and mine, excuse me, mine, our amendment two.
I would suggest that our amendment to.
Oh, can we hope that can we hope that let's get to council member Rama Chandra and then
we'll come back to merging amendments.
Thank you.
I was just going to support the 18 months.
And also just a reminder that we didn't pick flock in the first place.
The state gave us the cameras and flock was the vendor of choice.
I'm 100% open to looking at others and just seconding.
I think everyone's in agreement 18 months makes sense.
go to councilmember Houston then
we'll go to the merging of the
minutes.
Yes so through the chair we
were the motion.
Guy I was a motioner and I was
the second.
Oh my apologies I thought I was.
No I'm sorry no I'm just I'm
just sharing that because I like
to know how will eighteen months
affect.
Chief Tedesco not what we think
how will it affect you.
I'm in that kind of way.
I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not
I mean, what will it do, what's the positive and negative of that Chief, should I say Chief?
I shouldn't say Chief Tedesco.
Through the Chair, Deputy Chief Anthony Tedesco.
This process, as experienced over the last 18 months, with going through the Privacy
Advisory Commission and coming back and really doing the work to seek out other vendors in
the space especially considering that it would be a departure from what as was stated earlier
nearly all of the other Bay Area cities have adopted it's something that is going to take
us time to get right. And it is not something that the police department wants to rush into.
I do think that process will legitimately take 18 to 24 months to complete.
have to remember that we are
going to do this.
And so through the chair as the
the second or.
Deputy chief had said something
very important it's so so did
council member to not he said
every other city every got to
keep remember that every he
thinks every other city is
doing this.
We want to be in unison with
every other city almost like we
do with the E. A. P. we want to
be in unison.
I have to say that none of the
the police are okay with it but
I don't want when I as the as
the second I do not want to
rush them.
To do their job the right way
so if we can say eighteen to
twenty four months because it
was we were saying twenty four
months right so it's between
their I'll roll with that.
Eighteen to twenty four months.
All right, stop.
Please Dean, please stop.
So how about we go 18 months?
If OPD cannot, cannot meet that requirement,
they should come back to public safety.
Let's just say between 18 to 24 months.
They're going to do the best.
Why would we want to force them to do something
in an untimely manner?
It doesn't even make sense.
They're the ones that's going to do it.
So the resolution approves the contract for two years, right?
So we're not going to be able to parse it.
It's going to be 18, or it's going to be 24 months.
So let's just, oh, it's going to be 18 or?
18 or?
Let's do 24.
We just, yeah, let's just do it.
Yeah.
OK, so.
And you're just right.
Let's just do it like this.
OK.
All right, I hear you.
One second.
One second President Pro Tem, what we could do is a straw poll?
Yeah I know, what we could do is a straw poll, right, and then, yeah, so let's do a straw
poll.
Okay, so there's a motion and a second.
As it is, as it was.
We're 24 months, okay, and there's a friendly amendment.
Did you accept the friendly amendment?
The two friendly amendments, yeah.
No, no, no, so accepting the friendly amendment would mean that you're accepting the 18 months
as opposed to the 24 months.
No, no, we want the 24 months.
So we'll take a vote, we'll take a vote on this.
Yeah.
All right, Council Member Brown.
I believe Council Member Wong wanted to talk about
amendment seven and then her amendment two.
And I think maybe the best call is to,
as we are voting on this,
perhaps maybe I remove my amendment seven
and we just, since it is the same as her amendment two,
section two.
We're basically saying the same thing, right?
Her mic.
Can someone turn her mic on?
Okay.
So, yeah, just our amendment two and your amendment seven
are to the exact, speak to the exact same thing.
I think given that our amendment two,
if you're okay with this, Council Member Brown,
says it includes the two key approval system,
that it be the version that gets adopted
and we exclude your amendment seven.
Makes sense, yeah.
You're okay with that?
Yeah.
Okay, fantastic.
Okay, council member Ramachandra.
Yeah, okay, so how many are in support of 18 months?
We're trying to see how many of the council members
are in support of 18 months as opposed to 24 months.
So there's one, two, there's two.
Okay, a straw poll for 18 versus 24 months, as written.
So you want to ask right there.
So it seems like there's more support for as written.
It's called a straw ball.
It's in the brown.
It's called a straw ball.
So now, if there is no more debate to the motionary and the second, do you accept the
amendments from council member Brown and Wong?
Yeah.
Okay.
All right.
Let's go to a vote.
Oh, one more.
Clarifying question.
Do you, when, when they collect, when OPD gets through the chair to OPD, when you get
the information from the flock cameras, do humans have to review it? Like investigators?
I'm trying to understand the question, sorry. So we have cameras that detect information.
What happens with that information in the case of investigating a crime? Yes, if there
is a license plate that's known, you conduct a search using the license plate information,
it would pull up the information in that vehicle and yes, that would be reviewed by a human.
we're not making investigative decisions based on AI. So do we have more
investigators to have more human eyes on this data? We we do review it so if it's
say it's related to a robbery investigation it would be the
investigator that's looking at it but we also or investigators in ceasefire using
this technology they're also reviewing it. My question is don't we need more
investigators to review the data? Or because if we have an uptick with, you
know, the expansion of this contract, don't we need more people to then get
more data to review? Through the chair, better, more accurate information
enables fewer investigators to solve more cases. So we don't need more
investigators? The Oakland Police Department, as I have stated previously,
does need more investigators but that does not mean that if they have less
information that they will be better off. Better, more accurate, more timely
information means that they will have the opportunity to solve more cases. Okay
I will be looking for that correlation between more solved cases in the future
So that we can actually have a correlation between what we're doing and what we're contracting for. So that's all. Because it seems like we need more investigators to address these issues. But data will show. Thank you.
Okay. Brown, the Ramachandran, then with Guy Oda, it's time for a vote.
Okay, and so we did we just did quickly consult it with the city attorney's office
And so my amendment 7 and councilmember Wong's amendment 2 are not in conflict
So we would be voting on these items exactly as is
as amended
Okay, councilman Ramachandran last comment before we vote
Well, I'd like to propose a friendly amendment to make it 18 to 20 form
Sorry 18 to 20 months if that is of interest to my colleagues and if to the parliament area
Through the chair to the council what's before you as a resolution that authorizes a two-year contract
so I we
If the maker of the friendly amendment could clarify
What would be 18 to 20?
There's a contract there's a state certain for the contract term a certain term length. So
Well, I will then my friendly amendment would be again to then make it 18 months with the opportunity to go month-to-month up to two
years
That's that's how that
councilmember Guile councilmember Houston
Do you accept the motion?
Okay
Madam clerk
On item 9 moved by councilmember. Excuse me pro tem guile second by councilmember Houston
To approve item nine with the Wong and Brown amendments
Which includes both section seven and two at this point councilmember Brown
Councilmember five flock no
Councilmember Gallo. Aye
Just a reminder you don't have to get in the queue. Otherwise, it's gonna make it difficult for me to call on you
Councilmember Houston. Aye
Councilmember Ramachandran. Aye
Councilmember Unger. Aye
Councilmember Wong. Aye
And Chair Jenkins. Aye. Motion passes with a vote of seven ayes. I'll entertain a motion to it
I'm sorry in one no councilmember five. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn into a 10-minute break
10 minute break
No one wants a break
Moving to item six point one
if you can exit the chambers quietly I
Need a motion to open the public hearing. I'm gonna send a motion to open a public hearing
under and Brown
On the motion to open the public hearing moved by councilmember Unger second by councilmember Brown
councilmember Brown
Hi councilmember five. Hi councilmember Gaia. Hi councilmember
Houston
Councilmember Ramachandran councilmember Unger. I
Councilmember Wong. I chair Jenkins. I public hearing is open with a vote of eight ayes. I will read the item into record
conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopted resolution finding Matthew Bernard and Lynn Warner owners of
record of assessor parcel number four eight eight seven six seven two dash eighteen in violation of Oklahoma municipal code chapter
36
Protected trees by illegally removing 38 protected trees at said parcel and imposing a penalty
Per chapter twelve point thirty six point one five zero of the open municipal code of a total sum of nine hundred and fifteen dollars
one hundred and thirty five dollars and forty I'm sorry nine hundred and fifteen thousand dollars one hundred and thirty five dollars and forty cents
To place on hold any building permits in place and lien for said property until the penalty is paid in full
you have three speakers on this item please allow this speaker five minutes
please the presenter will five minutes suffice for your presentation will five
minutes suffice for your presentation okay all right please proceed good
evening council I'm Todd Lawson a bore cultural inspector for public Oakland
Public Works parks and trees services I'm a certified arborist with the
the International Society of Abora Culture
for the past 22 years.
I am tree risk assessment qualified.
From February 2021 to May 2022,
property owner of parcel 48H-7672-18
on Claremont Avenue, Matthew Bernard
illegally removed 38 trees.
The trees were on his property and neighboring property.
On multiple documented occasions,
Mr. Bernard was informed that an approved tree removal
permit was required in the city of Oakland
to remove protected trees.
This information was passed to him by mail, email,
and in person by tree spas, OPD,
and adjacent property owners.
Tree Saf said, Mr. Bernard,
an illegal tree removal letter on March 25th, 2021,
this letter informed him that a fine
for the value of the trees may be assessed
and all development related permits will be put on hold.
At that time, 23 trees had been removed from the property.
This letter is attachment two.
On June 4th, 2021, Mr. Bernard applied
for a tree removal permit waiver.
Trees staff set up a site meeting
and inspection for 1 p.m. on June 7th, 2021.
Mr. Bernard canceled the site meeting and inspection
the morning of June 7th, 2021.
The permit waiver is attachment three.
Mr. Bernard contracted Julian Tree Care Incorporated
to be an applicant for a non-development
tree removal permit on June 5th, excuse me,
June 25th, 2021.
The permit was denied on August 10th, 2021
for unclear number of trees being removed,
unclear reason for removal,
improper location of trees,
and no drainage plan.
This is attachment number five.
On March 2022 to May 2022,
15 more trees were removed from the property.
There are presently no trees on this property.
The tree staff responded to this property seven times
for reports of illegal removal.
OPD responded to this property four times to five times.
Police reports are attachments six, seven and eight.
In my 34 years with the city of Oakland tree department,
this is the most egregious illegal tree removal case.
Mr. Bernard knowingly ignored the protected tree ordinance
and OPD instructions.
On my last site inspection, Mr. Bernard instructed his workers to not listen to the city guy
and they ignored my presence and cut down the last 38th tree.
The assessed value of the 38 protected trees is $909,600.
Tree staff is acting that the protected tree ordinance be upheld and
the property owner fined for the removal of the 38 protected trees.
Thank you.
And we do have some pictures to show you.
I'm Gordon Matassa, a board certified master arborist
and acting senior supervisor of the tree division.
So we just want to show you some of the parcel.
This is what the parcel looked like
before any actions were taken by Mr. Bernard.
This is the parcel of scents.
There are no trees left.
Here is the street view prior to any of tree removals,
illegal tree removals.
And here it is post tree removals.
This map is a bigger picture of what you have
your attachments showing where all the trees are color-coded based off of when
they were removed or when we notice they were moved on the inspection date. Here
is Mr. Bernard in action removing the tree illegally on the property and this
is what it looks like again another shot of what it looks like now. Thank you.
That was efficient. All right. So Mr. Bernard here. All right you have five
minutes come on up the clerk will pass them out you and mr. Bernard you can
speak from right there no no no please proceed good evening council members and
audience my name is professor Matthew Bernard originally from Nigeria and
immigrated to the United States in 20 in in 2001 I received scholarship support
and the National Science Foundation, NSF Research Grant
at University of California Berkeley,
where I completed a degree in applied mathematics
and graduate level coursework and research
in probability theory and stochastic processes.
I am the founder and Global Head of Constituive Research
at Angel Ossofft.
I'm also an adjunct professor
at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology
in the departments of higher mathematics
and theoretical physics.
and a reviewer in probability theory and stochastic processes
for ZB math, also known as zebra math.
I'm also a father and an active parishioner
at St. Dominic's Church in San Francisco,
where I serve as catechist, mass server,
mass coordinator, and usher.
I am a lay Dominican, also known as thought order Dominican,
within the order of preachers.
Today, marks one of the lowest moments of my adult life,
as I most defend myself against systemic harassment bias,
favoritism, and microaggression, including the following.
First, the notice of violence and mischaracterization.
Under the summary of the event in the notice of violence,
Mr. Isaac Harvey, the author of the notice,
mischaracterizes my conduct
by falsely claiming Matthew Bernard replied
to the tree service staff by forcefully
and abruptly telling staff in some
that this is his property, he would not engage in dialogue
or respect authority or jurisdiction of street service staff.
These are serious and damaging accusations
against my character.
I categorically deny these claims
and consider them harassment and defamation.
Secondly, delay sale claims and lack of evidence.
Why did the city of Oakland Bureau of Environment wait more
than three years to file a notice of violation based
on belief rather than contemporaneous evidence.
This delay is referenced in the final paragraph of the notice.
Attachment one lacks accurate photographic references.
