City Council - meeting_joint

Good afternoon. I don't even have the mics open. Good afternoon, and welcome to the city council meeting of Tuesday, May 5. Happy Cinco de Mayo.

Before I go

over speaker card instruction I mean, before I call roll, I will go over speaker card instructions. If you like to speak on any agenda item, you must fill out a speaker's card. You must fill out a speaker's card before the item is called for discussion or two hours after the start of the meeting. This meeting was called to order at 03:35, so your last opportunity to turn in the speaker's card will be 05:35PM today or before the item is called for discussion, whichever one comes first. If you like to fill out a card, you can do so by getting a card on the front table and turning it into one of the ladies at the other table before the item is called.

Or if you were looking to turn in an online speaker card, that time has passed as they were due twenty four hours before the start of this meeting. On roll today, have council member Brown. Present. Council member Fife.

Present.

Council member Gayle.

Present.

Council member Houston.

Present.

Council member Ramachandran. Present. Council member Unger.

Present.

Council member Wong. Present. And Sherri Jenkins.

Present.

Showing eight members present at this time.

Do

you have any announcements?

Yes. Because of the amount of speakers and our need to conduct the business of the city, the speaker time will be cut to one minute.

Thank you. Going to item three, which is modifications to the agenda and procedural items. Do we have any modifications?

Council member Houston, modifications to the agenda. You are out of order. That's your first warning. You're out of order. Yes,

sir. I wanna

That's your first warning. The second warning, you will be asked to leave. Council member Houston, please.

Yes. I'd like to pull s 6.25 off the consent to nonconsent, please.

So according to our rules of procedure, you need a second. Is there anyone else that will pull s 6.25 off of consent to non consent. Okay. So 6.25 will be on non consent. We will hear that for the clerk, we will hear 6.25 after four point one, after 5.1, after 5.2. We'll put it after 5.2.

Noting noting item 6.25 will be after item 5.2. Going any is that the only?

Council member Unger.

Just want to double check again through the parliamentarian 6.8 the parking administrator this is the same issue as the last time that we couldn't change the title but we're not actually doing anything with a parking administrator position.

Yes, correct through the chair to council member Unger. The title that appears on the agenda does not change but that change is reflected in the legislation so it was removed.

Great, thank you.

So as an update, there will be ninety seconds as opposed to one minute speaking time. Ninety seconds as opposed to one minute. Your warning is removed.

And through the chair, just a second, Teresa and Crystal I'm sorry, Theresa and Candice is ninety seconds instead of the minute. Instead of two minutes, a minute and thirty seconds. Going to item 4.1, conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopt a resolution finding Matthew Bernard and Lynn Warner, owners of record of assessor parcel number 4887672Dash18 in violation of Olga Municipal Code chapter one two point three six by illegally removing 38 protected trees at said parcel in opposing a penalty per chapter twelve point three six point one five zero of the Oakland Municipal Code of a total sum of $915,135 and 40¢ to place on hold any building permits and place a lien for said property until this penalty is paid in full. We have 26 speakers on this item.

Is there a presentation from staff?

Good afternoon chair Jenkins and members of the council. I'm Kristen Hathaway, assistant director for public works with Bureau of Environment. I did not prepare a new presentation. I can recap some of the information that staff presented last time. So we're here for a violation of chapter 12.36 of the protected trees ordinance.

The ordinance specifies what trees are protected and the removal permit process enforcement and penalties for violating this ordinance. We're here because on no less than seven separate occasions, Matthew Bernard, the co owner of a parcel on Claremont Avenue, acted in violation of this ordinance by repeatedly removing trees and removed a total of 38 protected trees on his and neighboring properties without a tree permit. Mister Bernard was notified multiple times in person and in writing of the ordinance and its requirement, including the necessity of applying for and obtaining a tree removal permit before removing any protected trees. Mister Bernard acted in direct violation of direction from city staff to cease doing so. And the tree division called Oakland Police Department to the site and filed police reports.

Our adopted protected trees ordinance recognizes the value of such trees and the critical services that they provide. And now that all 38 trees have been removed from the property, there's increased fire risk and risk of landslide and other We process approximately over 300 tree removal permits annually and we calculated the value of the trees that were moved per the formula in our ordinance. And as a result, staff recommended that the city impose a penalty in a total sum of $915,135.40 and to place a hold on the issuance of any approvals or permits for said parcel and to place a lien on the property until the penalty is paid per o m c chapter 12.36. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Is property owner available? Can we to the clerks, can we put five minutes on the clock, please? Come on up, mister Bernhardt. Yes. Here.

So I'm just gonna quickly recap how we got here. In August 2020, we received the city fire prevention bureau notice requiring removal of hazardous vegetation. Within forty five days, we immediately contacted the city and followed instructions to obtain permit application. We paid the required $434.20 fee, which is city cash, but we never received a receipt nor a tree tax, nor any follow-up despite being told that receipt would confirm compliance. In June 2021, the condition worsened.

We submitted a second application through Julian Tris and reported an emergency through Oak three one one. Now this particular point is quite almost like the critical part. After the Oak three one one call in June 2021, mister Todd Larson of the city scheduled an on-site inspection on 06/07/2021, but he later canceled it and advised that a waiver was not necessary based on a phone assessment, effectively withdrawing the inspection and my needed waiver. Here's how it actually happened. On the morning of 06/07/2021, we all know that we can't reach the three division by any phone number, office phone number, nor their cell phone.

So he had my phone number and he called me. And he asked, were the trees still standing? I said, yes, mister Larson. If they were not standing, I wouldn't be calling and requesting for a tree waiver. And he said, do they look green?

He said some part look green and some look brown, but they're at risk of falling. Then I said, Based on what I I told him on the phone, a three waiver is not necessary, and so we need to withdraw the three waiver, and we also also need to cancel the site visit. So, basically, it's like trying to do the right thing at the beginning. The city is telling me you this is not what you do. Then and on June 2021, we obtained a licensed arborist inspect we had a licensed arborist inspected property and recommended the removal of the 8th Streets due to being dead, dying, leaning, hazardous condition, including fire and fall risk.

Now based on the city's action, including direction from mister Todd Larson, lack of response, and the city's risk the aboriginal report, we recently believed that we're in compliance and proceeded to remove only those eight hazardous trees. We dispute the claim that there are 38 trees removed. The property is only about 11,787 square foot hillside lot where several trees had fallen prior to our purchase and other trees fell during storms through 2020 from 2020 through 2022. We know in January, it rains a lot here and those trees fall around fall around that time. Also, the area canopy analysis and counting the stops on the ground can't be reliable.

In particular, the storms were not counted right after the trees were removed. Counting And the storms four years later doesn't distinguish preexisting conditions, natural tree loss, and overlapping canopies structures. The only verifiable trees that were removed are the one that identified by a licensed aberris, which is documented. At this point, I believe we acted in good faith, followed city instructions, rely on city communications while addressing documented safety hazards. I would like to propose a resolution.

We hereby request the opportunity to replant trees after construction when the site is stable and suitable with a plan developed in coordination with the city's planning and building department under the oversight of the city council. Thank you very much.

Thank you, mister Bernard. Let's go to the public speakers if there's no questions from my colleagues. You have a question? Please proceed.

I needed a question, can you From come back

Mr. Barnard. Mr. Barnard.

Through the chair, do you have pictures of the fallen trees and the dead trees?

Oh, I presented those on in December on the December hearing, I printed a number and I circulated it.

So through the chair, how many dead trees were there and how many fallen trees were there? And it's you you got that documented. I wanna know through the chair.

When we acquired the property, we we inherited nine fallen trees on the property.

And how many and through the chair. How many dead? I'm sorry? How many dead trees? Oh. You said fallen. You said through the chair, you said nine

Nine trees. Nine Correct. Okay. We got that. And there were there were lots of others there were a lot of storms on

the ground. We got that. How many dead trees?

Dead trees. At at least, I mean,

the eight trees.

Through the chair. Not at least. How many dead trees?

If we factor the eight, harbors eight from the harbors report and in 2020, January 2020, about two trees fell. 2021, another two trees fell and then fell. And in 2022, four trees fell. So 02/24, that's eight plus those 18. Those eight, that's about 16 already.

So so let's be clear through the chair. Let's break it up. You said there were nine fallen trees.

Yes. Okay. Got it. That's before we acquired a property.

Okay. I got it. Does it matter if it's before or after?

Oh, total total trees falling No. It will be 9%.

Let me

ask you

a question.

Stop stop for a second, please. I know it's nine fallen trees. Got it. Clear. Done with that one.

But that's not the total falling trees. The total fallen trees will be 17.

Let me just ask you a direct question, please. To the chair, you have nine fallen trees. We're done with that. How many dead trees? Just give me the number, please.

The dead trees that I can categorically say they were dead, at least those eight from the harborage reports were included. Those were the eight dead standing trees that

Okay. Eight.

Got it.

Got it. So that's 16 to 17. Okay. Eight.

No. Eight plus 17, that's 25. Because there's eight falling trees, 17 falling trees, there's eight dead trees. That's

25. It. I got it. I got it. Thank you.

Any other questions? No. Thank you, mister Bernard. We'll go to the public speakers.

As I call your name, please approach the podium in any order. Please raise your hand if you are on Zoom so I can easily identify you. Please state your name before beginning. And if you have time ceded to you, please say that at the beginning so I can give you your appropriate time. And please note if someone is seating time, they must be present in the meeting, so whether in the room or on Zoom.

Peter Lee, Pat Williams, Brook Levin, Emily Wheeler, Samitra Kalkar, sorry if I said it incorrectly, Blair Beekman, Becca Way, Christina Najaro, Peter Alexander, mister Hazard, Miss Asada Olabala, Matthew Bernard, Lynn Warner, Ron Lawrence, Jesse Rosemore, Ralph Cans, John d Bauer, Kent Wegener, Heiress Yvonne Gagnes, Emma Murphy Murphy, Buffalo Sojourn, doctor Arash, Danish Zade, Mandolin Kadira Redmonds, Rachel O'Leary, Kevin, I think, McWay from TFO. In any order, excuse me, in any order, please approach the podium. The time is on this, screen behind me. Go ahead and begin. Approach the podium.

Good afternoon. Peter Alexander. So I think this is a wonderful opportunity for, the city council to get together with the federal police here locally because it seems to me, and you can I think a lot of people can verify this, that, similarly, a fellow named Newsome knew ahead of time that the dew directed energy weapons were going to destroy tens of thousands of acres of forest full of trees and advised his friends in the insurance industry, his cronies in the insurance industry, to withdraw their insurance about a month before all these fires came down, which they knew was gonna happen? So all these people lost their homes, let alone tens of thousands of trees, if not hundreds of thousands of trees, and, they were all burned with millions of acres so the people could not collect their insurance and rebuild. So here are trees that were intentionally destroyed, and Newsome and his friends knew this in advance.