Having been issued three years and two months
after the alleged incidents, the aerial map view
of alleged illegal tree removers on sheet nine of the notice used
to quantify and calculate appraised value
is merely Google Earth area photograph.
No hard markers, no verified site surveys,
no contemporaneous measurement that have been carried out
so to substantiate their claims.
Recent concerns that this are just based on memory
or assumptions rather than evidence.
I accordingly asked, where are the original reports
and photographic documentation from the three division staff
for each of the alleged 38 protected trees.
Where are the violation notices, surveys, area photographs
and citizens report of illegal tree removers
from February, 2021 through May, 2022?
The valuation and survey deficiencies.
Where are the ASI, TFT capabilities?
These are some metrics in the industry standards
to measure the value of trees.
Where are they to be used to determine
the monetary value of each tree?
Proper disclosure is necessary
to ensure the valuation is accurate
and not based on belief either.
Where are the tree or sites obvious hard mark
as from the city of Bureau of Environment
confirming that seven trees were removed
from private or city properties?
Specifically two trees on 741 Claremont Avenue,
four trees on 280 Stonewall Drive
and one tree allegedly on city property.
Why was the June 26, 2021 tree survey
by Mr. Ricardo Terrazas Jr.,
my ASA-certified arborist whom I hired,
why was this document not disclosed nor attached?
After all, I sent it to Mr. Todd.
In that survey, Mr. Ricardo, a line-certified arborist,
noted that the hillside was very steep,
that many trees lean approximately 45 degrees
towards the streets, and that the trees had poor structure.
Basically, if I wasn't listening to a survey,
I stand the chance of being held liable.
We saw that January, I think, 2023, rainfall,
2022, rainfall, that knocked off a lot of trees.
Some of those trees could have fallen on my neighbor's house,
now be liable big time I thought I request the disclosure of all paid trip
removal tree or tree permits thank you so much mr. Bernard yeah yeah okay thank
you so much mr. Bernard councilmember Ramachandran as this is in your district
I will call on you first thank you can we hear public comment before yes or is
yes sure let's go to public comment Brian Culbertson and miss Assata Ola
Bala seeing no speakers in chambers I will move to the speakers on zoom I have
raised my hand can you hear me yes go ahead it's quite confusing how the city
is able to miss us I don't go ahead and unmute yourself again and begin your
comments? Mr. Sada, please unmute yourself again and begin your comments.
Okay, can you hear me now? Yes, go ahead. Could you start the clock at one minute,
please? It's here. Thank you. It's not understandable how the city has the
capacity to identify on a person's property every tree by name, especially
when the trees, many of the trees had already been cut down. It's also this
this ordinance that you have, protected tree ordinance says that a person can be arrested
and subject to arrest based on cutting down trees. We have an ordinance that protects people,
protects trees, but we don't have anything to protect African Americans in this city.
I just don't understand how the evidence of how this employee of the city is able to identify
every tree on this man's property unless you get that beforehand many of those trees perhaps were
down before you even got there and waiting three years before you take action police being called
about trees this sounds kind of flaky. Thank you Mrs. Hutter is Mr. Culper's sent in here
Mr. Culper's sent on zoom all right that concludes public comment councilmember Ramachandra. Thank you
I have a couple of questions. This is a really big case. Usually the tree questions are
about one to four trees. And this is 38. Can I ask a couple of questions to the appellant
‑‑ sorry, the staff first and then the appellant. So just to confirm a couple of
facts really quick, this ‑‑ the alleged tree ‑‑ cutting down of 38 trees happened
between Feb 2021 and May 2022 but why was the was the notice of violation
filed in that period of time or was it only three years later and if so why the
delay is that our enforcement arm has been removed they were laid off in 2008
they are the Park Rangers. I have no one to call. Also, the process is kind of a
little bit out of date and doesn't function real well due to the layoffs
that have happened over the years. The tree department is 55% understaffed and
and we are doing multiple jobs.
So therefore, we, Kristin?
Hi, I just want to add to that,
Kristin Hathaway, Assistant Director of Public Works.
The delay was due in part to the staff
working on the process for this
and receiving various direction
on when we should file and what evidence we needed.
So there was a delay in terms of filing it
based on direction that staff received.
True if for a case this big that it wasn't addressed
in a faster period of time.
I have a couple of quick questions for the appellant.
You can come up to that.
Do you acknowledge that you did cut down 38 trees?
No, I got into the average report.
The abreast said I should cut down eight trees,
and there were only eight trees.
They were all azados, dead and dying,
and I think, I don't know if you have a copy of this thing,
of this report.
What you submitted, I do.
So the exhibit sheet, which is on page four,
it shows all the trees that were removed,
and the abreast report that I got before doing that,
by higher than harvest would take the lowest study
these trees and examine them.
Some of the noted things where like tree one has
hazardous lean in and die back.
Tree two has structural defect.
Three had lean in near a house.
Three four had dried falling debris everywhere
including the trees that was dying.
And it could fall any moment when passerby is on the street.
Three five had falling, in fact uprooted trees completely.
if you look at a picture, the tree was completely upwards
and three, six, anyway.
Is there any way to respond to some of these things?
I'm up to the chair about timing for each side,
but I mean, just to clarify,
there's a big discrepancy here.
The city says you cut down 38 trees.
You said you cut down eight trees.
If it is eight trees you cut down, did you,
Once you were informed that you were violating
the protected tree ordinance, why did you not
stop cutting the trees?
Well, this is how the operation worked.
I had the harbor's reports, and then I
applied for the tree removal permit.
And they sent me these pictures to post
on those trees, public notices.
And I did, and I basically thought I already
have the apartment.
And I went ahead and removed those eight trees.
Did you get a physical permit?
I hadn't gotten it in the mail yet,
but I had this public notice that was sent to me.
And I also paid the application fee.
But also, while this came up, they
never notified me of any violation
until I apply for a building permit.
And then the neighbor,
I wish I could speak on the neighbor's harassment also,
which is on page two.
That will help kind of put things into perspective.
So the allegations are also that you cut down trees
on your neighbor's property and city property.
Do you deny that?
I deny that, I did not at all.
Okay, and then after you apply for,
the city's also, the department's also saying
after you applied for the building permit
to actually create the home, you cut down more trees?
No, no, no, no, no, it was only these eight trees.
However, the neighbor,
I wish I could talk more about the harassment,
he was the one that kept calling cops on me
and even lied in the,
because we had a dispatch transcript from the dispatcher,
where the neighbor lied that he had a police order,
he would present to the police officer,
there's an order that says I shouldn't remove any tree.
And that wasn't true.
One more thing that the staff had said
was that they were present and told you in person
to stop cutting down the tree, but you continued to.
No, not at all.
Not at all.
I remember there was a time that I saw someone across the street,
And it was just yelling from the street.
I could not, I could just, I never thought if it was,
if this was the right way to tell me
when I'm reviewing a dangerous street that basically I'm trying
to, well, I'm all about safety and someone is yelling
out across the street, stop, stop, stop, stop.
And it just doesn't look very professional.
And I thought if it's a city official, it will send me a mail or something like that.
You never got anything in the mail saying that you're in violation of the tree ordinance?
That was much later, that was much later.
And at that time, the tree was already down removed.
To the staff really quickly, there's a really big discrepancy between eight trees and 38
and being told that he had permits when he didn't.
Can you respond to clarifying any of this?
Yes.
The first time I responded,
he had already cut down 23 trees
and he has removed the evidence also.
Then during as I-
Sorry, could you clarify what is removing the evidence?
I mean, like how do you know-
He removed all the trees from the property.
And how do you know 23 trees were cut?
There are stumps on site that you can see.
And the arborist report he is speaking of
was submitted when he had the contractor apply
for a tree removal permit, non-development tree-related
permit.
And that is the permit that was denied
for all the insufficient irregularities.
And when I asked for the proper information,
all of that never materialized.
And so with the timeline that I had,
I had to deny the permit
because none of the questions were being asked.
And in one particular tree,
the best I could figure
is that it was a shared property owner tree
and I cannot give a permit for a tree
that is partially on somebody else's property.
And I would need either written permission
from that property, the adjacent property owner,
or I would need a professional survey with a wet seal
that states that that tree is 100% on his property.
That was never provided.
When you strip a hillside of all vegetation,
you're supposed to, the ordinance says
you need a drainage plan.
that was not provided.
He was wanting, the permit was for three trees,
but the arborist report was for eight trees.
I didn't know what three of the eight trees
he was wanting to remove.
And then when you showed up on site,
there was about eight to 10 trees.
Which one or which three was he wanting to remove?
That information wasn't shared also.
So for those reasons, I had to deny the permit.
And when was that permit requested?
That was the March 25, 2021.
One second.
And then was the, excuse me.
One second.
OK, so she'll go and then I'll ask the parliamentarian
your question, President Protto.
Thank you.
One last question.
To the applicant, would you be opening?
Clearly, there's a lot of discrepancies
and what's going on and would you be opening,
open to continuing the matter to see if you can
hash things out a little more and then come to us
in February of 2026?
Could you explain more what that entails?
If you can come to an agreement on some of the facts
and penalties outside of this body.
You're out of order.
Your honor, we submitted the drainage
and I'm open to maybe, we also submitted landscaping plan
to help with the vegetation on the hillside.
My architect is here and I wish I could also speak
more on the harassment, on the intersection
between the neighbor and him.
The neighbor was really angry that those dangerous trees
were.
So council member this is absolutely riveting.
can we heat can we get to something we have a lot more
items.
One second let's respect the council member of the district.
Council member while you're having a sidebar I will let
I'll let Councilmember Houston go.
We talking about this in closed session.
To the parliament area.
And and and did they make a police report.
To the parliament area.
The Oakland Municipal Code allows for an appeal hearing before the City Council so that's why this is here before you today
Okay, so do the chair when I did did they make a police report?
To the staff was there a police report made a police report? Yes, there's four police reports
I believe three are attached to the documents that were given to you and I believe they came other times
Contacted by adjacent property owners
I would like to say too that I had a conversation
With mr. Bernard with two officers present in the street and told him directly
exactly what he needed to do and
This was in the beginning process
All right
Councilmember Brown. Nope. No tree talk for you
Councilmember what are we doing? I?
Will motion to continue this until the first council meeting in February. We got to hear this again
motion is seconded to close the
public hearing on the motion.
All right, I'll second that.
Mr. I hear you.
All right, so there's a motion
and a second.
This will be continued to
February 1st meeting for
council.
February 3rd.
And so this, the motion is to
continue and to close public
hearing.
Is that correct?
Yes.
All right.
to continue this item to February third. Councilmember Brown? Aye. Councilmember Fife is excused.
Councilmember Gallo? Aye. Councilmember Houston? Aye. Councilmember Ramachandran?
I apologize. I've gotten some more sage guidance. Can I change my motion to continuing the item
to February 3rd but keeping the public hearing open so that public can weigh in
as there were not other as there might be others who want to weigh in on this
so there were there was already public comment but keeping the hearing open I
believe will let us continue to at the February meeting take more calm but I
defer to the parliamentarian if that is not the case through the chair I think
I think you can close the public hearing
if you want to eliminate any further public discussion on it
or you can continue this item and keep it opened.
Okay, so your wish is to allow for more public comments
so I will accept your friendly amendment
to continue to the first meeting in February,
not closing the public hearing
so that we can hear more public comments.
the public hearing open. And to
Councilmember
Councilmember Wong and chair Jenkins our motion passes with a vote of seven eyes one excuse five
This item will be continued to February 3rd
going to item six point two
conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopts a resolution confirming the report and notice of liens for delinquent
rural property transfer taxes with penalties interest and administrative and assessment charges and
over ruling any protests and objections related to the liens included in said report and author authorizing the
Recordation of liens and directing the notice of lien and assessment charges be turned over to the county tax collector
I'm sorry. I need a motion to open the public hearing
guy over
There was a motion by council member guy was second by council member Brown to open this public hearing
Councilmember Brown I
Councilmember five is excused
seven ayes one excuse five.
Councilmember guy oh I also
member Houston I also remember
Ramachandran I also remember
hunger I also remember Wong I
share Jenkins I motion passes
with a vote of seven eyes one
excuse five.
And I've already read the item to
the presenter or five minutes
to.
Yeah three question okay.
Good afternoon council members
department. This report presents a list of properties for which the ownership changed
but the corresponding transfer tax was not recorded. This is the first of two public
hearings relating to real property transfer tax that we will be bringing forward in this
fiscal year. Today's public hearing follows prior administrative hearings in which property
owners were offered an opportunity to dispute and resolve their case. Today we are requesting
your authorization to place a lien on 32 properties, totaling approximately $314,000 to be included
in the county's in Alameda County's fiscal year 2025-26 property tax roll.
Some of the cases may continue to be resolved prior to the placement of the liens and therefore
certain properties may be removed from the list prior to submission to the county.
We have staff available in Hero Room 2 today to help any property owners looking to resolve
So there's a lot of work to be done.
I'm happy to answer any questions that may come up.
Thank you for that.
Let's go to a public comment.