There is plenty of information verifying this all over the place. So everything is seen, including all intentions and deceptions. All abuse is seen by the seer, the living lord who wields the sword. And there's also an opportunity for this man here to do something very interesting. One of my nicknames is Cactus Pete.

Thank you, mister Alexander. Your time is up.

Good afternoon, honorable council members, people of the public, and, community members at large. I am here, my name Mandalynn Kadera Redman. I am the executive director with the Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation. We support several different projects throughout the city of Oakland that support our tree canopy, greening spaces, parks in collaboration with the city, several grants, and state funded tree planting activities. You will hear from several of our partners today from Trees for Oakland, who we fiscally sponsor, as well as some of our other community members that help us support a healthy tree canopy.

We are here, to support the staff's recommendation to find the full amount and enforce the protective tree ordinance. We our board wrote a letter. It was submitted for public record. That should be available to you, and our community and some colleagues of mine will read from that today. Again, we support the staff's recommendation to enforce the tree ordinance, for this and all, anytime when that is not, followed by the law. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, honorable members of the Oakland City Council. My name is doctor Arash Tanisadeh. I am the director of programs at the Oakland Parks and Rec Foundation, long time educator in Oakland, twenty five year teacher in OUSD. On behalf of the Oakland Parks and Rec Foundation, we write to urge the city to fully enforce existing tree protection ordinances and associated fines in cases of unauthorized tree removal. This is not simply an environmental issue, it is civic, public safety, and an equity issue.

First, ordinances only carry meaning when they are consistently enforced. When violations particularly egregious ones like this are allowed to go under penalized, it sends a clear message to the city of Oakland that compliance is optional. In this case, the property owners repeated disregard for tree services, documented misrepresentations and removal of trees beyond their own property reflects behavior that is not only un neighborly but fundamentally anti civic. The city has both the authority and responsibility to uphold its own standards. Second, the removal of mature trees creates real and immediate risk beyond any single parcel.

In Oakland's hills, tree canopy plays a critical role in wildfire mitigation. These protections do not stop lines. When trees are removed without oversight, the burden of that risk is shifted onto neighbors. Research research has shown that the vegetation loss in Oakland has significantly increased erosion and landslide risk over the last several years according to a US geological study that was done in 2020. My colleagues after me will be reading the

Hello. My name is Eris Gagne. I am arborist with Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation. I'll be picking up where my colleague left off. These losses are not easily remedied. The trees removed were not saplings. They were mature established canopy. Trees of that size are not commercially available for replacement, and even with replanting, it will take decades, even centuries to restore the ecological and protective functions that were lost. The scale of the fine reflects this reality. These trees are in practice irreplaceable within a human lifetime.

Studies in urban forestry confirm that mature trees provide exponentially greater ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, air filtration, and cooling. Fourth, failure to enforce this case sets a dangerous precedent. If other property owners or developers were to act similarly, Oakland's already vulnerable urban forest, particularly in the hills, would rapidly decline. At a time when cities across California are investing heavily in canopy expansion to combat heat, pollution, and climate impacts, we cannot afford to allow unregulated removal to undermine that work. Urban tree canopy has been directly linked to reductions in extreme heat exposure and improved public health outcomes, particularly in frontline communities.

Finally, this is a social justice issue. Enforcement disparities, particularly when well resourced property owners or developers are able to skirt regulations, raise serious concerns about equity. Communities across Oakland, especially in historically disinvested neighborhoods, are working to build and protect tree canopy as

Hello. My name is Emma Murphy. I'm also with the Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation. I'll continue to read the letter. Tree canopy or actually, I'm gonna read from the previous sentence. Communities across Oakland, especially in historically disinvested neighborhoods, are working to build and protect tree canopy as a matter of public health and environmental justice. Tree canopy disparities are strongly correlated with income, race, and health outcomes, including asthma and heat related illness. That work is undermined when rules are not applied consistently across all actors. The city should enforce the rules in this case and all others, including recent large scale removals in West Oakland tied to corporate property management. Trees are not amenities.

They are infrastructure. They mitigate carbon, reduce extreme heat, filter air pollution, manage storm water, and support physical and mental health outcomes across our communities. Protecting them requires not only policy but also accountability. We respectfully urge the city council to uphold the staff recommendation to the full extent of the law. Also, we encourage the city council to reaffirm the city's commitment to tree protection ordinances by ensuring consistent enforcement across all property. Oakland's urban forest is already under strain. Strong enforcement today is essential to ensuring it remains for future generations. Thank you for your leadership and consideration.

Hi there. My name is Somath Rukhelkar. I'm a longtime Oakland resident and former OUSD science teacher. I taught in Oakland public schools for four years because I want kids in Oakland to have a brighter and better future to live in. Having taught at both Skyline and Oakland Tech, I've seen how profound of a difference it makes in kids lives to be surrounded by trees and birdsong rather than roads, buildings, and astroturf.

I've also seen how access to a healthy living environment has been so inequitable for so long that it's seen by some as a trivial luxury for the wealthy and privileged rather than a basic necessity that everyone should have. City council should uphold their responsibility to Oakland's children and future inhabitants and enforce the policies that we already have to protect the public. Allowing landowners from outside Oakland to permanently destroy an irreplaceable part of our shared living environment to build a single luxury house will not solve the housing crisis. It will set a precedent that will make Oakland a hotter, louder, and more polluted place especially for so many of Oakland's most marginalized communities who are already overburdened by the life altering effects of the worsening extreme heat and pollution that trees protect us from. Failing to enforce the protected tree ordinance would call into question the city's willingness to enforce any of the city policies that exist to protect our communities.

If leaders create policies that are meant to benefit the public but then choose not to enforce them, then what is the point? I would like to use the rest of my time to point out that these meetings are often scheduled during working hours on weekdays which is when working class people and young people who are the most directly affected by the decisions made here cannot be here so please take that into consideration.

Good afternoon and thank you council members. My name is Rachel O'Leary and I'm a senior environmental scientist and supervisor with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, CAL FIRE, with the Urban and Community Forestry Program. I'm here for a second time to emphasize the necessity of consistent and thorough enforcement of the city of Oakland's protected tree ordinance. As stated in a letter that we submitted to the council, CAL FIRE's urban community forestry program has made substantial long term investments in Oakland's urban forest to benefit all Oakland residents. Planting over 3,000 trees within the city through multiple grants, totaling over $9,800,000 in direct grant awards for projects in this city.

All of these state funded projects were undertaken to expand urban tree canopy cover and shade, support biodiversity, enhance climate resilience, improve public health, and environmental equity, all while strengthening the long term benefits of the urban forest. Over 80% of California's urban tree canopy grows on private property. The cumulative impact of illegal tree removals extends beyond immediate canopy loss. The repeated loss of publicly funded trees creates a disincentive for future state investment. When state agencies invest in projects, we must ensure that funds are directed toward projects that provide meaningful and lasting public benefit.

For these reasons, CAL FIRE respectfully urges the city of Oakland to maintain and consistently enforce its protected tree ordinance. Thank

you for your comments.

Hi. How are you? My name is Jesse Rosemore. I wanna bring up how this item is a bit indicative of the priorities of city council. This is the third time that this has been up and it's in prime time which is now 03:30 instead of 05:00.

This contrasts quite a bit to how the EAP was heard, how this bypass committee, how it was heard at 09:30 on a working day, just as the last speaker said, during a workday when most people couldn't come. This seems like it was intentional and that the time that's been spent admonishing an immigrant, having that in contrast to the abbreviated for quorum issues apparently time that was spent using the Trump administration's grant pass ruling to demean the human rights and everything for our most impacted and poor residents here in the city is it's really shameful and I just want you all to think about how that reflects on all of you in this time of fascism in The United States Of America. I also saw in some of the prior discussions some indignant speeches by someone running for reelection and I don't think it reflected very well on them. And, you know, I'm here for it this time. I brought something like for the case.

I think if you really care about trees, your Sunrise endorsement would be renewed. I don't think that's gonna be the case, but that must be kind of tough. So thank you.

Good evening. My name is Ron Lawrence. I'm here to talk about the optics of proportional justice in the city of Oakland. Currently, this body is deliberate deliberating whether to soften the blow of a $900,000 fine for a property owner who willingly clear cut protected trees, correct in direct violation of city ordinance, you are deciding the intent or hardship justifies reducing the massive penalty for environmental destruction. Meanwhile, I have a friend who recently had his car stolen.

While it was out of his possession the city issued him a $75 parking ticket. He didn't cut down any trees, he was the victim of a crime. Yet he's appealed the ticket twice to the city and it's been declined. The irony here is that the system is efficient enough to squeeze $75 out of a crime victim but suddenly finds its hands tied when it comes to holding wealthy property owners accountable for nearly $1,000,000 in damages. The message this sends to Oakland residents is clear.

You are if you are a regular person caught in a bureaucratic gear, the city has no grace for you. But if you commit a high dollar violation that permanently scars our landscape, the city is happy to negotiate. I urge the city commission to stop looking for ways to reduce this fine if a stolen car victim can't get a $75 break, a developer or an individual who knowingly violates tree protection laws certainly shouldn't get a discount. Show us that the law applies to everyone, not just those who can afford to fight it. Thank you.

Hello. Council members, thank you for the very substantial deliberation last month. It was it was it was really important to hear that for me and a resident of Oakland, District 7. I particularly I particularly love trees. I volunteer with a number of tree planting organizations here in Oakland.

And I think it's really important to apply the law To me, cutting down the trees as this unfortunate gentleman did is the same thing as a business picking up toxic chemicals and dumping them in the center of La Rojo Viejo Park. So I think we have to hold up the law. We have to do better. And doing better in this city is is really getting hard. So I really encourage you to find this gentleman.

I just wish he was a white, rich person. There was a number of things brought up the last time which indicated there was a concern about racism. I see no racism in this, but I wish he was a white rich person.

Thank you, sir. Can you state your name?

Kent Wegener.

Thank you, mister Wegener.

Thank you council members. My name is John Bauer. I've been a volunteer with Trees for Oakland since 2010, and I emphasize volunteer. We've planted most of our trees in Oakland's flatlands and frontline communities since that time. I believe we've planted more trees than any other organization in Oakland.

We're happy to continue working with our partners like Oakland Parks and Rec Foundation and column Common Vision to continue to do that work. I I know you are all extremely sincere about this item and the the deliberations you had about it last month. I appreciate that. I just wanna point out, when you or your predecessor voted unanimously for the urban forestry plan in December 2024, to me what you voted for was equal and full enforcement of the protected tree ordinance, as it says in here, should be done, not reduce fines for the wealthy landowners. Furthermore, the urban forest plan and policy goal number one, preserve and protect protect Oakland's forest twice calls for directing fees and fines towards expanding the tree canopy in Oakland's frontline and disadvantaged communities.