As I call your name, please approach the podium in any order.
Please state your name for the record before beginning.
If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand
so I can easily identify you.
Derek Barnes, Mrs. Asada, Ola Bala.
Do not see Mr. Barnes in the chamber moving
to the Zoom speakers.
Mrs. Asada, please unmute yourself
and begin your comments.
Yes, I have to say quickly that tree permits have been in the hands of your Park and Advisory
Board.
And if I was someone dealing with this issue, they do not have the legal responsibility
to grant permits.
They are an Advisory Board.
So I would advise that young man to seek who is granting permits.
On this item, it is not clear.
Are you holding up any transaction completion, the seller and the buyer, until the property
tax is paid?
If the sale is gone through, how can you hold the seller responsible for the tax if they
no longer are the owner of the property?
That is not clear in the documentation, but you do say that both parties are responsible
for the text. Thank you, Mrs. Sada. Seeing no more public commenters, I'll
entertain a motion. Councilmember Agaio? So moved. Councilmember Unger? All right, we
got a motion and second. And is that motion to adopt the resolution and close
the public hearing? On the motion moved by Councilmember Agaio, seconded by
Councilmember Unger to adopt the resolution and close this public hearing.
councilmember Brown aye councilmember Fife is excused councilmember Gayle aye
councilmember Houston aye councilmember Ramachandran aye councilmember Unger aye
councilmember Wong aye and chair Jenkins aye motion passes with a vote of
seven ayes one excused by moving to item eight adopted resolution amending and
restating the council rules of procedure in their entirety entirety in
In order to assure a council meetings run in an orderly and efficient manner
Allow for non consent items to be heard earlier in the meeting create an additional presiding officer position
To serve as presiding officer in the absence of the council president and make non-substantive technical edits
you have
27 speakers on this item
Council member Ramachandra
Got our amendments that were passed out including the public
Okay to know okay to my staff
You want to take a brief pause and go into another item all right
Just very briefly going over the amendments including the ones that
Councilmember Houston had discussed publicly at the last meeting
and other councilmen I forgot who all had requested these but basically we are
deleting two things that we had proposed and going back to the status quo what
was referenced as bullet point four and five in the report but the core the big
one is pulling an item off consent the status quo is all you need is a motion
in a second we proposed a majority we're going back to just needing a motion in a
second so there's no change so all this references is that there's no change
there was a second amendment to slightly that was cleanup suggested by the city
attorney it was a non-substantive amendment but it was to it was
regarding the procedure for council to take a the recommendation of a committee
and forward it to rules and what would happen if that was that vote was not
unanimous and so we changed it back to the status quo so this reflect this
amendment just reflects those two things that are going back to how they are now
and we've already presented made the presentation a few times so we will not
go over that for time's sake but happy to answer questions about the other
amendments set emotion Houston and Ramachandran as a second you want turn
I'd like to ask you to come up
and please raise your hand for
the record for the record.
Thank you.
Your microphone.
Councilmember five.
So, councilmember five, do you
have a question before public
comments?
Oh, okay, here.
I got it.
I got it.
Okay.
All right.
Let's go to public comment and
then we'll come back to the
councilmembers.
As I call your name, please
support him in any order.
Please state your name for the
record before beginning.
If you're on Zoom, please raise
your hand so I can easily
identify you.
Jennifer Finley, Mrs. Adal Obala, Jeff Leven, Charlotte
Demish, Damien Scott, Sierra Warwick, Mark Wesley Dudley,
David Boatwright Hallux, Francois Loong, Adam Wolf,
Maggie Wolf, Jesse Rosemore, Ali, Jubilee Martinez-Brombach, Mr. Hazzard, Blair Beakman,
Reem, Emily Wheeler, and Mrs. Asada-Olavala.
Mr. Hazzard.
I passed out to you these documents, okay?
This matter previously when I was unceremoniously removed from this chamber because it ended
in a tie, and you cannot suspend the rules to effectuate this outcome.
Let me read to you what it says.
Oakens Charter does not grant council authority to override the legal effect of a vote.
consideration after failure nullify the mayor's lawful decision not to break a
tie. Conflict with state law, Government Code 54954.2. A failed item cannot be
acted upon again without re-notice suspension of rules cannot override
state law. Once the mayor declined to break the tie, the motion failed as a
a matter of law. Thank you, Mr. Hazard, your time. Thank you, Mr. Hazard, unless someone wants to
long day. Yes, absolutely. You do have one minute. That was stated at the beginning of the meter.
Thank you, Mr. Hazard. Does anyone want to give Mr. Hazard time? Do you have a question that you
I would like to make a motion
to ask everyone else Mr Hazard.
Bottom line if the mayor
declines to break a tie.
One second Mr Hazard Mr Hazard
please I need to give everyone
equal time.
Councilmember five are you
asking Mr Hazard a question was
asking Mr Hazard a question
about the tie breaking comment
that you just made.
So what please proceed.
I'm sorry.
Thank you the council can not
suspend rules to resurrected.
It's legal and vulnerable in
void.
And I have case law to support
everything I said.
You've got Olson v. Corry, 1983,
San Diego union, v. City
Council, 1983, common cause v.
Sterling, 1981, down to a beach,
19th.
And I'm prepared to file a rip
if you file, if you don't pull
this item.
You cannot vote.
Thank you, Mr. Hazard.
Mr. Hazard. Thank you. David Boatwright, District 4. I agree with the
recommendation whether it's two or four points whatever is being offered today
but I have my own recommendation and that is y'all pass a rule that requires
every member of this council to be present forever meeting unless they have
a serious health or personal problem to deal with and no excuses because y'all
schedule these meetings you know when they're gonna be people shouldn't be
scheduling other things on the same day and especially on a meeting like this
you should be setting the whole day aside because these meetings go on
forever and there's no excuse for not doing that and people get up and leave
the meeting. I've been here since noon. I got up finally after six hours and had
to go relieve myself but there's no reason that y'all can't stay in this
meeting or these meetings. Thank you. Mark Dudley, District 3. I just want to say that I
was actually quite proud at the amount of people in our community that turned
up last minute for a meeting that was clearly designed to suppress the amount
of people who are able to make their voices heard.
And as proud as I was of Oakland residents for doing that,
I am disappointed in the people here who are not only allowed
that to happen but are trying to codify such shady business
into the actual rules that you guys can follow.
I don't understand why we are trying to push back public comment
to make it so that less people
and less democracy can be heard in these rooms.
And for that, I am very disappointed and I suggest
that everyone vote against this, so thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Hi, Jesse Rosemore, District 1.
I would like to know when we can comment on the amendments
that Flock gave, Rowena Brown, Charlene Wong, and Zach Unger
that you all presented, because we never got to see it
before we did public comment.
I know that Rowena Brown met with Flock.
I know that Zach Unger met with Flock.
Both of them told me this.
And these are my reps that are on the dais.
How disappointing.
Now at the same time, you want to redefine the rules
to make the whole thing less democratic.
if it starts at 3.30, less more business people
and paid interest will be able to come to these meetings
and less working people like me,
and all the people who showed up to tell you
not to sell us out to ICE today
will have a harder time coming to these meetings.
So thank you, Carole Phi, for everything you do.
You're the only person on this dais meeting the moment,
and thank you for trying to hold your colleagues
to have a more democratic process with these meetings.
I cannot believe you are the only one on the dais
doing this for all of us and really speaking for us.
I am ashamed of the rest of your colleagues tonight.
It makes me so upset.
They sold us out to ICE tonight and they want to codify.
Thank you for your comments.
Juan, can I have district four, I think?
Yeah, I want to reiterate one,
both Mr. Hazard and Jesse have been saying,
like this is just going to make things worse.
It's already very difficult for people to make their way here.
I luckily can get out of work sometimes at three.
To get here for one o'clock is outrageous.
I had to take half a day off work.
And you're just gonna, Ken likes to pretend
that he represents people because he goes around
shooting some shitty YouTube video.
And the only reason he can get away
with any legitimacy for that is because you do make it hard
for actual residents of Oakland to come here.
And these changes will only make it harder.
And then we're gonna have to put up with more
22 minute fucking weird videos from Gann.
So yeah, these changes are bad.
They're undemocratic.
If this is supposed to be a democracy,
you're supposed to listen to us.
Yeah, don't pass these.
It is just a play.
Chris and his buddies from Piedmont have gone,
but this and your corruption bill that you passed earlier
is just gonna help.
Thank you for your comments.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Buechman.
Hi, thank you, Blair Beekman.
Thank you greatly, or thank you very much,
that you very quite possibly tried to work towards
good compromise with the block issue.
I can't thank you enough if you have worked
in those good terms.
In this item, I'm hearing a lot of people from the public
not happy with things.
I don't know exactly what that is,
but if this is somehow undercutting
the public process part of it,
good luck in better developing that.
and we can be open to continuing to develop that.
For rule 24, section two,
it talks about the rules of the rules committee
and how they can put things straight through to council.
They can put things straight through to the council
without going to committee first.
Like what we had to deal with with this block thing.
In the very small least, I hope you can say words like,
if brought to council, it can be an action item
or a information item.
Thank you, Mr. Bickman.
Seeing no more speakers in chamber,
we will go to the Zoom users.
Moving to the Zoom speakers, Emily Wheeler.
You are first.
Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Okay, my name is Emily Wheeler.
I'm a resident of District Two.
I hope that you will not approve these changes.
This council already flouts their own rules
more than any of the others that I've experienced.
And this will just make it harder
for the public to participate.
If you want shorter meetings,
schedule controversial items, only one per meeting.
Have meetings every week instead of every other week.
Like there are many things that you can do
to make your meeting shorter.
I agree these meetings are too long,
but that like making it harder
for working people to participate
is not the answer to that.
And working people just cannot come to a meeting at 2 p.m.
So again, please reconsider these.
This is incredibly undemocratic.
This is not democracy.
Democracy dies in darkness.
This is what you're doing.
Please vote no.
Thank you.
Have a great day.
Thank you, Ms. Wheeler.
Damien Scott, you are next.
Thank you, Damien Scott
with East Bay Housing Organizations.
We strongly oppose this proposed changes
to the city council rules and procedure
and urge council members to vote no on this proposal again.
This proposal will make it more difficult
for community members I work with
to participate in city council meetings
and have their voices heard.
Moving non-consent items we heard in the middle
of the afternoon would make it so that the majority
of working class Oaklanders can't have their voices heard
on topics of high public interest.
We're deeply concerned by these proposed rule changes
and the way in which this item has continued
despite it failing to pass in previous council meetings.
I applaud members of the council
for voting against enacting these barriers
to public participation.
Thank you for ensuring the voices of Oaklanders are heard.
I urge you to vote no again today.
Thank you.
Jeff Levin, you are next.
Thank you.
Jeff Levin with East Bay Housing Organizations
and echoing comments of my colleague.
We urge you to strongly vote no on this.
We see this as a way to limit participation,
particularly by working people
who cannot come to meetings in the middle of the afternoon.
Your meetings start normally at 3.30 and often earlier
without taking time off of work.
There are lots of ways to make the meetings more efficient
and make it possible to get to important stuff earlier.
This is not the right way.
I will note that you are the only city council
in Alameda County that starts their meetings at this time.
Most are at 7 p.m., a couple are at six.
We're also concerned that this is even here today.
This item was defeated.
There was a tie vote.
It failed to pass.
The mayor declined to cast a tie breaking vote
and it should not have been continued.
And the only thing that should have happened
would have been for someone on the prevailing side,
the no votes to introduce a motion to reconsider
and that did.
Jennifer Finley, you are next.
Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Jennifer Finley.
Jennifer Finley District 2 removing non-consent items
earlier is going to reduce public comment.
That seems to be what you want.
So I don't think I'm going to say anything.
It's going to change your mind.
But other people have been saying it.
Why do we need to appoint a second in command other
than the President Cottom, who I believe is our senior
council member, Councilmember Huacayo,
is the reason because we spent the first several months of this year with him trying and failing
at running council meetings endlessly. What are we doing? Seriously? Why are you just
talking about this? What are we doing? Please oppose this.
Thank you, Ms. Finley. Moving to Ms. Asada or Labala. Please unmute yourself and begin
your comments.
Can you hear me, Madam Chair?
Yes.
Thank you.
I'm going to ask the President, please intervene with the use of profanity and not allow it
during the meeting.
I'm asking that any use of Rule 24 would automatically mean the item would go to consent.
I'm asking also that people, as been used in the past, will have the ability to sign
up for items before they are called. And with no time cut off period. I'm also asking that
the mayor's voting process and the council's voting process become the same. The council
votes yes, no or abstain meaning no. The mayor votes yes, no or no vote at all. The voting
process needs to be the same. All amendments need to be introduced before public comment
with the document available for public review.
You must notify the chair.
There are a number of cards of people I see in Zoom.
If you still wish to speak, please raise your hand.
Maria Vargas, I don't have a card under your name.
Did you submit a card under a different name?
Thank you.
Seeing no more hands raised.
Council Member Brown, do you have a comment?
Yes.
I guess I had a clarifying question of the hand.
You know, the amendments that you handed out.