Trees for Oakland and our other partner organizations will be happy to continue to doing that work with your support. Please take, staff's recommendation on this item. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, council members. My name is Kevin Mulvey. I'm a member of Trees for Oakland and also serve as co chair of the Oakland Urban Forestry Forum. Not long ago, city council voted unanimously to adopt Oakland's urban forest plan. Council member Gaio, I recall you sat in the chair when we voted on that.

If I park my car illegally, I'm required to pay a fine. If I pay my taxes late, I will obviously have to pay a fine. I don't get to come before the city council three times to make an appeal directly to our political leaders. When someone deliberately clear cuts their property, which includes statutorily protected trees, they were required by our city law to pay a fine. This is not complicated.

What has made this complicated is deliberate obfuscation and the invoking of red herrings. Others are watching these proceedings. The private equity owners of Pacific Pipe on Mandela Parkway have destroyed dozens of trees planted by TFO volunteers and funded by CAL FIRE. Where there were healthy trees, there is sadly now a parking lot. These wealthy investors have since adopted the attitude of ignoring Cal Fire and have obviously concluded they can act with impunity. When citizens break the law, they must pay the price, the full price, not a slap on the wrist that further jeopardizes our constantly shrinking urban forest and sends the wrong

Thank you, sir. Your time is up.

Hello, my name is Christina Naharo and I would like to voice my strong support to impose this fine. I wasn't able to come last meeting when I was slightly less pregnant but because it's still unresolved I am here even more pregnant. These trees were not cut down in my neighborhood. I probably could not afford to live in that neighborhood and I also know that that neighborhood has far more trees than mine does. But I am here because I recognize that everything is connected.

All ecosystems in the city, in the Bay Area, in the state are connected, and loss of ecosystem anywhere is loss of ecosystem everywhere. What we have lost is immeasurable. Old growth trees are irreplaceable, so this is not a plant more trees and move on situation. We must apply the laws that we have to keep this from happening and a fine is the best deterrent to stop this in the future. I'd like to thank the council members who voted in favor of this resolution last time and urge those who voted against it to reconsider.

I am not blind to who has spoken in favor of this resolution. There are so many people who this affects who could not be here, black and Latino communities, children, people working jobs that do not allow them to be here. We have a chance to do better for the people who couldn't be here and for future generations. Please vote to impose the fine. Thank you.

Come on, mister Soldier.

Point of information. I see you guys are finally getting something because he wasn't doing Robert Rule's order. How long do I have to talk?

You have a minute and thirty seconds.

I got a minute and thirty seconds.

It's it begins now.

Hey. It's all about cosmic slop. Win between May Day and Earth Day. Earth Day, 04/21/1971. Political expediency and games make it other days. So here in cosmic slop, I'm a talk to you about some trees. I visit redwoods my little sister planted on April 21. That's what I know about it. And the man was talking about Mandela Parkway, the last gift of the honorable David Brower. Now we're gonna talk about trees.

For the record, Los Alcate Verdot during the tenure of Jean Quan saved y'all the two pine trees by West Oakland BART. You know, the contractors that play with BART, they get sloppy and they were gonna cut down the trees just because they could. So Los Alcatibird died, organized the business people and then mayor Dream Quan, they'd put a cork in it. When Grove Street changed to MLK, I was part of that motley crew that planted. Y'all need to plan ahead.

Nice to see all these people who are defending trees, but it was a struggle earlier on. Nice to see you all getting grant money to talk about it. I'm one of the founders of the great tree tenders. We tend to the trees you plant, we trim suckers, we wonder why you put it on the power lines, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Thank you. Thank you so much, mister Soldier. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Ralph Cans. What's really disturbing here is the unequal application of the law across Oakland. House flippers in this city are doing the same exact thing on a daily basis. Disturbing lead paint, doing remodeling without permits, Cutting protected trees down without permits. And the city does almost nothing.

Mister Jenkins I sent you lists of them. Nothing happens. There's millions of dollars being lost by the city because of this uneven application of the law. As an example, 5339 Trask Street was bought by a flipper three years ago, who started remodeling without contracts and cutting down protected trees without a permit. The city did nothing about it. Nothing. The house ended up getting foreclosed. The flipper got foreclosed. Yes. It happens.

And yet the city still has not given a fine to that house flipper who violated the law. And now because the house flipper no longer owns it, and there was never a lien put on the property, there was no constructive or actual notice to the subsequent owner, which means the city can no longer collect the fines for the violations of the law. And that happens all the time with house flippers in Oakland. When are you gonna apply the lie equally all across the city, especially in East Oakland?

I find it interesting that you are willing to take accountability for the trees, but you won't take accountability for many things. I'm just gonna mention one. I have come to you several times to say, you have no evacuation plan for those students, 1,500 students at Skyline. You can't evacuate them. And your fire department is telling the school for that they will shelter in place on the football field in case of a major fire.

No accountability. So you have here dead trees. You tried to get the number, and you also have trees that supposedly have been identified that needed to be cut down, trees that were fallen. You have property that has eroded over time because of lack of action. Your public works department should have taken action in 2021, 2022.

They didn't. There is a accountability, a mandate that says you have to mandate anything in terms of fines of violation in a timely manner. This is not being done in a timely manner. And the law allows the property owner to proceed to go to administrative hearing to listen to this because it hasn't been done in a timely manner. No accountability to your staff. The property has depreciated. You have also allowed the city to place vacancy tax on the owner. The

Thank you, miss Olavala. Your time is up.

The legal issue is whether or not the property order is in compliance with the protected tree ordinance. Those are for healthy trees, but you are holding them accountable for the diseased trees. Nobody has looked at the issue around the arborist. All those trees, I can't believe the property owner was going to just go out randomly cut down trees. Mister Houston was correct to answer the question wanted an answer to the questions, how many trees were already down and how many trees were healthy.

You have not talked to that. And for you, mister president, to do this, Instagram to get people out here to talk against the property owner. That's unethical. So you got two legal issues, compliance with the tree ordinance and how many trees were diseased. You cannot come to any conclusion tonight and determine the value of those downed trees and those diseased trees because you wanna hold them accountable for all 38.

Thank you, mister Hazard.

If your name was called and you're in the room, please oppose the podium. Otherwise, at this time, we'll be moving to the Zoom speakers. Brooke Levin, you are next. Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Brooke. You very much, council president Jenkins, members of the council, and administration and public works staff. You've done an amazing job here at public works. These are very hard cases to deal with. I was the public works director and before that, the assistant director over trees.

And, you know, when we got a call, it was, you know, very difficult to go out there and deal with it, but it was usually one tree. In this case, 38 trees were cut, and this property owner was warned over and over and over and had many chances in writing and verbally, had the police out there, and he kept cutting trees. He just was a slap in the face of the city of Oakland. I do not see how this council could vote not to enforce the tree ordinance. If you choose to not have a tree ordinance like this, then that's a whole another story.

But right now, this is what's on the books, and this is a very important ordinance. I am also a member of the Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation board. We are out there in East Oakland and West Oakland planting trees to help with climate change, to help with, air quality in some of the areas of the city that have the highest asthma rates. This was an egregious violation of city law, and it needs to be shut down. They need to be fined the full amount, and they are not poor, you know, poor people who are not doing something they're not doing something for the good

Thank you, miss Levin. Your time was up. Think you Peter Lee?

Yes.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Speaking. Speak speaking. Thank you. I had sent an email this morning. I was told I would get time for three speaker my name is Peter Lee. I represent the neighbors, Lee Baker, Schultz, and Shane.

Excuse me. So what you're saying is three people ceded their time to you? Yeah. Are they present?

No. No. But I but I sent an email this morning. I was told that, yes, I could go ahead with this.

Can you tell me who told you that?

And I I sent it to the deputy clerk, and they somebody different than the deputy clerk sent it back to me. And I'm prepared to speak for six minutes according to that.

Well, can you tell me who told you that?

I I have the email in my pocket.

We'll take our time, please.

Do the chair. He had seated.

Candace, can you go read that email?

Through the chair to mister Lee, you were told that the time is assigned by the chair and that we could not allow you to share your PowerPoint.

Mister Lee. Our office has taken note of your request to sign up for item 4.1. For any documents to be shared to the public and council, please bring nine copies which I brought and you should have. Do you have those? Do each council member should have a copy of what I brought which was my intention was to present nine 13 slides, which I have reduced in this format. Do you have those?

Can you continue with the email? Everyone has it. Can you continue with their email where she told you that you would be allowed?

You you will not be able to share any PDF via Zoom? Thank you. She did not say I couldn't have the time, but I asked for the time in the email above.

So according to Order

I asked for

the time. Order in the chamber. According to the according to the Brown Act, everybody has to be given equal time. So please please proceed with your comments. You have a minute or just proceed.

How much time do

I have?

A minute and thirty seconds. Ninety seconds. Please start.

Okay. Okay. So I'm I'm here to speak to an issue on the fire hazard risk and mitigation measures on the site as it sits today. It's been four years. We're coming out of our first winter into our spring, summer, and we've seen a cycle. This is a a very extreme fire hazard, and they have here mitigation measures that we are proposing as neighbors. But before I speak to that, I'd like to speak to mister Bernard's presentation earlier. And I would like to say, truthfully, that 95 of what he said is a it's

it's Excuse me. Order in the chamber,

It's a little distracting.

Please pause, Einstein. We have to be able to hear, mister Lee.

Thank you.

Please. Yeah.

No. I'm not lying.

Stop. Order in the chamber, mister Satter. Hey. Hey. Just continue.

Okay. According to my email.

Continue. Please continue.

Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Okay. So 95% of what mister Bernard said is a lie and false. And let me just simply say that those trees were very green as the last speaker said. And we have thousand thousands of photographs and videos in an album that we've shared as three neighbors. I have presented those information to council member Ramachandran in her group. We have 30 slides. We've gone through it painstakingly. We presented the same information to council member Brown, very clear.

Those trees were all very alive. Maybe 95% of them. Okay. So secondly

Order in the chamber. You're out of order.

Mister Lee, your time is up.

Miss mister Lee, your time is up. Council member Brown? Council member Miss Miss Mister Lee, one second. You are out of order. Just wait. Do you have anything to say? Okay. Thank you.

Hold on. We have one more Zoom speaker. Open 10:18. Can you please tell me the card I mean, the name of the card you submitted for item 4.1.

Yeah. Hi. Can you hear me? I can. Yeah. I am unable to change my name for this webinar. My name is Emily Wheeler.

I'm you, miss Wheeler. Go ahead.

Just for myself as a private citizen. And I was just commenting, because I don't really care, what sort of punishment or fine you give to this person. I think punishments are bad. But I just wanna sort of speak up for our native oak trees. I think my concern here is that, as we know, there are a lot of greedy developers in Oakland, and I just want to make sure that whatever happens in this particular case, that, you know, very wealthy people, very greedy developers don't feel like they have carte blanche to sort of cut down the rest of our native oaks.

I really feel passionate about environmental justice and including, in areas in the flatlands. I think it's really a shame that Oakland doesn't have the money to have a robust native tree program, and I just really wanna keep our native tree canopy, old growth forests, and biodiversity as much as possible. So, again, you know, it really sucks that this guy cut down all these trees. I wish it hadn't happened, but what I really wanna make sure is that it doesn't happen in the future. Like, regardless of of what punishment happens now, I hope that we can find a way to prevent more old growth trees from being cut down. Thank you so much. Have a great day.

At this time, all names have been called.

Thank you so much. Clerks, we're gonna run the clocks on the council members and we gotta we have to get to a on this item at some point in time. This is our third time hearing this. I'm gonna start with council member Ramachandran, then I'm gonna go to council member Brown after that. And then council member Unger, then council member Fife.

Through the chair, you all begin. It would be easier if you gave us a total time for that you want for this item and let the clock run down, because it's hard for us to time each one of you with the system today.

According to our council rules of procedure, the total amount of speaker time on any item is seven minutes.

According to your rule 11 of your council rules of procedure, no member of the council shall speak for more than eight minutes on any non consent item without the consent of the presiding officer or majority of the members of the council.

So council member Houston knows the rules better than me. Council member Ramachandran, please proceed. Can you turn the mic on?

Thank you. I will keep it

brief today. My position has not changed in the slightest and I have been honored

to turn see an outpour of support for my motion last week and for what four of us were excited to do last week. Now, there's a lot of issues that are important in the city of Oakland. There's no doubt. And we get lots of comments about lots of things. But to see people wanting us to stand up for our name, oak trees in Oakland, really warms my heart, and I wanna share my commitment to environmental justice and upholding the full penalty.

So at the end of this, I will make a motion to uphold staff's recommendation to implement the full fine. Now I just wanna briefly mention that what the law and our responsibility as elected officials to uphold the law is today. OMC twelve point thirty six point one seven zero states, and I'm gonna read the whole thing, use my time for this. If the alleged violator and or property owner pursuant to section 12.3 36.16 requests a hearing before city council. The date of the hearings will be set within five working days.

So first off, the violator here, mister Bernard, chose to have a hearing with this body rather than negotiate with city staff. A lot of people ask, well, why is this issue coming to counsel when it comes to a fine and not a whole lot of others? Firstly, it's written in our tree protection ordinance explicitly. And a lot of cases, you get to a negotiation with staff here, typically code enforcement, not public works. And here, the requester asked for a hearing, and that's why we're we're doing this.

Continuing on with the with the code. At the hearing, the alleged violator and or property owner shall have the burden of disproving the preliminary findings of the tree reviewer, which is public works here. In any event, any party requesting a hearing failing to appear, blah blah blah, the code goes on. So that means that our job here today as council members is not just talk about is the decision of staff fair. As presented today and for the last two times we've had this hearing, staff made their determination of this fine based on the tree protection ordinance.

So it is our job to decide whether the violator slash property owner has disproved staff findings, and there is zero evidence out there. And trust me, I have spent hours and hours reviewing every single communication between the property owner and the city, reviewing every tree footage, reviewing every video footage that neighbors have submitted, interviewing over a dozen people involved in this case, and there is literally no evidence that suggests that the property owner can to find that he dis that he can disprove the findings of staff that you cut down 38 trees. We may not like this law. We might find it unfair, but we have a duty to uphold them or we can rewrite them. This body has the power to do that, rewrite what the ordinance is.

But let me remind this council that this wasn't a law invented out of thin air. A past city council and several, including about half the members on this one just deciding to reaffirm it through the adoption of our urban forestry plan, said that we are making a statement here to protect our trees, native species, and uphold that they have immense value in protecting our biodiversity, being in defense of climate change, supporting eco ecosystems, wildfire prevention, soil erosion, so much more that commenters here have more eloquently stated than me, but this is abundantly clear that this is the law today, and we have to implement it. So I urge my colleagues to make a statement here about this issue and also to be crystal clear to anyone who wants to come into our city and trash our city and violate our laws and think that you can get away with it. Today, I think we can send a bold statement that the answer is no. You violate our laws, you trash our cities, you cut our trees, you are going to be fined.

To me, that's fair. So I will make a motion to uphold staff's recommendation and to uphold our values of environmental justice in this city today and every day moving forward.

Miss Assata, you're out of order. You're out of order, Miss Assata. You're out of order. Miss Councilmember Brown?

Alright. Well first off, I just want to say thank you to all of the community members that reached out to us of course in person but then also via email. Especially all of the young people that sent us notes from Skyline and various elementary schools. And I think that this type of civic engagement is very important. And so I just wanna state clearly and just for the record, I a 100% believe in protecting our tree ecosystem.

As someone who actually studied environmental law, this is an issue of great personal and professional importance to me. I also wanna thank council member Ramachandran for actually asking me to engage on this item. And so myself and her team, as was mentioned by a few of the members of public, we sat down with them to go over all of the details. We met with city staff. We met with the neighbors.

We met with mister Bernard. And so while I agree that Mr. Bernard's behavior is 100% egregious, I was mentioning to a friend that he in fact was wiling out. And neighbors certainly have the right to hold him accountable for the trees that he cut on their property. The matter before us today concerns the trees that are on his private land and not city property.

And so here are the facts. We're operating first off, as council member Paramahutanshu mentioned, I actually think it is an outdated tree ordinance that fails, it's four decades old, it fails to account for the realities of modern development, and also in fact it lacks city accountability to care for the trees that we have actually planted. So I'm gonna say that for the record and you can ask an East Oakland resident. While the drastic change to the landscape is jarring to the community, we must ask ourselves a fundamental question of justice. Why are we finding a property owner the full replacement value for the trees the city would have likely authorized him to remove during the standard building permit process?

I passed out a document which was in your agenda packet attachment three where you see an example of the developmental footprint. And so I think we should be giving that a matter of consideration instead of the full fine. As I stated in my last comment when this item was before us, as an example, these parcels were were actually previously owned by mister Peter Lee who was speaking. And during when he was trying to develop on his property to build his home, the city authorized him to cut down 19 trees to do so. So I just want everyone to take that in.

And so if mister Bernard had waited for a site plan approval, many of these trees, have a look at the buildable footprint, Those within the buildable footprint of the home and driveway would have been removed legally to accommodate housing. And I believe that a truly equitable approach, one that is actually supported by our 2024 urban forest plan requires us to distinguish between preventable loss and inevitable removal. I believe that a tiered fine is the only just path forward. We should calculate the penalty based on the trees removed outside of the buildable area, the one that could and should the ones that could and should have been saved, to do otherwise risk actually setting a precedent of selective hyper enforcement. And so we cannot, in good conscious, impose an almost a million dollar penalty that far exceeds the value of the land itself.

And I believe, mister Bernard, I believe you paid about a 150,000 for this land, especially given the inconsistent history of how these fines have been applied across Oakland's diverse neighborhoods. And so we have to remember that this is not city land, this is a private citizens property. And while we have a shared interest in our urban canopy, we must balance that against the fundamental rights of an owner to develop on their land, and we need to distinguish between allowable removal for a home and unlawful destruction. The fine must be proportionate to the unauthorized destruction coupled with a legally binding plan to restore the canopy of the property. And so one thing that city staff did add to our agenda packet is a chart where it says 28 trees outside the building footprint and there's options one through four.

And so I would make an option, I would make a motion to adopt the recommendation of option one in this case.

So that's a motion for option one. Thank you. And to Councilmember Ramachandran, you cannot make a motion for that because that motion failed. There would have to be a motion to reconsider from somebody from the prevailing side, either council member Brown, Feife, Gyle, or Houston. We're gonna go five.

It it can't be from somebody who voted who voted from the failed measure. So the measure failed, died. There has to be a motion to reconsider for staff's recommendation. What

if it's a slightly different motion to approve stock recommendation and require a report on compliance or something like that? Would that be a new motion?

We would have to hear the details of the motion to evaluate that, I think, and make sure it's within the scope of how the item is noticed.

Okay. So maybe you could talk with the parliamentarian about your alternative motion. I'm going to go to council member Wong and then council member Fife after that.

Okay. I I have a question for our city staff. In the first interaction that was had with the respondent, I suppose I should call mister Bernard, on 02/02/2021. You all it says here that staff spoke with him asking him to stop, that you actually explained the violation to him and that he that he needed the tree removal permit but that he refused to cooperate and continued cutting down the tree. Can you just elaborate more on that? Because I I think this is important because this is the first time that this individual has been notified about, you know, his violation of the law?

Sure. Yeah. Through the chair. So our staff was on-site and observed him cutting trees and informed him that he needed to stop and obtain a tree removal permit. And staff was ignored and mister Bernard continued to to continue his activity. Right? And so there were multiple occasions in which staff was on-site and informed him that what he was doing required a tree removal permit and that there was essentially a path forward for him to remove trees related to a development permit but that there's a process that

had

to

be followed. Okay. Thank you.

Council member Fife.

I just wanted to second council member Brown's motion. I think it was flawlessly explained, and she was deeply involved in this process the entire time. And I couldn't have stated what was stated better than she just did. So, second.

Thank you. We have a motion and second. Council member Unger, Gayle, or Houston before I go.

Through the chair, I have a question for staff options. Why would we have options if we couldn't use them? So, staff it's almost like this. When you go to court, if you go to court, you got a ticket. Right?

You can either pay it in full or you can go to court to fight and maybe get it reduced, cut in half. So what what made you come up with these options and through the chair? Option one, option two, option three. Because I wish it would have been up on the screen so the public could see because this picture is really put together well, council member Brown, showing how the the layout of the the the floor plan of the property is. So staff, through the chair, how did you actually come up with this so you can explain that to the public?

Sure. Through the chair, the staff created several options for counsel to consider understanding that the recommended fine following the ordinance to the letter of the ordinance was a very high fine. So we understood that this was gonna be a difficult case for counsel to consider and that there would need to be some options. So we created alternate ways of valuing the tree. So as I explained last time I was here, we had to measure the trees at the the diameter that they were where they were cut down.

There's a possibility that the trees would have been slightly narrower at the diameter at breast height which is an arborist standard for measuring the diameter of trees, but we didn't have that information because all of the evidence had been removed from the site. But we could make some assumptions. The trees were valued at a 100% of their their full value of trees. That is an assumption we had to make because, again, the trees were removed from the site and we didn't have any better information. So we created options for the council to consider, but staff made the recommendation for the fine that we did because it was a very egregious case that we had not seen something like this in in three decades.