I was just trying to do a like compare and contrast
to the documents that were submitted for this item.
And so I'm asking Council President Jenkins
or Council Member Ramachandran to just very high level,
clearly state the changes that you're making.
Whether it is in addition to like state
what the changes are in addition to what the handout is
and what's also in our packet,
just so that everyone knows exactly all of the changes.
Thank you, and is our city attorney, Michael Branson,
available if you wanna just take this for clarity?
Thank you.
Good evening, this is Michael Branson,
Senior Deputy City Attorney.
Through the chair to Council Member Brown,
Is a question to go over the changes that are on the additional page or do you want me to walk through?
All the council rules amendments
Yeah, yeah, I'm just trying to get some clarity around
And maybe I missed it in what council member Rama transha stated
So we have the printout that was just handed to us and then we have you know
The already, you know the changes that were outlined in the packet
So I guess maybe the clarifying question is based on the handout that was provided
These amendments plus what's also in the packet is what we will be voted like basically voting on
Is that correct to an extent the changes that are on the page are removing?
Three previously proposed changes, so if I were to look at the legislation
rule five
The change appears on on page seven. There was previously a change proposed to
To allow for drain standing committees for the committee chair to
Or to for the committee itself to make a vote
By a majority vote to decide whether the item would be on consent or non consent
That proposal has been removed and it was reverting back to the way that it's currently written
Which is that the committee chair may designate such items as consent items only if the standing committee's recommendation was unanimous
so the way that that should happen in practice is that
The committee would take a vote on whether to move the item forward if the vote was unanimous then
The clerk would look to the chair to determine whether the item would go on consent or non consent
That would be a recommendation that goes to rules and then rules would ultimately decide on the scheduling
the second change shown on this page is up to rule 7 and
This relates to when the council the full council
Is considering their agenda and if there's a council member that wants to remove an item
from the consent
Calendar they there was a proposal to change that requirement to be by a majority vote
this would be removing that proposed change and reverting to how it currently operates, which is that it is
Requires one council member to move to remove the item from consent and it to receive a second
the change to rule 8 is
the same it that provision related to
moving an item off of consent calendar
Shows up in both rule 7 and rule 8
So those previously considered
Amendments are now being proposed to be removed by way of this additional sheet
Okay
motion in a second comment
Council there's a motion a second already on the floor councilmember pipe. I think this
through the chair and I'm gonna speak through the chair to
our city attorney and to the members of the public I'm not exactly sure how
We are here today
After this item has failed
so spectacularly and with the last I had to ask for the member of the public to clarify
What happens after the mayor does not break a tie?
because it feels like this is exactly what the public is saying that gets being rammed through and
there was no public speaker that spoke in favor of these changes and so what I can say is I personally feel like my
Tenure on this council is being disrespected. I feel like the voice of the public is being disrespected
I still stand firm on that the
Business should start when working people can be here during the day. We saw the the change in
Individuals with privilege versus people who don't necessarily have access to show up when it's earlier. So
That is my primary
area of concern and the way that this was dealt with each time it came before the body is
So disrespectful. It's disrespectful to me. It's disrespectful to councilmember guy
Oh, it is disrespectful to the public and the reason that I am being silenced on this council and my leadership in this
community and on this council is the same thing that's happening to the
community which is to silence my voice. I'm never asked to chair, I'm never asked
to sit in, but now we're talking about having the committees choose their own
council person to be the chair of the committee when we have a pro tem. If we
don't like the pro tem we should tell him and change him. So I just feel like
this failed twice it should not be back in front of us in this form and so it's
that's it's it's clear that I'm
going to vote no as I have each
time that is come before us and
the community should pay
attention to what's happening
here.
Thank you councilmember fife.
So.
So I've been a working class
part.
I've been a working class person
my entire career I've been a
bus driver and the first transit
I work with split shift.
And again up till six p.m.
I could not participate in the
city council meeting.
I worked from five to nine.
I could not participate in a City Council meeting.
I've worked for FedEx from three thirty to about seven or eight.
I could not participate in a City Council meeting.
I've been an after-school teacher.
I could not participate in a City Council meeting.
I worked for the United Way.
Got off at five in San Francisco.
Could not participate in person in a City Council meeting.
I've been an office manager in San Francisco.
that we don't participate in
the city council meeting.
So this argument that there is
some magical time that working
class people can get here is a
challenge to me.
There is no magical time that
somebody can get here.
We want absolute
participation when it comes to
city council meetings.
We have emails that come in.
Council member Houston, although
new brought 20 to 30 minutes of
people participating in the city
council meeting. There are e-commons where people can participate in a city council meeting.
There are a myriad of ways. So if we talk about when things fail and being brought back
measure BB failed originally. That's a transportation that's failed by the voters. It was brought
back. It is something that absolutely gives us money for safe routes to school, pavement,
all of those things. Voters brought it back again. It is not uncommon. Federal, state,
that the next thing we're
saying is that it's a local for
things to be brought back things
fell they're brought back
things failed to change the
brought back this is something
that has failed and has been
brought back and if it fails.
Probably won't be brought back.
So councilmember Houston and
then local.
I have voted on no one at the
first time after we made these
changes I'm about yes on it
going to non consent and consent. I'm in the mayor it was it didn't fail in my
opinion but my chief of staff says that it did. If you got a four and four vote
and you got a council members what happens? The mayor breaks the tie she
decided not to break the tie and say you guys handle it yourself which we
should. We should never have a tiebreaker with with the mayor that has to break a
tie if we can't get it done. So I'm gonna vote yes on it because I agree.
Thank you very much councilmember
five.
This I have to push back on on
those statements- council
president Jenkins because I'm
not just talking about a magical
time where people can can
participate I'm talking about
breaking our own rules of
procedure to create new rules of
procedure and I'm also talking
about listening to the number of
speakers that we had on this
item none of whom called for
these arguments and in fact
So I'm not saying that, yes, this is a better time.
I'm talking about listening to the people who literally
came here to speak to us.
And so I could go into detail about how that's
one of the things I spoke of that you responded to.
But I listed a host of things, including the pro tem,
how we're advocating and lifting up certain leadership
over others.
I could talk about stifling public voice.
There's a number of things that weren't responded to
that I do not have answers to here.
So you are choosing to have certain chairs.
I've been completely disrespected as a council member
under certain leadership in this body.
And it is clear to the public, so clear that people call me
and apologize to me for how I'm treated here.
And so it looks like we're codifying behavior
that benefits a minority of this council
of a minority of this council and in
disrespect to the larger community
disrespect to the eldest members of this
council I will leave it there it feels
like the the decisions on this piece of
legislation have been already agreed to
so I would like to move the agenda I'm
very disappointed by this today thank
you council member it's council member
Yes I'm gonna be voting no and it's very clear we've been at this for many
years and have developed policies and procedures not from people that just got
here want to be creative and so the bottom line is you have a council pro
tem that we've had for years and that role is very clear I don't need to
appoint another one to take your place that's the role of the pro tem I'm
I'm willing to step, I know Ramachandran wants his job.
I'm willing to step down from it,
but that pro temps should be able to fill in
for your position based on the practices
we've had for years.
And not, you know, trying to,
another example is this council appointed me
to work on the League of California Cities
from the beginning, but then I show up at a meeting
And you appointed two other people.
And I never got consulted.
I think we gotta talk about respect,
but most of all, we're here to serve the public.
And for me, it's been a practice for a number of years
that we get participation at the later time of the day.
And we need to respect that.
And I know that for most of you haven't been here
before going through the process,
But it took councils for years to create a process
that we can entertain and support the community
that elected us.
But if you wanna be pro-tamb,
Ruma-Shauna, just let the council know
and they can vote me out.
But I don't wanna be sitting over here going behind doors
and trying to be creative and get around some of us
sitting on the council.
And so I'm voting no for these recommendations.
Okay, so a couple of things and then I'll take,
Well, I'm gonna try and then we'll go to a vote.
So a couple of things.
When Nikki Bass was the chair, I chaired meetings,
city council meetings.
You go and look it up, I was not the pro tem.
When it comes to, as we're talking.
Mr. Azar, you can have a seat.
Mr. Azar, you can have a seat.
Yeah, so when it comes to California cities,
you called me beforehand, it was agendized.
I did not make, during January, I wasn't here.
I don't know if it's happening
but when it comes to the external
committees I want to make sure there is a variety of people
that can serve everybody serves on external committees with
the exception of myself everybody.
Cal cities I did not appoint myself.
All right National League of cities and Cal cities you were
on both of them we need to spread the wealth and make sure
that we have different council members that represent us we
have new council members.
And we want to ensure that everybody gets represent the
city when it comes to a CTC when it comes to a bag when it
of it. Stop waste. Any of the stipend paying boards and commissions, I'm not on any of
them. I just want to spread the love amongst all of the council members. Council member
Ramachandra, then call the vote.
Just very quickly clarifying. This legislation makes no changes to the role of pro tem. That
is untouched. The only addition is an optional vice chair in committees, which the committees
can vote on. There is no other leadership changes. I'm not sure where that came from.
That's all. Madam Clerk. On item eight moved by Councilmember
Houston, second by Councilmember Ramachandran. As amended.
With as amended with the amendments that were passed out.
Councilmember Brown. Aye. Councilmember Fyfe.
No. Councilmember Gallo. No. Councilmember Houston.
Aye. Councilmember Ramachandran. Aye. Councilmember Unger.
Aye. Councilmember Wong. No. And Chair Jenkins.
Motion passes with a vote of five ayes, three noes, five, Gail, and Wong.
We've already dispensed with item nine, so moving to item ten.
Mr. Hazard, please have a seat.
Mr. Hazard, please have a seat.
The item passed.
The item passed.
Please have a seat.
Please have a seat.
Thank you.
Moving to item ten, receive an information report from the city auditor on the audit recommendation.
report as June 30th, 2025. There are 22 speakers on this item. Popular man. How
much time do you need? Less than ten minutes. Seven minutes. Ten minutes. Good evening,
council members, city staff, members of the public. Michael C. Houston, the city
auditor. I'm here to present our semi-annual audit recommendation follow-up
report on the status of open audit recommendations. Today is December 16, 2025, but this report
covers status updates as of June 30, 2025. So the mission of the Office of the City
Auditor is to advocate good city government for all Oaklanders by independently and objectively
assessing city programs and services, making recommendations to approve them and publicly
reporting the results. And we commit to conducting audits of services and programs of the greatest
impact to the community and within those audits we make evidence-based
recommendations that are constructive and feasible all toward improving city
services. To retain our independence we are completely separate from the city's
day-to-day operations and rely on the city administration to implement audit
recommendations. The passage of measure acts in 2022 amended the city charter
and codified numerous governance reforms including a requirement for my office to
follow-up on the status of audit recommendations. This audit recommendation
follow-up report was published on September 30th. It is our fourth semi-annual
report which covers open recommendations from the previous audit
recommendation follow-up reports, plus the newly added audit recommendations
since then. This audit recommendation follow-up report summarizes the statuses
of 288 unique audit recommendations across 45 different audits issued between
2014 and June 30th 2025. The audit recommendation follow-up cycle allows
the city administrator, the City Council and the public to see progress made in
implementing audit recommendations twice per year for the periods ending June
30th and December 31st. This particular audit recommendation follow-up report
does not contain any new recommendations since our last audit
recommendation follow-up cycle for the semi-annual period through December 31st
because we didn't issue audits with
recommendations during that time.
But since December 31st, 2024,
44 existing recommendations have changed status
from implement it to partially implement it,
or not implement it to partially implement it,
or not implement it to implement it,
or from partially implement it to implement it.
So the number of audit recommendations
that have changed status represents
a significant improvement from the last cycle.
We are grateful to the city administrator
who about a year ago jointly signed an administrative instruction, AI-701,
which outlines the semi-annual audit recommendation follow-up process
and provides prescriptive guidance for department staff
in providing status updates for audit recommendations.
Some recommendations take time to implement, especially if they rely
on significant city investment or are subject to labor negotiations.
And the exhibit on the slide shows the status of audit recommendations
by the year they were made.
While the number of recommendations issued in a year relates to the number and scope
of audits issued, there is a general trend.
As time goes by, recommendations get closer to implementation.
Implementing audit recommendations often takes significant time.
Of the 288 audit recommendations made since 2014, 196, or 68%, have been implemented or closed.
92 recommendations or 32 percent are considered partially implemented or not implemented
Departments implemented 32 recommendations. There are some examples of implemented recommendations from this cycle
For example, the city has established access to homeless management information system
HMIS data to better understand returns or homelessness and other performance metrics to show how the city and its
Contracted service providers are performing and the city has incorporated performance targets on exits to positive
destinations into the scope of work for service providers contracted to provide emergency shelters
The fire department's fire prevention, burl has is finalized a quality assurance policy for its inspections to provide for weekly
Supervisory reviews and as for an audit of fire prevention in 2020
2026 recommendations remain open as of June 30th 2025 at least ten
Relate to the consolidated fiscal policy these include updates pertaining to citywide policy on grants management
maintenance of effort thresholds and reserve policies 13 open recommendations
Remain open from the 2019 audit of the Oakland Police Department's overtime
Intended to improve overtime planning management and tracking and limiting the use of overtime by individual employees in the department as a whole
The finance department continues to work toward updated citywide administrative instructions on payroll and cash handling
Most audit recommendations are just multiple departments open most open audit recommendations are just multiple
departments or the city administrators office
Again, audit recommendations seek to improve government services.
While single recommendations may have multiple benefits, we've categorized each recommendation
into primary intended benefit.
Most of the recommendations have focus on improving efficiency effectiveness of services,
but we also have recommendations aimed to improving compliance with laws and regulations,
transparency and accountability, safeguarding public resources, and providing monetary benefits.
We also have recommendations that promote equitable access to or distribution of city
services and resources.
So the details of the recommendations may be found in the appendices of the report,
which is attached to the packet, as well as the statuses of recommendations by audit report.
So I would like to thank the staff from the city departments that provided us with information
and supporting documentation for this report.
We recognize that many of these recommendations will take time to accomplish and we appreciate
the city administration's efforts towards implementation.
And thank you to our RFU, Audit Recommendation Follow-Up Champions, whether they meet members
of the city council or members of the public who raise awareness of our audits and audit
recommendations. The city auditor, we provide critical oversight role to the
city, but we make recommendations that cannot force implementation. While the
city council does not have administrative authority, it has a more
direct role in implementing policy and making budget decisions that can
effectively implement our recommendations. Lastly, my office is on a
continuous quest to bring more attention to and engagement on
recommendations. We encourage folks to stay connected with us and follow our
work by subscribing to our newsletter, following us under social media
platforms, and contacting us by phone, by email, and we're paying us a visit on the
fourth floor in City Hall. And I'm available to answer any questions. Thank
you Mr. Auditor. Can I get one of those hoodies and a size large? Yes, see what we can do.
Any questions from the council? Councilmember Houston, is that for your
to the chair. Thank you for having a meeting with me I saw seventeen have not been implemented.
I thought it was a different number. Or did you give me a percentage since you said two
thousand fourteen or a little bit before how many of the recommendations have not been
implemented. So we had councilmember Houston. Two hundred eighty eight so this report summarizes
status in 288 recommendations have been made from 2014 through June 30th, 2025.
And that represents 45 performance audits.
175 of those have been implemented.
Have been?
Yes, have been, right?
Okay.
Cool.
Thank you.
Councillor Mercado?
Yes, thank you.
And again, I really appreciate it sitting with you for a while going over this report.
Getting from your staff and so forth and and I'm very clear
In terms of the recommendations the timelines that were we have established and it is an informational report
And I'll make a motion to receive the informational report from the city auditor
Council member Fife
Second so there's a motion and a second see and no more comments from the council members. Let's go to public speaker
As I call your name, please approach the podium in any order, please state your name before beginning.
If you are on Zoom, you will be taken immediately after the people in chambers.
Please raise your hand so I can easily identify you if you still wish to speak.
Karanaka Adoja, Liam Donaldson,
Lina Gannam,
Mimi Damasu,
Tariq Mohammed,
Patrick Miller,
Maria Vargas, Robert Padden,
Miguel Barajas, Atia Orajia White, Tamika Ridley,
Griselda Almanza, Adriana Martinez, Carmen Beltran,
Mercedes Del Torre, Vivian Thomas, Issei Tlaib,
Mokhtar, Mohammad, Andre, Isler, Carmen Alvarez, Blair Beekman. In any order please. And again, please state your name before you begin.
Hi, City Clerk Carmen Alvarez. I'm sitting my time to Lena Gannam. And we have two people online, Liam Donaldson and Karonica Pujoa, who will be put... wait, nothing?
Adoja, I was mixed her last name, Adoja, who is also sitting.
So three people, Liam, Veronica and I will see that to Lena.
Okay, I see is Karonica in the chambers, I don't see her on Zoom.
I see Liam.
She should be on Zoom.
Liam, are you, are you seeding your time?
I seed my time to Lena, thank you.
Thank you.
Caronica, I don't see you in the Zoom queue.
So right now, you have three minutes.
Hello.
My name is Tamika Ridley.
And I'm here with my 10-year-old son Jacob.
We are Oakland residents in District 7.
I have been shopping at my corner store called Jalisco,
where Saba Grocer's has the Fresh Fightbacks program.
For every EBT dollar I spend on buying produce,
it gives me $5 to buy more produce, excuse me.
Can you finish reading this?
Can a staffer go get her some water please, any staffer?
Continuing for Tamika, Fresh 5X has been a blessing
because it helps me stretch my EBT money
to make it to the end of the month.
My son and I are eating healthier,
plus I feel good about teaching my son to eat healthier
and creating good habits for the rest of our lives.
My neighbors, whether they have EBT or not,
they also benefit from having access
to produce near home.
The Fresh 5X program makes it convenient
and affordable for me to walk just 15 minutes
to Holly School by produce,
and my son and I feel welcome at that store.
Thank you for supporting Saba Grocers
and their virtual food card program called Fresh 5X,
We appreciate you keeping your commitment
to food security for our residents.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Asa Talab,
and I'm a co-owner at Helizco Market in District 7
located on Nevada and Eads.
I am here to thank you for supporting Ceba
and the Virtual Card Program Fresh 5X.
My store has been transformed since this program started.
More families come and shop with us.
A variety of produce has expanded from 15 to over 40.
Kids are asking their parents for fruits and fruit cups
and moving away from chips and soda.
We are very proud to partner with Summer Grocers
to bring produce at accessible prices
to our surrounding neighborhoods.
Fresh 5X in my store supports not only those with EBT,
but those without EBT because they all have access
to fresh produce at their local store.
It has also created jobs in our store
to keep our produce well stacked.
Thank you council members for your partnership
with Summer Grocers and Small Business
to create a healthier Oakland.
Thank you.
She actually said she tried, she's on the Zoom,
she tried to say, and the voice is not coming through.
I don't see a Karonica on here at all,
unless she's under a different name.
She is under a different name.
She doesn't have a name on the Zoom.
There's no one with this Karonica name
or C name with their hand raised.
Okay, I guess I'll just speak for three minutes.
She said her hand is raised right now.
Miss C, butterfly, probably a butterfly photo.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes.
Yes, I'm sorry.
Yes, this is me, Carona with Miss C.
I'm so sorry.
Yes, I'm ceding my time to lean up, please.
My name is Carona, thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Hello, everyone.
Is my timer started?
Where is it?
Okay, I'm Lena Ranneman, I'm the executive director
of Saba Grocers, I'm also a District Two resident.
We understand that Agenda Item 10 is not about Saba's audit,
but we wanted to take the opportunity today
to clear the facts in public and clear the air
and hopefully turn the page on the past few years
that we have been, so that we can establish
a stronger working relationship with the city
in 2026 and beyond, because we care about Oakland deeply
and we all share the same goal of making it better.
There's been some unsubstantiated claims
regarding our financial integrity
at City Council in recent meetings,
and we're here to clear the facts.
We've brought a number of speakers today,
they unfortunately had to leave,
but to speak on this matter from Saba's leadership,
we still have our attorney on the line
that will be speaking about this later
and our residents and store owners.
But with that, I do wanna start by thanking the city auditor
for the thorough and detailed work
that's been put into developing this audit.
I also wanna make it clear to the public
that this is not an audit of Saba Grocers.
This is an audit of the city of Oakland.
It's an audit of the city of Oakland's processes
and procedures administering funds to grantees.
We were told that Saba was selected for this audit
because of anonymous whistleblower complaints,
and that nothing from this audit provided support
to these claims that would make the city believe
there were any concerns with SAABA.
We want to make sure these facts are clear to the council
and the public record reflects this fact
because the public discourse at City Hall
has not been reflective of these two
important pieces of this audit.
And it's been impacting our organization.
Even though the audit found nothing inappropriate at SAABA,
we still learned a lot as an organization
and we implemented proactively
enhancements to our programs and systems.
To be clear, we care deeply about our own community here in Oakland that we serve.
And we believe our work provides an incredibly valuable service to the city.
There's no reason to suggest that we behaved irresponsibly with the funds that we received.
In fact, we work hard to ensure as much as possible goes back to supporting the community we represent.
Over the past five years, our impact has been significant.
We've generated over a million.2 dollars of local economic stimulus for the city.
And now we have the infrastructure to expand to 50 more stores beyond the dozen stores
that we currently serve.
But the past few years have been very difficult for us to navigate as a growing, small, and
young organization from Oakland serving Oakland.
And that is particularly big in part due to the public discourse at City Council and its
Commission's regarding this audit and the fact that there has been substantial
grants promised to us that did not arrive which created a serious legal
dispute with the city that we hope has been resolved. We appreciate that the
concerns from the whistleblowers and the audits were worth looking into because
the city should be careful about the organizations it partners with but we
hope we hope that we can now move forward past these concerns and
Establish a more productive relationship with the city and with that we're really asking the city inviting the city to be a better partner for
Us moving forward
We're happy to turn the page on the legal dispute and leave concerns in the past these concerns in the past so we can move forward
Rather than look backwards and focus our work on serving the Oakland residents and store owners that really need our services
That's it
I'm, um, notifica, um, para notifica que estoy en el programa de
phrase five X, um, y pues quiero dar las gracias a los
consejales que tienen este programa gracias porque es una
gran ayuda y pues jache el solo que un ogana no es sufficiente
Hello my name is Griselda Almanza, I'm a resident of Oakland and I live in District
District 3, I participate in the program Press 5X where I use my EBT and for every dollar
that I utilize in fruits and vegetables, I receive a match of $5 so that I can buy more
fruits and vegetables.
This has been very helpful for me, for my family, and it has helped me to stretch my
budget.
I just really want to say thank you to all the council members for supporting this program.
and money today doesn't stretch very well and salaries are you know people
are not earning enough so I want to just tell you thank you for having and
supporting this program on behalf of for me and for my family and for other
families here in Oakland I hope you continue working to have programs like
this in our communities thank you okay you're gonna have two minutes so you
have them we've been a star this me number is Carmen Beltran Salazar a
Y vivoso recienta que de Oakland y vivo en distrito numero cinco.
Hi, my name is Carmen Beltran and I am a resident here of Oakland and I live in District 5.
I want to say thank you for supporting programs with SAVA, especially this program fresh 5X,
so that it supports the betterment and the health of the family and supports the community
here in Oakland.
I want to say my deep gratitude to all the council members here for this program.
Tame en caría compartir con ustedes que tengo y guar do la esperanza de que en algún momento
puedan dar se cuenta, de que no solamente el a comunidad ducida baju una table, el a
que tiene necesidades.
Sí, no que son la gran parte todo esta comunidad de uclam, la que no es escuchada, la que no
califica pero la que necesita.
And I believe that the suffering that we have not recognized has created a greater degree of interest in those areas.
If there is a proportionality of a regular one, a juda, for the most part, it is established.
If the family is in the family, what can be done with this?
And what can be done with this?
You could finish that last part if you want. Yeah you translate the last part.
The last part that she talked about is she hopes she is asking for the
council for this council to consider those that fall below the table or fall
below that are under that there is a need and many times these folks are the
ones that are not able to get support that are not able to qualify for
programs to not forget those communities that are under the radar and that she
hopes and continues to be hopeful that you will continue to consider and keep
those communities in mind. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Beekman. Can you speak on this Mr.
Beekman? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. The other people may want to try to speak
again. I wanted to thank yourselves for this item Blair Beekman. Audit reports are really
important. This particular one, it offers auditing from 2014 till now. There's just
a lot of really interesting items on here to review and consider. And that can be talked
about here in the public process. It's a nice review of Oakland items and projects. So thank
you for it, thank you for your efforts. I wanted to mention that with your floc
issues that it's up to the auditing department here to be doing the audits
it sounds like in San Diego where I'm currently living, the police do the
auditing and then give those reports to City Council. A real sincere good luck
that the procurement process for the upcoming floc things are really, they
will really take place and happen and we really work on it in the next few
years and it's not just a pinky problem. Thank You Mr. Beekman moving to the
zoom speakers Maria Vargas you are first please unmute yourself and begin
your comments.
me comunidad. Yo estoy en el distrito ciete. Y estoy agradecíendo porrestera polando a
esta programa que no saludado mucho a la comunidad de bajo recursos en el programa de estaba
Ex y aqui connessa connessa programa podemos consumir mas frutas e bexitalis
les dole muchas muchas gracias en en omgre me familia y detodas familias que
estamos en el distrito siete por tener esta este pograma tambueno y ojala que
cigán trabajando para ayudar a las comunas. May I attempt it? I wasn't paying
attention but kind of get the gist of it my number my name is Maria Vargas I am
a resident of Oakland I live in district 7 I want to say thank you for
supporting this program fresh 5x that helps low income and for helping and
supporting Saba and the fresh 5x program with this program I am able to get
produce fresh fruits and vegetables near my home and I want to say thank you
on behalf of myself and my family and on behalf of District 7 for having and
supporting programs like this, like Fresh 5x, please keep doing that. Thank you.