But we understood that it was a lot for the council to consider, hence, there were options.

Okay. Through the chair, this developmental footprint here shows you have a grading piece in yellow, then you actually have the approximate square foot of the new home. And that's I count 12 trees within that footprint. Is am I correct with that?

10. We we counted 10.

And is that how you decided to, on your option one, two, to to say that these trees would have actually been removed from the if this land was gonna be developed?

If the applicant if if if mister Bernard had gone through a planning approval process and the planning department had had approved his his application in the suggested footprint of the house, then if the planning department had approved that application, then the tree division would have approved his tree removal permit for the removal of these trees, had the process proceeded in the legal normal process. And we counted 10 in that proposed footprint.

So thank you to the chair. I appreciate council member Janati and Brown's their proposed amendments are to this. Right? And and and the the gentleman that came out, that's my constituent Kent. You you saw the passion that he had? Did you really see the passion? Because this is horrendous of what happened. And and I called the gentleman up before and I said, just admit that you was wrong on some of this because you're not a 100% right. And he wouldn't do it. So I think this option number four four seventeen is way too low.

And I think option three is $5.00 6 is still too low. And this $5.13 I think I'm a follow council member Brown's opinion for the $6.24 $7.07 $1.55 to find him that amount. I think that especially with knowing about the layout and what would have been removed and things like that. I'm a go with that.

Thank you, council member Houston. So for me, this is a really challenging issue. Right? As mister Hazard stated, I didn't know you followed me on social media, but I posted this on my Instagram just to kinda get a just see where Oaklanders were at with this and I've never had so much engagement when it comes to something which is like crazy. Oaklanders might be divided on a lot of things but they absolutely love their trees.

And I kind of think that the issue is not about trees for a lot of Oaklanders. Right? So we've allowed too many violations of our laws and rules to go unenforced. For too long, we've looked the other way while public trust, public safety, and our economy, and now even our ecosystem have suffered because of it. Although this is privately owned land, the trees belong to the people of Oakland.

We're here on stolen land, which makes it our responsibility to protect the natural environment. So we have to decide as a council if the laws mean something or they're just ink on a piece of paper. We have to decide whether Oakland will continue to have the reputation that people can do whatever they want without consequences here. And most importantly, we have to restore trust with the our residents that Oakland will uphold its laws. Council member Gayle, you always say we have enough laws.

We just gotta enforce them. Are we gonna enforce our laws? Council member Houston, the Hegenberger Corridor is an absolute mess. It's a absolute mess. And that's because the perception that you could come to Oakland and do whatever you want in the city of Oakland. We're working on restoring and rebuilding the Hegenberger Corridor, but it's because people thought they can come into Oakland and do what they want without consequence. You look at you look at

my

district. In my district, we had a people came from Stockton Stockton to rob a jewelry store in my district because the perception you can do whatever you want without consequence in Oakland. And so I think we just, as a council, we have to decide are we going to enforce the laws and do they mean anything? If they don't mean anything, don't enforce them. Why 417? Why 617? Just say zero. Let's get out of here. It's either we're gonna enforce the laws or we're not.

Yeah. I I didn't really comment last time. I was honestly just absorbing the amount of time that this was consuming. I to be honest, I have an issue just with the premise that people can make a direct appeal to city council. This is a unique aspect of this specific ordinance.

Most administrative penalties go to hearing officers where an outside professional can ensure a neutral due process hearing. I do worry that, you know, just like this appeals process is essentially creating perverse incentives so people can come to us before as a body in especially egregious cases to have reductions in fines. And I I just I don't wanna set that precedent. And I think it's wildly inappropriate to be honest in terms of the amount of time that the specific case has consumed for each us sitting here as city council members, but also all the city staff who who have heard around the specific case. And, you know, again, the respondent or mister Bernard and Lynn Warner, there's two individuals.

They they made the choice to make this appeal and and we have then also had three hearings about this. So I just I'm ready to to put this to bed. Yeah.

Thank you. Council member five and then I'll go to council member Ramachandran after that.

There are a few facts that need to be addressed because there's been so much misinformation tonight that is really disturbing. And one that really bothers me was the fact that we had a public speaker come up here and say that the clerk said something that they never said, which to me undermines the credibility of everything that was said by this individual because he claimed that the clerk said that they he would have an amount of time to speak, that they never they never admitted they they never did. So that puts into, you know, it it it calls into question the credibility of all of the things that have been happening up there that have been stated by certain individuals. It's been made clear that there's this issue, it does have racial implications because the reality is we're talking about the insanity of fining someone for building on private property, which honestly, I don't believe should exist. But we're talking about this person owning property, being able to cut down trees had he gotten the right piece of paper.

So we're we're we're saying that had he gone through a process, he would have been able to cut down the trees legally with the authority of the city, which is asinine. If they are protected, they should be protected.

Excuse

me. You are out of order. Please let the council member cons council member, I think your words are important. You should not be disrupted. Please continue.

Oh, I can handle it. I got the microphone.

Can't nobody hear them? So on top of that, we're talking about land that has been colonized. We're always talking about giving honor to the Ohlone people, and the land was stolen from the Ohlone people by colonizers. And now we're talking about finding someone the first time in an area where and I I said this on my social media. In an area that black people, Japanese people, Mexican people weren't even allowed to be.

And there's a there's a a miss misalignment of somehow now this black man who egregiously, I want to state, egregiously cut down trees without permission, who is the authority that gives permission on stolen land? So this is my philosophy. This is the the I'm I'm getting too much in my into my personal philosophy. The point is today as a a decision, this body has to decide whether or not there should be any type of penalty. So the fact that some people are saying that $600,000 is not a penalty it's just fallacious.

That is accountability. It might not be to the the degree in which everyone is the and some people are saying that it should be, but I take issue with some of some of our council members being directed on how to oppose this motion that was made by council member Brown. She spent as much time on this topic as anyone else and is suggesting that due to the city's lack of of accountability, that our own internal process is failing in addition to other issues that we have to look at the totality of what's happening here. So when I put aside the fact that just like there are differences in how laws are processed and how accountability is meted out by legislative bodies like crack, powder crack, and crystallized crack. I mean, it's all the same.

It's all cocaine. But we saw how differences in prosecution led to the incarceration, mass incarceration of black people. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but I find it interesting that we can an entire area of the city of Oakland colonized where probably hundreds of thousands of trees have been felled, but the first level of accountability is to a black man who is cutting trees on his own properly property. And again, I say egregiously because they shouldn't have been cut in the way that they were. None of the trees in the hills should have ever been cut, but they have.

So I am moving to support council member Brown's recommendation because it takes into accountability the fact that we don't know how many trees were fallen. We don't know how many trees were dead or diseased. We do know that there should be a consequence. So the the consequence that I'm suggesting should happen is not accountability for an not the harsh punitive accountability like some of these speakers and emailers were saying that this man needs to do jail time. Jail time.

We are receiving those saying that we support this individual serving jail time when there are people that look like me living on the streets, and I've never seen this kind of accountability from the public like I've seen for trees as the way that I see people allowing people to just live and die in the streets. And I wanna see the same level of discourse and accountability when we talk about flock or surveillance or all of the other ways that we will talk about this evening. I want this same energy for the technology that is being used to surveil individuals, the in in on the left and all around the all around the world. Again, I digress. But I'm saying if we're going to engage and we're going to call in justice and equity, let's look at the ways that communities that are impacted have been not equally addressed by the law because that is what we are doing here today.

We are holding this person accountable and sending a message that this will not happen again, but that means that the city needs to do our job and impose fines in a timely manner and uphold the laws that we have in a way that is actually equitable because that's not what we're suggesting today.

Thank you, council member Fife. Council member Gael.

Thank you. And and certainly appreciate the debate, the discussion. And having grown up here in the city of Oakland, having served on this council, I was part of the urban development that that dealt with our trees in our neighborhood throughout the city. Yeah. And and but I will I do wanna get to the point, make a motion to reconsider staff's recommendation as a substitute to the motion on the floor. Alright? So I wanna make a motion to reconsider staff's recommendation as a substitute to the motion of the on the floor.

Second.

So as in brown acts, substitute motions will go first. So we'll hear the substitute motion to reconsider first. Okay. Okay, so Madam Clerk can we hear the motion to reconsider? Motion on the motion.

Calling the motion on the motion to reconsider first before we call the motion to reconsider the item. On the motion to reconsider, moved by council member Gayle, seconded by council member Ramachandran, Council member Brown?

No.

Council member Fife? No. Council member Gayle?

Aye.

Council member Houston?

No.

Council member Ramachandran? Aye. Council member Unger?

Aye.

Council member Wong? Aye. Council president Jenkins?

Aye.

Motion passes with a vote of five ayes through the through the chair to the parliamentarian. So now they would need to actually make the motion or

Correct. That was the motion to reconsider the the action that was taken at the preceding council meeting to, adopt staff's recommendation. So now the body needs to vote on that motion.

Now calling the motion for the staff recommendation, was the $900,000 and some change. Council member

One second. Council member Fife, do you have a question?

For the I have a question for staff because they gave us a list list of options to choose from. So I'm wondering, to my council colleague's point, if are the options all valid fines to approve today? Because why would we have options that we can't choose from?

Council president, can I say something? So through the chair to council member five, as we were meeting with city staff on this item, basically in the chart it lists out that based on the health of the trees which we don't know, those are the various tiers and then on one side of the chart it lists like if we are going to find him for the full 38 trees versus just the trees outside of the developmental footprint and also what was the health of the tree. And so those options were presented to us because at that time there was a consensus of not finding him the full fine.

Yeah. Thank you. Alright, madam clerk.

Continuing with the motion for the staff recommendation for the full fine. Council member Brown?

No.

Council member Fife?

This is for the pool fine.

No.

Clarify. Go on. Yes.

Just for the record so it's clear what the council is voting on, it's a motion to reconsider the prior action which was to adopt staff's recommendation which is the resolution in the packet including the fines in the amount of $915,135.40.

You're out of order.

Starting the vote over. Council member Brown?

No. Council

member Fife. No. Council member Gayle. Aye. Council member Houston.

Well, yeah. No.

Council member Ramachandran. Aye. Council member Unger. Aye. Council member Wong. Aye. Council member Jenkins.

Aye.

Motion passes with a vote of five ayes, and I'm that motion was to close the public hearing as well and adopt the staff recommendation. We have dispensed with this item. Going to the public hearings, Starting with item five I'm sorry. The nonconsent calendar. Starting with item 5.1, adopt a resolution amending and restating council council rules of procedure in their entirety in order to add rule 33 regarding hybrid meetings and technological disruptions thereof.

We have five speakers on this item.

Do you have a presentation? I

have just a few words.

Go ahead.