Thank you. Going to Rajni Mandal, please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Rajni Mandal, District 4, I want to address both the proposed transfer of
Internal Affairs to CIPRA CPRA and how the audit report describes CIPRA's
readiness. The audits list multiple core recommendations as partially implemented
but the the auditor's own status updates state that SIPRA does not yet have a completed manual
or adopted written policies for investigations intake timelines training or quality review.
Without written policies these items cannot be partially implemented. As written the audit
overstates progress and is therefore inaccurate. This matters because SIPRA is now being considered
for expanded investigative authority.
Without a formal policy framework in place,
SIPRA is not ready to absorb IAB investigations.
Without accurate reporting,
council cannot responsibly determine
whether SIPRA is ready to take on
these expanded oversight responsibilities.
Thank you.
Ms. Asada, you're next.
Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Thank you, Madam Clerk.
There were several reporting of non-implemented audits.
the race and equity audit, not implemented,
not implemented or partially implemented
or audits on economic benefits,
police overtime, pay equity,
sovereign grocery, I don't know why they're talking
about all of this stuff going on
because they have recommendations not implemented.
library partial tax and the homeless support not implemented. So nobody's asked any questions
about these major areas having either partial not implemented or no, no implementation at
all, particularly with race and equity. Y'all talk a lot about your sanctuary city, but
you don't have no conversation on what's going on with race and equity in this city.
Thank you, Miss Olibala. Patrick Miller, you are next. Please unmute yourself and begin
in your comments.
Yes, can you hear me?
Yep.
First, I'll just echo what everyone else has said
as far as how the city audit was of the city's processes,
not SABAs, and that there appears to be no basis
to suspect SAB of any wrongdoing from this audit or elsewhere.
And for what it's worth, my experience with SABAs
also led me to believe they're a wonderful organization
that really does provide a valuable service.
I was engaged by SABAs to address their legal dispute
the city over certain grant funds and from the outset I've been focused on trying to resolve
the dispute and reach a settlement so that you can all move past this because I'm very sadly aware
nobody really likes to deal with lawyers and I wanted to say that the city representatives
I've been working with have been excellent and professional partners in trying to resolve
this dispute. I'm happy we were able to reach an agreement that was reasonable for all parties and
avoid a painful litigation process so I hope you can all now move on and hopefully work together
since you all genuinely want to make the city's residents healthier and happier.
Adriana Martinez, you're next. Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.
Hello, my name is Adriana Martinez. I'm a resident of District 7, and I want to speak
on behalf of Saba Initiative. It's a very good program. It's a supplement of the income of low
income people like myself that have chronic illnesses and we need healthy food in order
to stay alive basically because other than that you know we can't afford
healthy food like people in other parts of Oakland that may more money than
doesn't have a better quality of life than we do so please reconsider the
audit of Saba initiative because that would really hurt the health and the
quality of life of lots of low-income people like me who depend on these
supplements in order to get have an alternative to healthy foods in our diet
thank you Vivian Thomas you're next please unmute yourself and begin your
comments okay my number is Vivian Thomas we went on notches at all he's too much
I gotta see that poor la yuda Kenos a stubborn down though a
saba fresh pie or chemists come pralo ago in shopper market yeah my you've
I live in district three, I believe she said, and I am calling because I am a participant
of Fresh 5X, I buy fruits and vegetables with this program in my nearby store, Choppers.
And I am able to get lots of veggies and lots of fruits because I cook for my family every
single day.
And so this program helps me be able to cook for my family healthy meals.
Thank you so much for continuing with this program.
Thank you so much for continuing to partner with Saba in this virtual card program called
fresh 5x where I'm able to feed my family healthy food and prepare food for them on
a daily basis. Thank you. Thank you so much. Moving to your last Zoom speaker,
Mokhtar Mohammed, please unmute yourself and begin your comments. Good evening
everyone. My name is Mokhtar Mohammed and I am one of the owners of Shoppers Food
Market, which is a family-owned corner store and district 3. Our partnership
Wood Saba Grocers initiative has made it very possible for us to add produce at an affordable
price for our community. There are lots of families and elderly who have been benefiting
from this program and they have been able to walk to our store and have access to fresh produce.
We have heard from a lot of them that their health has been improved due to being able to
buy and eat fresh fruits and vegetables. We have increased the variety of produce
that our community needs, so thank you so much for supporting programs like this. We really
appreciate it and please continue with that. Does that conclude public speakers? It seems like
that we have a motion from Councilmember Gayle,
second from Councilmember Unger.
Thank you, Mr. Auditor.
On item 10, moved by Councilmember Gayle,
second by Councilmember Unger,
to receive and file this report.
Councilmember Brown.
Aye.
Councilmember Fyfe.
I asked to be recognized for the auditor
to answer a question about something that I emailed him.
No worries, my apologies.
It's fine.
Mr. Auditor.
Yes, through the chair to Auditor Houston,
I sent correspondence and I just wanted to give you
an opportunity to state that on the record.
There are two things.
I passed legislation in November of last year
requesting information to come back to the body
once ballot measure audits were initiated
for the city administrator to ensure
that our city departments knew about it.
And so I wanted to find out where we are with that.
And then there was also, it was brought to my attention
that you did a podcast about implementation,
talking about implementation in the council's lack of,
or potential lack of support
for implementing audit requirements.
And I wanted to find out if that had any impact
on your ability to make sure
that you were following up with your requirements
and how the council can be more supportive
so that you have what you need to ensure
that what the voters passed are actually implemented
through the mandatory requirements, does that make sense?
Those two questions.
Yeah, Council Member Fyfe.
Yes, the first part of your question I'm clear on, right?
So we made a recommendation during our 2000,
well in our 2024 audit of the library parcel tax.
There were a recommendation that arose from a finding
that the city had not exempted certain groups
from the parcel tax that they should've been exempted from.
And that was an audit finding.
The recommendation was for the city administration
to implement a procedure such that
after something gets passed,
the effect that the departments are informed
and like there's a prescriptive guidance for them
to get ready for the legislation,
so that it doesn't happen again.
We haven't received an update from that.
We never received a response to those recommendations,
nor did we receive an update.
However, you were kind of an audit recommendation
follow-up champion in that respect,
because the resolution that you brought forward
and I believe was unanimously passed by the city council
would satisfy that recommendation.
I don't know, I don't,
I'm not aware of it being implemented.
So I know the resolution was passed.
I don't think that the resolution was to,
for the city administration to
develop and yeah, develop and fully implement
an administrative instruction for that purpose, right?
To deal with ballot measures and it's,
to my knowledge, it hasn't been implemented.
Okay, I'll follow up with you,
City Administrator Johnson, on that.
And then the second part of the question,
and forgive me because this was brought to me secondhand,
but I was informed that there were comments in a podcast
that somehow the City Council is not,
or may be impacting your ability to ensure
that there's implementation on your mandatory requirements
because of our control of the budget.
And so I wanted to get clear,
If just clarity on on that perspective, I don't I don't think that's I don't recall ever saying anything like that. I think what I do recall saying is the city auditor's office has these required. We have roles and responsibilities, including mandated audits. There's 11 or 12 of them and we don't have sufficient staffing to fulfill those mandates just so I'm clear to you and the city.
all of our residents, I believe that you should have all of the resources that you need in
order to facilitate the mandated requirements of your office to make sure we're in alignment
with the ballot measures that we pass.
So there's no confusion, you know where I stand, and I will work on that process during
the budget.
But I wanted to be clear that there's nothing since I've been on the council that's intended
to block you from doing your work or making sure that your audit recommendations are implemented. I appreciate that. Thank you. So we have a motion and second. Shall we take the vote. Start the vote.
On item 10 moves by Councilmember Gayle second by Councilmember Unger to receive and file this report. Councilmember Brown. I councilmember five. I councilmember Gayle. I councilmember Houston. In my budget recommendations. I wanted you.
I stated for you to be fully funded I
Councilmember Ramachandran I
Councilmember under I
Councilmember Wong. I and chair Jenkins
All right motion passes with the vote of eight ayes
moving to item 11
adopts a resolution calling and giving notice for the holding of a special
Adopt a resolution calling and giving notice for holding of a special municipal election on June 2nd
2026 for the purpose of submitting to the voters and measure
That would amend the city charter to among other things expand the eligibility for members of the police and fire retirement system
System board and change the board meeting frequency from monthly to no less than quarterly
requesting 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 take any and all actions necessary under law to submit this measure to the voters at the June 2nd
2026 election and making appropriate sequel findings
You do have one speaker on this item
Councilmember Unger shall three minutes suffice
You stay in your seat if you wanted to
Or do you need more time?
Okay
Kate opt you have the P first presentation and also I can there you go. All right. This is quick. This is a ballot measure
P first is a
Maybe I don't know what I'm doing here. That's possible. Could you advance the slide please?
There we go. P first is a closed-end
pension plan for police and firefighters
Who are no longer in the department? It was closed in 1976. There are only about
600 people left in the fund.
My slide says that it's 90% funded.
It's actually over 100% funded.
But this is a group of folks who are fairly old.
The average age in this program is 81 years old
and they are not getting any younger.
And so there is a board that makes decisions
for PIFRS that is made up of PIFRS members.
And because they are getting a little long in the tooth,
We need to make some changes to make it easier
for this board to meet.
Those changes include adding members
who are not part of the PIFRS fund
because we are soon going to reach a point
where not everyone in the PIFRS fund is available to meet.
We are also changing the frequency
with which they meet from monthly
to no less than quarterly.
As I stated, this fund is doing quite well.
that has moved from a mostly equities position
to a mostly bond position
and there's not much management left for it.
One interesting note about this
is because this fund is doing so well,
the taxes for the PFERS, known as the PFERS Tax Override,
is going to be rolling off of everyone's property taxes.
So if you have a $1 million assessed value on your house,
your property taxes went down by $750 two years ago
and we'll go down by another $750 next year
because this fund is doing so well
and we no longer need to collect from it.
So this is just a clean up,
but because it's a charter change,
it goes to the voters.
We want to make it easier for this group of retirees
to have effective meetings.
That's it.
Thank you, Council Member.
Thank you for taking up this item.
It's definitely important and I appreciate it.
We have one public speaker, Ms. Asada.
Mr. Sada, Olibala, please unmute yourself
and begin your comment.
I think it's very unfair to try to make it seem like property
taxes are going down, even if it's $700.
My sister pays over $7,000 in property taxes.
So don't make it seem like you are 52% of people's income
or used to pay housing and taxes, property taxes.
I don't understand expanding the eligibility.
I don't understand the frequency of meetings.
I don't understand if you have seven members,
it's not clear, you identify some people being eliminated.
How much does it cost to put this item on the ballot?
I know it's not for free.
And is this in an urgency, an urgency at this time
with our fiscal issues?
Do we have to do this at this time?
I'll entertain a motion from Councilmember Hunger
to continue.
Through the Chair, to the Council,
the City Charter requires that
for certain types of ballot measures,
they have to be heard before the Council two times.
And those are charter amendments,
certain tax increases, and bond measures.
So this one will have to be heard by the council again
before it's finally adopted.
So you could continue it to a future meeting.
We'll get the band back together.
So this continues to the first meeting in January.
Second from Brown.
On item 11 moved by council member.
Council member Fyfe.
Yeah, I just, as a matter of practice,
we do bring ballot measures to the Rules Committee
and they're typically heard not on consent
and I just wanted to make note
that we had a ballot measure on consent today.
So, I wanted to ask through the chair
to our city, I'm sorry, our parliamentarian,
what is the practice moving forward?
Through the chair to Council Member Fife,
there's nothing in your rules that prohibit
a ballot measure from being heard on the consent calendar.
As you may know, the rules committee determines the
consent and non-consent calendar.
Thank you, I would just ask for my colleagues
to have some consistency in how we are proceeding
for our own well-being and for the public's, thank you.
There was a motion on item 11 moved by Councilmember Unger,
second by Councilmember Brown,
to continue this item to the first meeting in January,
which will be January 6th.
the desire to leave it on consent non-consent yes councilmember Brown aye
councilmember five aye councilmember Gallo is absent councilmember Houston aye
councilmember Ramachandran aye councilmember Unger aye councilmember Wong
aye chair Jenkins aye motion passes with a vote of seven ayes one absent Gallo
So going to your final item on this agenda, second to last, oh my goodness, Adopt a Resolution
Authorizing City Administrator to Pay Outstanding Invoices to ABC Security Services for services
rendered after the extended contract expiration date of June 30th, 2025 and fiscal year 25
through 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 amount
of $35,380,000 and to the extent necessary
waiving the competitive request for proposals
and qualifications process and the best interest of the city
for sex excuse me for such extension
to allow continuity of services while staff conducts a new
request for proposal for security
services you have four speakers on the side
will four minutes of ice
five minutes
other three minutes
uh...
good evening accounciled president checkings and members of city council
My name's Craig Pond, I'm the Building Services Manager
in Public Works, Facility Services Division.
As you're aware, ABC Security Services, Inc.
has been providing citywide security
for the city for many years.
Over the summer, staff completed
a competitive procurement process
and proposed an award to a new security vendor.
Because the contract was ultimately not awarded,
the city faced an immediate need to avoid a lapse
and citywide security services,
and therefore, continued services with ABC security
on a month-to-month basis.
This action is time-sensitive and necessary
to maintain continuous security service at city facilities
and to address past due payments for critical services
that ABC security has already provided.
Any delay in payment of these invoices
could risk ceasing of security services
and creating safety risks for staff and the public.
Approval of this item would authorize
a month-to-month extension
of the current ABC security contract
not to exceed 15 months from,
which would be July 1st, 2025,
ending on September 30th, 2026.
Just for clarification, this takes into account
six months that have already passed
from July to current date and also considers
the council summer break in summer of 2026.
This timeline enables the finance department
to issue a request for proposal
for citywide security services, evaluate submissions,
conduct interviews and return to council
with the recommendation to award a multi-year contract
to the most qualified vendor.
This month to month extension would end
once a new contract is awarded
or by the end of the authorized extension period,
whichever occurs first.
This approach balances the need
for uninterrupted security services
with the city's commitment
to a competitive procurement process.
That concludes my presentation.
I'm available for questions.
Thank you.
Mr. City Administrator,
what's the soonest that we can get this back?
I think this is an item that has been hovering with us.
We wanna make sure that we get this right,
but we also want to make sure that this goes out to bid
and hopefully we have a successful bid next time.
So what is the soonest that we can get this out?
The chair, to members of the council,
so to your question around timeline,
I did connect with our internal procurement team
and realistically on a conservative side,
it'll take about five and a half months or so
to get through the full solicitation process.
And of course, we'll have to reorganize the work,
but that's the timeline that's been discussed recently,
but also when this item came up previously,
that was the timeline offered quite a few months ago
when we were considering the most appropriate process
to go through, which essentially takes it
out of the hands of the departments
and leaves it with the professional procurement staff.
And when you say out of five and a half, six months
for solicitation, that solicitation and award,
solicitation and award.
And to bring something back to council for consideration.
And of course, we have to follow our rules
and procedures in the process.
Okay, so just speaking for myself,
the sooner this could come back
with it being done right, the better.
Council Member Ramanjandra.
Thank you.
I feel uncomfortable, as I've expressed earlier,
with the 15 months, is it possible to,
Well, I would like, I know that the estimated time
is five and a half months and you want a little cushion,
but just because of how much, how long this has proceeded,
I would like to offer a friendly amendment
to having it be month to month, only up to six months,
just to keep some pressure under,
to be able to have this done sooner.
Is that possible?
Would that would be my amendment if I'm to support this?
through the chair
So the extension that's actually additional nine months
Six months. I I'm not really at Liberty to say because it would be through the finance department
I can't really speak and commit them to that
I
Think you know we could work through try to work through that
so
City administrator and then councilmember magenta
And I was just acknowledging, you know, whatever whatever the pleasure of the council is certainly will honor and work towards that timeline
And I know we want to move as quickly as possible
But I also want to just be realistic with the sort of litany of solicitations that our internal staff are working through which are pretty
High-level items to include, you know, some of the items that are associated with many of our public works types of projects
Which is why I'm thinking six months
Would probably be reasonable for us to work backwards if that is what you know
The pleasure of this body is and that has been communicated. So I want to you if that's the pleasure of this body
Then that's what what it is
Thank you, then I'll make that friendly amendment
So you're making a motion
motion to approve
With an amendment to decrease the time of maximum one month to month extension
to reduce it from 15 months to six months
city administrator
Through the chair our finance director Brad Johnson has a point of clarity
Thank you, city of Missouri through the council president
I think given that the start time for this contract is actually a July 1st date
Which you're asking for is a 12 month contract
Which would be the six months that have elapsed for the first half of this year and then six months from now
So I think the appropriate number and that is 12 to get six months from now
You want to redo your motion state that?
so
council member of five
Yes, this is
Council president Jenkins the second time this item has been in front of me since I've been on council
I'm very confused about why we have to keep going out to bid. So I would like to know the cost of
That process for going out to bid every time and then we subsequently end up doing the same thing
We extend the contract of the existing security company
No shade on any company that we have or I'm not trying to prop up any company that we don't have
What I don't understand is why do we have to go back out to bid if we have a list of?
vendors who were responsive that can
That can provide the services. It feels like this will cost us extra time and money
when we have a list of qualified vendors that would
At least one or two that we could contract with can someone explain that to me the cost of
the going back out to bid and
The precedent for doing going through that process versus going back to their existing list
Through the chair. I don't have the cost going through the bid process
I mean, it's going through multiple departments and divisions. So I don't have that readily available
I in the past, you know, we have done
New RFPs to refresh the RFP because they the bids have gone stale
So that was one of the main reasons
But you are correct that there are, you know vendors out there that you know have been in the past
Thank you for sharing that. I've never heard anyone say that even though it's always true that I'm correct
All right, Dean
So, yes, that was a substitute motion
Can you state the substitute motion?
Just going through everybody
Madam clerk. Can you help me out her too?
Bife
My substitute motion is that
Instead of going back out to bid which would take approximately 15 months from what I understand that we go back to the existing list
of potential vendors that applied and were qualified and responsive bidders on this
on this contract
through the chair to to cast member Fife and
the council the resolution before you as noticed
authorizes a contract
With ABC security and waves the competitive process
for the extension
So can you clarify are you can you clarify what it's what's your proposal is in relation to this Rezo?
In order to have continuity with our security contract, I'm calm
I'm okay with continuing this month-to-month contract, but if we have a list of responsive bidders
I know there are at least two from our most recent procurement process
then we maybe take 30 to 60 days to continue to month by month and then go back to the list and choose from
Amongst the responsive bidders to award a full-time security contract. That is my substitute motion. Does that make sense?
We're extending the contract and we don't need to continue with this
So your motion is to pay the outstanding and voices go 30 to 60 days
And then go from the list of already qualified vendors that have already
Bitted on this cigarettes we could make it clean and just completely reject this this
Motion, I mean reject this agenda item all together and but I think it doesn't make sense to go back out for an RFP
Process that will take almost a year and a half when we have responsive bidders that on a list. That's not stale
It took maybe two three years for the previous list to get stale
And I don't think we're there yet on the most recent
So procurement process are you removing your second motion and encouraging your council members to vote this down? I'm
I, oh, say that again.
Are you removing this motion?
Are you removing the secondary motion
and urging your council members to vote this down
with the hopes that the department would come back
with a list of already qualified bidders?
That makes the most logical sense to me.
I also want to do what is legal within this process.
And just say, we still have to pay the outstanding
in voices.
I'm not saying that we should not pay our bill.
That is not what I'm suggesting.
We all paid the bill.
OK, so this work can, I mean, almost gave you the motion.
Was your motion withdraw?
Was your motion withdrawn?
Well, through the chair to the parliamentarian,
you understand what I'm attempting to do, correct?
Yeah, but I guess my concern is that the portion about the future
are not going to an RFP or using contractors
on an existing list is outside the scope
of how this item is noticed.
This item is noticed just for the ABC extension.
So I think I heard something.
I mean, you can certainly amend this,
make a motion to amend the Reso
to remove the additional months to months,
the 15 months of month to month contract.
Up to 15 months, yes.
That's before you.
Amend that part of the agenda item.
Okay so if we could go back to
this I would need to understand
then if we are within our
jurisdiction as this body.
To bring back because if I say I
want it to be three months
instead of fifteen months I
would need to understand from
the department whether or not
that's even feasible for them to
go back to the list so I would
need some clarity from the
department first.
Through the chair the council
five what I will clarify is the
We were shifting our approach to make sure that the RP process goes through central procurement
as opposed to being handled at the department level, and the procurement team is not here.
So you do have a previous solicitation that we went through, and I'm sure there may be
other vendors that may want to compete for this work, and so this may present an opportunity
for the folks that provided proposals previously to resubmit.
and also any other vendors who may be interested
in competing for this work can go through
the full competitive process.
And so I guess the biggest piece for us is
removing the responsibility from the department
that have a list of other duties as assigned
to include this RFP process and leaving it with
the professional procurement staff that do this every day.
And I certainly hear your request with respect
to those vendors that have submitted,
And I think they will be considered as a part of the process, but the procurement team is
not here to really offer some feedback.
So, I don't want to speak to them out of term.
And I certainly hear where you're trying to go in the absence of that team.
I apologize.
I just can't heartfully answer that question.
No, that's fine.
I'm sure everybody wants to leave at this point.
But I guess the part, because it's not noticed, the only part that could be amendable in this
particular agenda item is B extend the contract for 15 months I don't think
that's necessary but if we could but we still need a time frame in there how
far are we behind on paying this team we're behind several months correct
$800,000 order through the charity it's two months and I think there is another
You have to pay for it.
So, that's the end of the invoice, billing cycle that came through, so probably three
months.
But the 800,000 and change is for a representative of two months.
Is it possible that we amend that Section B of this item to potentially six months to
And I think that's what we're
going to take from the department
that you said does this every
day.
So that we can hold the second,
the first part, well, we have to
pay the bills, but hold the part
where I'm requesting us go back
to the drawing board with the
response of bidders when we come
back to council after recess,
after the winter recess.
Through the chair, just to the
15 month to six month, which gets us to,
I think that's where we sort of started
with respect to the extension of time being 12 months
because we're counting what has already lapsed.
But within, I think what I'm hearing you say
within that timeframe, what you are requesting
is feedback from the department to say,
hey look, you have respondents that responded previously,
is that stale or is it not?
And if so, please tell me why.
And if it is, okay, now we can move forward
with the full solicitation process.
You're feeling me.
Yes, you're picking up what I'm putting down.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you.
Okay, let's get to the council members.
All right, so I think we have really good staff
in Oakland, professional staff,
and when we ask them to do an RFP,
they do a good job of it.
They follow the laws and they apply whatever standards
we lay out in the legislation we send them,
and they do the work, they add up the points,
and they follow a dispassionate process without favoritism,
and it's the core of an anti-corrupt system
to disperse public funds.
And I respect that process and I think it protects us.
Otherwise, we're just making decisions
on how we award tens of millions of dollars
based on like, I don't know, vibes or something worse.
And on the security process contract,
we had a process and we had a winner.
And I was fine with that process
and I had no reason to want to deviate from that winner.
And somehow, I was the only vote on that committee
to accept the recommendation of the professional staff
and give the win to the winner.
And yet somehow that RFP got thrown out,
don't ask me how, I don't know why.
And I don't want to extend ABC's contract,
but we also can't go without a security contractor.
So because we decided to sort of skate
past this valid contract award,
we find ourselves in this position now.
So I'll vote yes for this item, but we should not be here.
Why is it on you again?
I do the chair how many qualified bidders are worth it.
Through the chair if I rock recall correctly we've there were five.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I mean this whole process has been very convoluted and.
Because of that I think we should respect staff's decision to go ahead with the new RFP because that the original RFP.
there were community members and council members
who had questions about that process.
I don't know whether in UFP the process
will change significantly,
but at least public feedback has been heard.
So I think that rather than council members
playing favorites with what company they want on our own,
let the staff make their, do it from the scratch,
new RFP and come to us with the proposal,
taking into consideration what community members
and council members have said about that process.
And to be fair to everyone, I support this RFP.
And I do believe I made a motion with a second
for this item.
I don't know, no substitute motion was successfully made.
So does that still stand?
So you did make a motion.
The second was Houston.
So council member five has a substitute motion on the floor.
Given the second, we will vote on the substitute motion first.
can someone restate the substitute
because I do not understand?
Me, or, I'm sorry, administrator.
I just have to say before,
I think I need to consult with our city administrator,
but I think it is extremely problematic
that we are here again in what appears to be
a disrespect of minority contractors.
I don't know who those comments were made towards
about council members playing favorites,
but what I have experienced on this council
since I've been here is a by and large rejection
of black contractors when they are being considered
for work with the city of Oakland,
which our disparity study proves.
So I'm trying to understand why I am here again
for the third time when we had a competitive bid process
where a black contractor came in second every single time
and we find a reason to go back to an RFP process.
I don't know if he was,
I don't know what the details were.
I've asked consistently, what is the process?
So I can be clear, so I'm making the best decisions
with my fiduciary responsibility to the city.
None of those questions have been answered.
So when I'm trying to find out objectively
what the point scale is and how people get points
and score in these processes, that part is clear.
But when it comes to the subjective part of interviewing,
then things go off the rails.
I'm saying, if we have responsive bidders,
then let's go through the list of responsive bidders.
I find it offensive to try to insinuate
that any council members are playing favorites
when we know public policy from the local to the federal level
has been steeped in racist activity.
I don't know if that's happening here.
But because questions have not been answered clearly,
then we need to go back and look at the people who
are responsive to find out why their bids were rejected.
That is all I'm saying.
I'm not saying to choose one company over another.
I'm saying we got to do better, particularly when
it comes to dealing with how if there is bias in our process.
We have good staff who play games all the time.
Stop it.