I will present from my seat. This rule this item is before you as the Brown Act requires a rule for hybrid meeting disruption. So we are proposing to add rule 33 to the council rules of proceed to the current council rules of procedure. We have not changed anything else in the rules of procedure just simply amending to add rule 33 for disruption and the city attorney is here to address any specific questions you may have about this item.

Thank you. 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 before beginning. Emily Wheeler, Blair Beekman, miss Asada Olabala, Ralph Cans, and Jesse Rosemore.

Hi, I'm Jesse Rosemore. I brought popcorn to The Right item. For all I know that one skipped the Brown Act too and went straight to counsel after failing in committee but you know, who knows. I have some serious reservations about this item. It allows council to just say like, okay, like the meeting's disrupted so we're gonna cut something and do something else.

And you know, we were all here for flock and we saw the council president switch the meeting time, the time the item was heard so it would be heard at 1PM and we know that all of that was worked out in advance with all the people who are anti police accountability and pro surveillance so that they could all speak on time that a lot of other speakers would be cut. So I, you know, it's up to you as a council to uphold democracy and we're seeing you fail at that many many times especially the first the six first term councilors that we have on the dais. So reading what's in this legislation, I just don't trust you to uphold the democracy that you're required to do based on your prior action which we've seen again and again. I think the flock item which we're all here for is the most indicative of that. And there's there's many other pieces.

The other thing I wanna say is if you wanna invest in tech, you know, you're not investing in this, but you're giving the cops all kinds of AI stuff and and they, submit their time cards with a pen. That's

Thank you for your comments. And as the next speaker comes up, just to clarify this item did go to committee before being placed on the council agenda. Thank you.

Good evening Ralph. Start me up. Okay. Good evening Ralph Cans. This is just a continuation of the continual decline in the public's involvement in the city council process.

It's been going on ever since this has been a twenty five to thirty year process where we went from having city council meetings every week. That was the good old days. It means right now the City Council needs like less than half of the number of meetings it has. That's why we have these meetings that are jammed up. Meetings that don't give the people enough time to make their input on items that are being heard.

The final thing I'll just say on this is, this whole thing, rules of procedure are just continued and continued to erode the public's participation in this process. It's being done for the convenience of the city council members. You're supposed to be here for the convenience of the people of the city of Oakland. And that's not what I see going on. The other thing I would say is these issues should be sent to the Public Ethics Commission for comment according to the charter and the code. Thank you.

Okay. According to what this, rule will do, if you have some disruption in your telecommunications services. You're gonna stop the meeting and you're gonna give technology one hour to work on fixing it. How did y'all come up with one hour? I mean, you gotta make sense of what you're doing so how did you come up with one hour?

Why not half an hour, fifteen minutes, whatever? Then if you don't fix it within the hour, the technology, you're gonna resume the meeting without any availability of of Zoom or the being being exposed to telecommunication. First of all, why is this on the consent agenda? High priority. Now I'd already been insulted with the trees.

Now I'm coming to this issue that we can't fix it in an hour. We're resume the meeting. When y'all gonna deal with gentrification? When you're gonna deal with your sanctuary city status? You're up here talking about following the law, but you do not follow the law when it says you can't come into this country legally. We're ignore that law. You allow 16 year olds to vote when this constitution of California says you have to be 18 years old and a citizens to vote. You selectively follow the law.

Thank you, miss Olavala. Your time is up. Thank you, miss Olabala. Your time is up. And through the chair, if I could, this this, rule is required by the Brown Act.

It is, taken verbatim from the Brown Act, and this is the nonconsent portion of the agenda. I have Emily Wheeler and Blair Beakman on okay. Blair Beakman on Zoom. Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Hi. Blair Beekman. I'm in San Diego at this time. We're going through our budget stuff. They're having a a meeting right now, and I'm speaking here on Zoom at the at the meeting here.

Hi, everyone. I thought this item was in reference to there's a a senate bill from state level, s b seven zero seven, that's requiring all cities have to have Zoom in their public meetings starting July 1, and you're trying to help update that process right now with this item. And I thought this item, initially set out by the new SB seven zero seven stated that, if the meeting after an hour isn't, fully resolved, the issues or problems with Zoom, the meeting cannot continue until the problems are resolved. And if you could provide some clarification at the end of public comment what exactly this item is meant to be doing because the item seven, o seven, the senate bill, is an awesome bill. I mean, it gives it it codifies that Zoom has to be a regular part of California public meetings.

City, you know, cities like San Jose that don't have Zoom anymore and Bayewassee that don't practice Zoom, they now have to use Zoom and allow the public process. So there is something really important to this that I hope you can better clarify for ourselves. And thanks for this item, and thanks for allowing a minute thirty for public comment today, a really nice gesture. Thank you.

Those are all the speakers on this item.

Is there a motion or any comments? I'll entertain a motion.

I'll I'll make the motion to move this item. Second.

On the motion by council member Brown, second by council member Unger to approve the staff recommendation. Council member Brown.

Aye.

Council member Fife. Aye. Council member Gaio? Aye. Council member Houston? Aye. Absent. Council member Ram not you yet. Council member Ugger? Aye. Council member Wong. Aye. And chair Ramachandran. Aye. Noting that council member Jenkins and council member Houston are out of their seats.

Motion passes with a vote of six ayes. Going to item 5.2, adopt a resolution approving ongoing cooperative purchase agreements exceeding $250,000 for Oakland Public Works Bureau of Maintenance and Internal Services, goods and services contract as outlined in table one, in additional amount not to exceed $16,815,000 and adopting appropriate CEPA findings. We have three speakers on this item.

Does the staff, have a presentation or a few remarks?

No presentation. I can see the looks of disappointment already. Thank you. I'm Richard Battersby, assistant director for Oakland Public Works Bureau of Maintenance and Internal Services. This is the bureau within public works that encompasses fleet, facilities, sewer, and storm drain.

I'm here to talk to you today about 33 cooperative contracts in the equipment services division. Equipment services division at full strength is about 60 employees. We provide full support for the city's approximately 1,800 pieces of fleet equipment. The 33 contracts today are necessary operational contracts, I would say routine, and necessary to conduct the city's business and encompasses items such as repair and maintenance of city vehicles, fuel, software technology such as the information system we use to create work orders and dispatch vehicles, as well as items such as tires, mobile data terminals, radios for police vehicles. The amount of these contracts totals $16,000,000.

These are increases and extensions, and it's approximately over a two year period, although the contracts may vary. These contracts are also intended to be used by other departments such as police and fire. So these are not just equipment services and BMIS contracts. We find ourselves at a unique convergence of crises today. In the current environment, we have the budget issue which is resulting in staffing shortages.

We're short mechanics. We're about 20% to 25% short in the heavy equipment truck shop. This means that we have to outsource more work. Consequently, we have to rely on the contracts to get the work done. Some of these contracts will enable that work.

Some of these contracts will also provide the parts that are needed to repair the vehicles. And if I haven't communicated previously how dire of a situation we're in, just recently, we have a total of 13 flusher trucks between sewer division and storm drain. 12 of those were offline and unavailable. So we were forced to rent a flusher truck, which costs about $14,000 a month. We are still currently renting that truck to ensure we we remain in compliance with the sewer consent decree.

Out of 17 street sweepers, we have at time only had eight to 10 available, which is about a 50% availability of street sweeping. Fortunately, we were up to 11, this morning, so that was a positive move. Out of seven animal services trucks, as many as six have been unavailable and not capable of providing service to the community. And both of the lightning loaders, the only two trucks that are assigned to illegal dumping, were both unavailable at the same time. In order to continue moving forward, we need to get these contracts approved.

While these are cooperative contracts, we recognize the interest in making opportunities available to Oakland businesses to bid on contracts. We are moving to an RFP model. We have 33 cooperative contracts that we're requesting approval to allow us to continue doing business, but we also, year to date, have 28 RFPs, request for proposals, that have been advertised and are available for Oakland businesses to bid on. So with that, I would entertain questions that you might have for me and also the public speakers.

Thank you. Any public speakers?

Yes. We have three public speakers. As I call your name, please approach the podium or raise your hand. In the queue, I have Blair Beakman, miss Asada Olabala, and Jesse Rosemore. In any order, please.

So you are so concerned about being responsible with your trees, but you're being irresponsible with these 33 contracts all at the same time, $16,800,000, contracts that have already been in place with the city, and you did not ask for performance evaluation to guarantee that the contracts that you currently have in place are fulfilling what is necessary related to those contracts. You also have varying amounts of money being spent with no identification why they're increasing the amounts that previously had not been increasing it. We don't know why. We don't know why we have extending contracts that have ended in 2025 already, 2026, and some ending in twenty seven seven, but you're increasing the amount not knowing why they need more money. Not knowing 33 contracts on a as needed basis.

So after you approve it, you don't have nothing no more to say with a dysfunctional public works department who couldn't find a violation in 2021, '22, did it in '20 that that capacity makes me very suspicious. The same public works department when you go outside and see the white tape on there instead of white paint. What's wrong with white paint in this city? Did you have that in the contract to get some white paint?

Thank you, miss Olabala.

Thank you, miss Asada. Thank you, miss Asada.

It's okay.

I would never tell you politely. Politely.

Are we good? Okay. Hi, I'm Jesse Rosemore. I looked at this item and it seems completely innocuous. It seems the only reason it's on non consent is because a particular council member who voted no on this in committee has a very strange interest in contracts, a very corrupt kind of weird interest in contracts.

And, you know, we're watching Donald Trump do inappropriate media posts, social media posting, diminishing things about his opponents and just doing wild ethics comp violations. And we're seeing that here with the council member who voted no in committee on this. And I just wonder when you guys will you know, we have six of you first termers who are sort of lined up behind them for your super majority conservative right wing agenda and I'm just wondering when it's gonna be in, like, too much, when you're gonna actually formally censure this behavior because we're watching it just happen over and over and over and more and more and more. And this is just one example, the fact that we even have to talk about such an innocuous contract. You know, why is he so interested in this particular contract?

It just it just comes up again and again and again. And, you know, we're watching federally how our federal government is failing us. And without you centering behavior from this particular council member, we're watching all of you fail us, all of the first term council members that are up here on city council. I just wonder when that liability is gonna be too much for you and you will actually say something about it.

Thank you, Jesse.

Thank you for your comments. Going to our final speaker on this item, Blair Beakman. Please unmute and begin your comments.

Hi. Thank you. Blair Beakman. I'm reading over the brown act things right now, so I I may have been wrong in my initial assumptions. Thank you for public comment, and, good luck in how we're talking about this sort of item. I like public comment on this item. Thank you.

At this time, all names have been called.

Thank you. Council member Houston.

Thank you. Thank you. I ran downstairs because I was gonna get a ticket that I woulda had to pay. So I'm through the chair. Mister Richard, thank you so much. And I'm not council member they're talking about. That's me. Because if we have 33 contracts and only three are Oaklanders, I guess you can call me whatever you wanna call me because I'm a continue to fight for SLBE. So I have a question through the chair to mister Richard. We have contracts that's coming up, like, for for for collision.

We have contracts coming up for just the basic tires. Right? We have in my district, we have a tire company that can provide the tires to public works. Right? And they have a huge one in my council member's Fife's District, but we're going outside of Oakland to get these tires. We have many companies that can repair cars in our my district. And we're going outside of Oakland to get that done. So how can we make that work, mister Richard, where we embrace and I know some of them have problems with us paying on time. I got it. I understand.

And sometimes our process is very difficult. I got it. I understand. So how can we embrace because 33 out of the city contracts and only three, me, I'm the one that did it, me. Three are Oaklanders and now we're waving it. But I understand if we had relationship with them and they were doing the work. But express that about the tires in the body shop.

Sure. Through the chair. And thank you for that question, council member Houston. I've in public works committee, I've said it and I'll say it again. We are committed to moving to RFP, which is request for proposal, where the local businesses will have an opportunity to bid on these contracts.

We are looking on through this agenda report for some bridge contracting support until we can get those RFPs out and on the street where Oakland businesses can bid on them. I provided earlier a staff identified 28 individual RFPs that were either recently awarded or in the process of being awarded. And council member Houston, you'll be happy to hear that, collision repair is one of those categories. It has not yet been awarded. We are looking at tires as well.

The the I think for convenience in the past and also just because of work or or workload restrictions, the contracting process has become very cumbersome. What you're looking at with these 33 cooperative contracts, you'll note some of them expired in 2025. Staff didn't wait for the contracts to expire before they started trying to increase or renew them. They started work on them. This is, I think, about an eight months time frame for these 33 cooperative contracts.

So we've gotta figure out a way to do better when we just need to increase or extend the contract. But to more directly answer your question, I think breaking up some of these larger contract awards where because of expediency, because of workload restrictions and time frames, we've tried to put a large contract out. So a single vendor is providing most of the tires. We can break that down to where one vendor does police pursuit tires. Another vendor maybe does heavy duty truck tires.

We are happy to work with anyone that can share ideas with us where we can increase the participation of Oakland businesses. I believe in keeping the tax dollars here in Oakland. I believe in supporting Oakland small businesses, and I believe in following the will of the city council. And we get the message not just from you, council member Houston, but from other council members. And I just want everyone to know we in public works agree.

We're doing our best to move the needle. It's not fast enough, but we are in conjunction with our colleagues in purchasing, city attorney's office, risk management, and even DHRM, under these very challenging times, we are trying to course correct. So thank you for making us do our best work. Miss Asada, thank you as well. I welcome all criticism.

Even I can you know, I've been in this business over thirty years. I can learn new things. And switching from co ops to RFP, co ops used to be the fastest, most straight forward way to get a contract approved, increased, or extended because another municipality has already done the public bid or it's a bid that's being sponsored by a GPO, a government purchasing organization that meets that public bid requirement before expending public funds. In this day and age, the opposite is true. Now cooperative agreements are so difficult and challenging to get through, the RFP is faster and more efficient.

So we recognize that and we're adjusting. This unfortunately is going to make extra work for our colleagues in purchasing. So they're going to need support with the additional staffing resources to do all these RFPs which take more time and effort because now you're advertising, you're soliciting bids, you're answering questions, you're evaluating bids and making awards. Whereas with the co op, someone else has done all that work. So I apologize for the really long answer.

No. That was great, mister Battersby. I appreciate that. Through the chair, one more sec question for mister Battersby. Why couldn't we do, like, RFQs, mister Battersby? Because RFPs, you get more. But if you do the qualification, you have people that you don't have to go through so many.

Ed, again, through the chair, folks are gonna think we rehearsed this. No. We do. RFQ, I agree. Multiple awards is the way to go. That's what we're trying to do with the collision repair or the body shop. Have multiple vendors instead of just a single vendor, you know, winner take all, and then you're stuck with that vendor for three years or five years, whatever that contract term is. When I say RFP, I mean RFP or RFQ interchangeably.

Okay. To the chair, thank you mister Baderfeet. I really believe in you. Thank you.

Thank you. Council member Brown, Wong, and then Gayle.

Excellent. Thank you so much for ensuring that this item came before us. I'm not on the Public Works and Transportation Committee so I definitely have a couple questions. And I guess just to, I guess repeatedly we talk about ensuring that we're supporting Oakland based businesses. I guess my more specific question is I know you mentioned that there is a goal to go out for RFP but as I'm looking at the agenda report I noticed that a lot of the contracting dates they vary.

And so can you share with me what is the timeline to try to I guess go out for RFP and then also can you also answer the larger question of how come we're why do we have 33 separate contracts. Just looking at some of the vendors, it looks like it could be consolidated.

Yes. Through the chair, thank you for the question. Regarding the number of contracts between equipment services and facilities, we have over 200 contracts that we administer just within the Bureau of Maintenance and Internal Services. For efficiency purposes, we are in lack of staffing, we're forced to batch process contracts where in the past, we would come to counsel two, three times a year, and there are much smaller numbers. Because of the again, those limitations, you see a backlog of contracts that we just couldn't get executed, and here they are before you today. And what was the first part of your question again?

I was focusing on the when when would you predict going out for RFP given the different contract times, like, in at different times?

Sure. Again, through the chair, it's an ongoing process. I mentioned we've got 28 that we've awarded or or or are in progress in 2026. Three of those RFPs are actually for contracts that you see right here where we've awarded a coop. But we in order to continue business, we had to get some contract mechanism in place.

We've been trying to get this item in front of the council since January. And prior to that, we were working on it for four months. We realized the timelines were becoming unacceptable. So in the meantime, we've already started RFPs I know of on at least three of these contracts that we're trying to get the coop extension approval. The RFP process will typically take us probably two months, and that's working really well. That's our purchasing colleagues really, you know, holding holding their nose to the grindstone and getting the work done. I think it's amazing. But the coop process is so cumbersome that here we are talking about contracts that we initiated the extension or renewal process back in 2025. The RFP process is ongoing. It could be on a daily basis.

It could be on a weekly basis. You're gonna be seeing a lot of me up here.

Alright. Sounds good. Thank you so much.

Wong and then Gaia.

Thanks. Through the chair. So I I do want to defend just like this the council scrutinizing these public works contracts. I used to work in civil engineering and environmental engineering and it was one of those well known things that public works contracts often have an old boys network that that is true. I'm not saying that this department has that issue but it's just it's a well known fact.

And so I just want to defend that. I also want to say that I think some of what I've been scrutinizing as someone who sits on the public works and transportation committee is just making sure that we have levels of service like expected performance metrics especially we've had a number of cooperative agreements that have had no sort of expectation. And so I think it is definitely a positive development that this report has some of these operational metrics. But I also want to make sure that these are inbuilt into those contracts. It's not just an estimate in a report but that we have these expectations of these performance standards for these contractors.

And I do think it is good that we are moving to an RFP process considering what we've learned the disparity study. Thanks. And I will move to adopt the staff recommendation.

Thank you. Council member Gayle, can you press your button so we can get you?

Thank you. And thank you for for the information and for your service to Oakland. Having grown up here in the city of Oakland, I never seen the streets in o like I've seen them in Oakland today. And we do need more tools, more vehicles, more more personnel to bring this city back in order. And I appreciate I I work with you every day.

My five employees in my office are out on the streets cleaning them up, picking up the illegal dumping, the trash, and certainly other activity that's going on that we see daily. But we do need the the tools and the personnel and the and the vehicles to get the job done in this city. And, we can sit here and talk a lot, you know, about we need this, we need that, and complain and blame everyone in town. But the bottom line is we need the equipment and the personnel to get the job done. So with that, I appreciate the level of service, and I second the motion, that's been made to support public works. Thank you.

Councilman MacGail I mean, Ramachandra.

Thank you. I support this as well and appreciate the detail that you gave. I was a little surprised by some of this. I knew we had an issue with our fleets, but I was a little surprised with some of the statistics of the inoperable street sweepers and animal control trucks. What is the situation with our fire apparatus and our fire trucks as well given that it's one of the more frontline vehicle services?

Yeah. Thank you for that question. Through the chair, I actually have it on my notes here. I neglected to mention it. Council member Unger is well aware, as we enter weekends and end of day shift, transitions, we are sometimes entering these periods with a single ready reserve and no spare apparatuses.

There are minimum vehicles, availability requirements from the firefighters union where if we fall below that level, we actually have to shut a fire station. So we are in very dire straits. Make no mistake. And the the bigger issue at hand here is even if we were to order new apparatuses tomorrow, it's gonna be forty eight to sixty months before it's delivered. Now think about that for a minute.

That's gonna be four to five years before that fire apparatus we order tomorrow shows up. Not only is that a detriment to the operation, frankly, I'll probably be retired by then. I won't even see the equipment that I'm ordering. So we need a strategic plan to put in place where we regularly purchase replacement vehicles because we're putting off investments now that are gonna create a crisis later. And I I, you know, I I keep referring to council member Unger because he and I talked about this issue regularly before he was elected as a council member.

We got our hands we got our arms around it. We were having problems earlier, but now we're at crisis mode because we haven't been replacing vehicles regularly since 2022. So that's four years of not buying replacement vehicles. And pretty soon, we're gonna have to pay the piper.

Thank you.

Alright. We have a motion and a second.

One item 5.2 moved by council member Wong, second by council member Gayle to adopt the staff. Recommendation, council member Brown. Aye. Council member Fife. Aye. Council member Gayle. Aye. Council member Houston. Aye. Council member Ramachandran. Aye. Council member Unger. Aye. Council member Wong. Aye. Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

Motion passes with a vote of eight ayes. Now we are moving to item 6.25. I will read the item. Members of the public, please note that I have pulled your cards from the consent calendar if you signed up for this item. Item 6.25 does require an urgency.

I understand the motion for the urgency. Gayle, urgency motion. Second.

Noting that there was a title change at the three day portion of this agenda so it does require an urgency motion before being heard on the urgency. Council member Brown. Aye. Council member Fife. Through the chair if we could just finish the vote to hear the item. It does need an urgency because it was added at the supplemental for noticing so it does need a motion to be heard. So we're in that vote. Council member Fife. Aye. Council member Gayle. Aye. Council member Houston. Council member Houston. Aye. Council member Ramachandran. Aye. Council member Unger. Aye. Council member Wong. Aye.