All I asked was what was substitute motion
Councilmember pipe King who we say to set substitute motion
the motion is to accept paying our outstanding bills with this vendor in a time frame that allows us to
go back to the existing list of responsive bidders to
Find out when the council is back to back in session
Who is eligible for this contract?
I do not think we should extend a contract for 15 months on a month-to-month basis when
we have responsive bidders.
If the parliamentarian wants to put that in more formal language, appreciate that.
I just think that we have vendors that have been responsive to this RFP process and can
be examined to find out if we can choose from them or if we need to go out for a full process.
And if we have to do that, well, I'm sorry, that was a substitute motion.
Extend the contract long enough to go back to our staff to review the existing list and
only extend the contract as long as necessary to get feedback from our staff.
And pay the outstanding invoices.
Councilmember Wayne.
Yeah, just to add, because I think several people have touched upon this and I was one
one of the council members that rejected the staff recommendation for allied security,
why, can you just explain why is it that we need to go out to bid again?
Because we had voted down that proposal, it was Council Member Gayo, Houston, myself had
voted it down and so can you just walk us through why this is coming before us instead
of say looking at the second or third or fourth, you know, vendors on that list?
right, and then, um, um Yeah,
through the chair is really, I
mean to pay the outstanding
invoices, right? And then for
service continuity. So and then
I think at that point right now
is that, um, again, that the,
uh, RFP process was conducted
And I think that's what I
thought the city manager Johnson
had mentioned that going to the
finance department to put the
procurement out is really the
focus.
So basically because the
procurement is old, it's
non-viable, or what is really
the, like, what would be the,
are there risks to the city?
I'm not really following.
into the old procurement.
This item is about ABC and the extension of a contract.
Okay, well, I'll just say this,
that if we do move forward with the new contract,
the issues that I had with the procurement
that was done the prior time was,
I had asked questions on the dais
because I had just seen through my own research
that the preferred vendor had so many wage
and labor violations.
it was actually shocking, the number of controversies
associated with that, with the vendor that came out.
And so I just, and when I asked to the staff around,
did we have that as a criteria in the RFP, it was not.
And so I really think that not only just for this RFP,
but just in general, especially when it's like
this high of a dollar amount, we need to vet for that,
just going forward, that this is part of like
an ethical investment, you know, just approach, right?
And so, yeah.
And then the other thing is, I would say,
again, given the high dollar amount,
I had asked for interview notes
because that's when there was the divergence
between Allied, which was the selected vendor,
and the next one, and I was not given that,
so I just think that, again, part of the transparency
that were owed to the public
and to the council members is those interview notes,
the rankings really beyond just a score at the end.
Council Member.
Through the chair, just wanna remind the council
that what's noticed before you today
is a proposed contract to ABC.
And so we wanna keep the comments germane to that item.
Okay, so there's a motion and second.
There's a motion and second on the floor
and there's an alternative motion on the floor.
A substitute motion on the floor.
I have a question about what the substitute motion would mean.
Would it mean that we are doing sort of like a mini RFP
just with the people who pass the first round?
I don't understand what it means.
I'll defer to the maker of the substitute motion,
but again, the potential RFP is not
what's noticed before you today.
So I think the substitute motion relates
to the second resolved clause on this resolution,
which currently reads that the council's authorizing
the city manager to extend the ABC contract
for 15 months to December 30th, 2026.
To Council Member Fyfe, how would you like to,
I think you mentioned you were reducing the time,
but can you specify to what?
If it's not the 15 months
that's in that resolution currently.
Again, I would need input from our staff
because my perspective on the amount of time necessary
might differ from what our staff are saying.
So without the staff here to respond,
it's difficult for me to answer how long they
would need for this process.
And I do also want to add that minority participation
in contracting is not a vibe.
SLBE should not be a vibe.
and it was a passive aggressive comment
to state that council members are playing favorites
with the companies that they want to see
get these contracts, I don't care.
I'm saying that we need to consider our processes
so that it is fair and equitable,
and we have a history of not doing that.
That is what I'm asking for in this moment.
There's a definition or that explanation
suffice for you, got it?
Okay, Council Member Wang, Wang,
Hua Machandran, so you're calling the vote.
So Council Member has called,
so the Council Member has called the vote.
So there's not a second to Council Member Fai's motion.
Shall we call the well?
Are you cool with calling the well?
There's a substitute motion on the floor
if there's no set that it needs a second to be voted on by the council council
miss member Wong you have something to say before we come to date I don't
understand what the substitute motion is can it be quiet again okay let's call
the public speakers first moving to the public speakers for item 12 mr. hazard
Mrs. Ida Olibala, Jennifer Finley.
I told you what to do.
You ignored it.
So yes, ABC, give them their money.
They went into their own pockets.
There are two bidders who have labor violations.
There's another bidder who deals with the Border Patrol.
There's another one that deals with the detention center.
And we're a sanctuary city.
The only viable entity which when I did the tracker,
it's ABC.
So I don't know what the problem is.
Mr. Unger wanted to go with allies.
They are clearly out of the question.
They got a myriad of labor violations.
Thank you, Mr. Hazard.
Other more public speakers?
Moving to our Zoom speakers,
Mrs. Asada Ola Bala, Jennifer Finley.
If you still wish to speak, please raise your hand.
Go ahead, Mrs. Asada.
This is mismanagement.
You have not had a contract with security
since June 30th, 2025.
You also cannot spend $35 million,
and there's been no discussion on what the Pacific duties
and responsibility of security,
no performance evaluation.
The owner of the company is involved in a controversy
due to her business ties
with a major FBI public investigation.
ABC security owner has been fined in the past
by the Oakland public ethics commission
for making improper campaign contributions
to officials who are in positions to vote on contracts.
The same owner has, has had allegations of and potential legal issues regarding unfair
labor practices, including unpaid wages and overtime.
Nothing of this, this person, they don't deserve a contract.
Thank you, Ms. Olibala.
I do not see Ms. Finley with her hand raised.
So there's a motion and second.
There's a second that's failed to receive a, there's a substitute that's failed to receive
a second.
There's a call for a vote, Madam Clerk.
And are you clear with your amendment that you made?
Madam Clerk, you're clear with the amendment.
All right.
On item 12, moved by Council Member Ramachandra
and seconded by Council Member Houston
with the amendment to go month to month for 12 months,
which will include the past due six months
and starting with the additional six months
starting from today.
councilmember brown
councilmember five
councilmember gail is absent councilmember houston
also member on the charge
also member under
as a member long
in chair jenkins abstain
motion passes with the vote
five eyes one absent one no one abstention
excuse me motion passes as amended points item thirteen
Adopt a resolution approving ongoing cooperative purchase agreements exceeding $250,000 for
Oakland Public Works Bureau maintenance and internal services, commodities and services
contract as set forth in Table 1, in an amount not to exceed $3,500,000, and adopting appropriate
CEQA findings.
You have two speakers on this item.
I shot one minute suffice.
Three.
Three?
the public works department.
Bureau of Maintenance and Internal Services, Facility Services Division.
Approval of this resolution for ongoing cooperative purchase agreement exceeding $250,000 for
combined utilities and services contracts in the amount of not to exceed total of $3,500,000
in adopting appropriate California Environmental Quality Act findings.
Quality services is responsible for performing preventative maintenance of equipment, infrastructure
and building components and systems at over 300 city facilities and properties.
Open Public Works commonly procures commodities and services through cooperative agreements,
primarily to obtain lower prices and shorten the procurement process since the competitive
solicitation process has already been completed by another governmental jurisdiction or public
agency.
This resolution is a contract amendment
increasing the contract capacity value of active contracts.
It will enable staff to quickly procure
and conduct necessary and essential repairs
and preventative maintenance on life, safety, equipment,
infrastructure, building components, and systems.
This will enable the city to be compliant
with local, state, and federal codes and regulations.
Without this approval
Without the approval of this resolution the city is subject to significant liability and may be forced to shut down
And or close non-compliant facilities and properties used by the city staff in public
Thank you. Is that a motion on councilman Munger?
Is that a motion to approve
Houston second public speakers
Miss Asada, Obama and Mark Marcus Johnson. I just want to look at
Adopting appropriate California Environmental Quality Act findings. I
Don't think this city is serious about
Environmental Quality Act issues
Particularly when you're looking at this issue of the only base former only base being used for Costco
and when you have hazardous waste, contaminated soil,
and you're willing to look away from that issue.
You talk about no coal in Oakland,
and what's happening at McClimbons?
Ms. Fyfe, you haven't dealt with any of our issues
related to the contamination of the soil
over there in the air quality and the lead in the water.
I'll speak about that at open forum,
but we're not getting any support
related to the California Environmental Quality Act at McClellan's they are
trying to get a uh thank you miss Olibala Marcus Johnson if you wish to
speak please raise your hand otherwise at this time all names have been called
please call the while there was a motion by councilmember Unger seconded by
councilmember Houston to approve this item councilmember Brown aye also
councilmember five aye councilmember Gallo is absent councilmember Houston I
also remember Ramachandran I also remember under I also remember Wong I
cheer Jenkins I motion passes with a vote of seven eyes one absent Gallo
moving to councilmember announcement any announcements CNN Oh councilmember
I didn't see it.
Tomorrow, wait, what day is it?
No.
Thursday evening in this council chambers there will be a conversation to dispel some
of what the public speaker just said about the Costco ENA to get an ENA.
So I encourage everyone to come to this body, this area, not this body, but the council
chambers this Thursday, 6 p.m., to ask questions and get clarity and to address some of the
of misconceptions around what's happening
at the former Oakland Army base.
And after you guys go there,
come by Scott's district six holiday party,
but make sure you go by city hall first
and hear about Costco and dispel the myths,
but district six holiday party,
Scott's six to nine p.m.,
Scott's, Scott's Seafood.
Moving to open forum.
If you're in the chambers,
please approach the podium in any order.
If you're on Zoom and you wish to speak,
please raise your hand.
So I can easily identify you, Asada Olabala, Jennifer Finley,
Kevin Daly, Marcus Johnson, Jesse Rosemore, Mr. Hazard,
Stephanie Tran, John Edwin Scott,
Jessica Chen, Ryan James Klossmoor store, Klossmoor.
A public body cannot evade statutory
constitutional requirements by procedural devices. Acts taken in excess of authority
or void, not merely voidable after suspending rules due to negate the legal effect of a
Thai vote is an evasion of governmental law, governing law, not permissible procedures.
So you could go to clean Oakland dot com and the documents I read earlier to this body
that violated agenda item eight, Ramachandra, Unger, Wong and you, Mr. President, you're
out of line.
It's illegal and I will do the appropriate litigation to bring this back to you.
And thank you, Council Member Fife and Gayle, for the position that you took, because this
is very clear.
Thank you Mr. Hazzard. Moving to the Zoom speakers, Mrs. Asada, you are first. Please
unmute yourself and begin your comments. Currently the OUSD district is dealing with
anti-blackness. In other words, they're at Fremont High School. Hispanic students have
been using the N-word, harassing black students, and it's also been happening with teachers
to the point that they've called in a special
intervening process to deal with the issue.
We're dealing with anti-blastness at
MacLiamon's High School. MacLiamon's Fife.
You've done nothing to make sure that we get
something done with that school renovation.
It was supposed to start in June. Nothing has happened.
They moved those kids over to half of the building.
We had to rent a scoreboard.
The field is contaminated with haphazard soil.
And it's the same thing at the army base.
I'm not coming in no meeting.
I know it's contaminated over there,
but you have done nothing to help us get something done
at McCliman's that predominantly black school.
And I don't want you to come there.
We don't need you, but I'm letting you know.
Marcus Johnson, you're next.
Thank you.
My name is Marcus Johnson,
and I want to thank and appreciate city council and staff
for all the work that you've done this year
and wish you a happy holidays, and I'll see you next year.
Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Moving to Stephanie Tran, please unmute yourself
and begin your comments.
I just want to express how upset and frustrated
our small business community is about the decision
to make Sunday parking neater, especially because many
of our businesses found out through social media
instead of through direct outreach.
Sunday is one of the few days that truly supports
our small businesses.
It's when families come out,
cultural districts are active and when merchants rely on foot traffic to survive. Changing parking
on this day without engaging with the businesses that are directly impact feels dismissive and out
of touch. There was no meaningful outreach, no data shared, no opportunity for businesses to
weigh in on this decision. This raises serious concerns about transparency and process. How
many how much of the revenue are we expecting? Will any of the revenues the city intends to make go
into supporting businesses and which stakeholders were consulted if any. If the city is serious
about supporting small businesses, then decisions like this should not happen without businesses
at the table. We already have so few days that truly work in our favor. Sunday should
remain a day to support businesses, not a barrier that drives.
Thank you for your comments, Ms. Tran. That was the last speaker for open forum.
I believe council member Houston had a missed announcement.
I just wanted to agree with her about that, the meters that Sunday.
Councilmember, that's not a genetic.
I don't want to violate the bill.
OK, all right.
Thank you.
I'm sure you'll check in with the administration.
All right.
This session is over.
See you guys next year.