Chair Jenkins. Motion passes with a vote of eight ayes. I will now read the item. Adopt a resolution authorizing the city administrator to weigh the request for proposals and qualifications, competitive process, execute a construction contract with capital repairs and replacements at feather with excuse me, Feather River Camp located at 5469 Oakland Camp Road, Quincy, California in a total amount not to exceed $523,938.09 with Ackley Engineering for the replacement of three septic septic tanks, drain system, and the drinking water system and adopts appropriate sequel findings. You have 13 speakers on this item.

Thank you. Staff?

Good afternoon, council members. I'm Quincy Williams. I'm the assistant capital improvement project coordinator for Oakland Parks Recreation and Youth Development. I'm here to present on this resolution. Prior to me going into more details, I wanna give you an executive summary from the actual, agenda report.

So Oakland Feather River has been founded in the city of Oakland since 1924, and the city opened the camp in on 06/28/1924. While the US service force owns the land, the city as the holder of the special use permit operates and maintains an organization camp for public use and the camp improvements which consist of tents, cabins, restroom showers, water treatment plant, and water tank, and a sewage system. Pursuant to the special use permit, the city has a license agreement with the nonprofit camps in common to provide outdoor programming at the camp. In 2025, the executive director approached us, OPRYD, to inform us that the 5,000 gallon septic tank drain field and a fourteen year old drinking water filtration system needs replacement. Let me just tell you about the number of people that are served by this camp.

Last four years, 1,130 open youth were served. Also, Oakland Further River Camp serves families. In the last four years, 4,110 open residents attended this very integral and valuable asset that the city owns. Again, the reason for the urgency is that we need this septic and water filtration systems that are past their lifespan. And so, so, again, because of the deferred maintenance, we're at this critical nature for this repair to take place. If there are any questions, me and director, Micah Hammock can answer those questions.

Thank you. Any questions from council member Houston? And then Gayle?

Yes. I have a few questions. I wanted to see if Darlene Flynn was online because I have some equity questions about this. And while they're pulling her up, wanna know if Micah miss Micah, is she around too? Because I have a couple of questions, but not just yet. I just wanted to share this. This organization, Feather River Camp, I'm a give a little history. I'm third generation Oaklander, been here all my life, all my life. And this organization been around for a hundred years. I never heard of it.

I never got the equity to or my friends from my district. I'm talking about District 7 never got the equity. And I wanna share something that was very, very troubling to me, but I learned some things also from the city administrator, Justin Johnson, and my city attorney, Ryan Richmond Richardson said, Ken, you know, it's what you the the decisions you make have to be in the best interest of the city. Right? So I'm gonna vote on this, but I wanna share something that was very troubling.

And I have a board behind me that I'm gonna just show. This board shows that the the the percentages of District 12, three, four, five, six, and seven. And my district has been underserved for so many years, and the children from my district, District 7, the percentage is 2.99. 2.99. That's troubling to me.

That is troubling. I'm sorry, guy, president. That's troubling to me. I see that District 1 is 28%. I see District 2 is 13%. I see District 3, five percent. District 4, 33%, 55%. That's yours, council member Gaile. 10% president. District 7, two 0.99%.

I wasn't just mad. I was angry when I saw who allowed that to happen to my community. But after talking to you, Micah, you you you you brought up my spirit. You did. You really did.

After talking to the to Justin Johnson, he brought up my spirit. He brought us together. And I wanted to just have Darlene Flynn to come on because this is a equity problem equity problem. I wanna find out what are we plan to do to bring equity equal equity and outreach to this program. So my kids that are at nine 2.99% that I didn't know about over a hundred years or some of my friends would not be dead today in the streets if they had that opportunity if the outreach was there.

And these numbers are real. So can we pull Darlene Flynn up online? Because I just wanna get her opinion that brought me to rest along with you, Micah, you did today. So can we get Darlene Flynn on for a second to talk about this? How we're gonna increase the equity across, the districts and specifically my district, District 7?

Yes. Council member Houston, through the chair. I'm here. Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

Great. I'm I'm so glad. So this is not these kinds of outcomes are not surprising. I I often say to people, if we look under a rock, we'll find these kinds of disparities because they are a product of a 100 years of practices and, oh, and more recently, because I know the organization that's running the camp now actually came into I've been doing some research since we spoke this morning. I've just been brought into this issue today, but I've been doing some research.

And the organization that's running the camp now has actually come together fairly recently, to save the camp, to keep the camp going during COVID and and various, hard times that the camp has been through. The problem is that if we don't, approach this in a structured way with the intention of producing equity, the normal barriers that, present themselves to marginalized communities, communities that have been most impacted by other disparities will cause these to be the outcomes. So in order to undo that, we need to do some analysis, speak with the community, at large, talk about what are the barriers that are keeping the the children in your particular part of the city from accessing this service that has always been there and that lots of families in Oakland and children in Oakland have been accessing, but not equitably. So what's being proposed is that we do that work to understand more deeply what the root causes of these disparities are. And then we can work on undoing or strategizing to, mitigate those barriers or remove those barriers and increase participation.

And that's a commitment that that we can make.

And council member, you're saying that district seven tax dollars are going to the septic tank, and there's a equity issue with campers being coming from District 7. You're relating it back to the septic tank. Right?

So, yes, going back to the septic tank, and it's like you just said how bad, District 7 was on the Hagen Bergen Corridor. You'd mentioned it just a minute ago. So, that's what my children gotta deal with. So, Micah, you brought up my spirit after I spoke to you and even it's going back to the septic tank. What I mean is that I'm going to vote yes on this. However, my conscience tells me to say no. But like the city administrator, my city attorney said, Ken, this will benefit your children if this happens. We can do the outreach. We can outreach and get them there. If it's not up to date, my children can't go visit it.

Right? So share a little bit with me about the septic tanks.

Earlier so earlier when we discussed about the septic tanks and what it will like, if we don't get this job done, no one, not your children, nobody in District 6, all districts would not be able to attend for the river camp. Just understand. Once the septic tank is is done, this job is done, all the all the sites will be able to attend. And once again, I told you earlier, if you want your children in your district to attend Feather River Camp, I am willing. My department is willing to outreach to the families.

Make sure they contact our sites because you have two sites in your district, Tessa and Ira Jenkins. All it take is a phone call or email to myself or my staff to make sure that the children in the District 6 is able to attend. Now the numbers that you're showing, just know that the kids did not last year go to Feather River Camp. So the numbers that you're showing is not from Feather River Camp from last year.

Through the chair, where are they from?

We went to OVY last year.

Yep. Yeah.

So camp so Feather River camp didn't occur due to the due to the system of last year, we wasn't we didn't know we're gonna be funded through OPOYD, so the leadership had to wait to decide on what was the next step. But the council, you guys had voted on us to go and fund our programs for summer. When we got the a okay, the green light from council, when we contacted Camps and Commons, they gave our dates away. So that's why the children that wasn't able to attend Feather River Camp. So this year, we're gonna have a larger number, but we're making sure that every kid in Oakland attend Feather River Camp. So once again, like I said earlier, if you want your if you have kids in mind that wanna attend, let me know. Let the department know, and I will make sure that they're able to get there.

Alright. So through the chair, thank you, Darlene Flynn online. Thank you, Micah, for, making me happy, and I wanna move this this item. Thank you.

Congratulations, director.

Thank you. I support the item as well but I do have a question for staff. I even if those numbers are not specifically to Feather River Camp, my guess is that they're not that far off. There's gonna be inequities in where in what districts kids come from. And while there's a lot of support in my district for Oakland Feather River Camp and I very much support the program and I hope to stop by for the first time this year, I do wholeheartedly agree that a city resource should be used for should have an should have more of an equity lens and should be way more proportionately different districts.

But I am a little confused in the race and equity statement that it says the population served for this program is overwhelmingly composed of black African American and Latino Hispanic residents, including youth from low income households who are already experiencing racial diff disparities, etcetera. Regardless of what debt could you talk about the racial demographics?

So the racial demographics is all across the board from each district. It is every race that attends Feather River Camp. And in this in this race and equity part, we have to put you know, we put that in there to make sure that it it solidifies everyone of all color attending Feather River Camp. So this time what we're doing, we're gonna do analysis so we can make sure we get the correct data to show exactly who's attending Feather River Camp across every district. And up and even up at Camps in Common, who are they serving as well? Because right now, we don't know who all they're serving because we don't do the analysis with them. We just do the analysis on our end because we pull it from our data from Perfect Mind.

Thank you. And is our outreach focused on OUSD or are there ways we can be more proactive in District 7 and telling the, you know, youth over there and spreading it to under under enrolled districts? Or or is OUSD do they are they the ones that cover the marketing?

No. No. No. So we market our own programs through social media, through PerfectMind, our our system that we use. And then our staff, when they come into our building, the staff breaks down to the parents what programs we're gonna be doing for the summer in Federal River Camp is one. Some parents in District 7 back out of it because it's like, okay. We're in Oakland, but now my child has to be five hours away from me. It's kinda hard because if something happens, how are they gonna get up there? A lot of parents don't have the transportation, the means of transportation to get in their child in case of emergency.

And and the septic tank too. Right?

Yes. Thank you. Septic tank.

Thank you. I I appreciate these efforts to spread access across the city.

Yes. You're welcome.

Thank you. 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. If you are participating via Zoom and you submitted a speaker's card, please raise your hand so I can easily identify you. Farana Tabasson, Yasi Safenia, Vince Yorba, Diana Christine at Essex, Zilatiri, Johanna Breca Brecky Brannell, Lucas Brecky Minsnier, Katrina Brecky Minsnier, Miss Assata Olabala, mister Hazard, Jesse Rosmore sorry, Rosemore, Karen Louis Legault, Vanessa Cedeno. Can approach the podium.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Farhanath Obasum, and I'm speaking in my capacity as the former lead fiscal person for the Oakland Parks and Recreation Department. Before OBRYD, I worked for Head Start, Aging, Public Works, and Violence Prevention. So my broad overview at working at different department, it helps me assess which, which projects are the most impactful.

And I must strongly urge you to vote no for the Feather River Camp because the Feather River Camp is a money pit. It's not only the 70 k thousand dollar for room and board that you see on the budget. It's the 25 to 30 k in transportation cost, another 25 to 30 k in labor and materials, plus the grants you have previously given to the tune of 100 k for administrative cost, I feel like we can achieve the same same goal at different nearby camps where the money would be reverberated back to the Oakland economy, and it can be done at much cheaper. So you can like, we have the police activities league camp. We have the OVY camp.

We've previously, we had a co op agreement to for getting camping really cheap with the East Oakland Regional Parks Foundation. And the savings from this can be divested into meaningful projects that

Thank you, ma'am. Your time is up.

I'm Carol Legault. I am yielding my time to Yasi.

Good afternoon chair, council members and members of the public. My name is Yossi Safenia. I'm the executive director of Camps in Common. We're the operators of Oakland Feather River Camp called OFRC. And I'm also speaking as somebody who attended camp as a kid with my mom and sister.

Before anything else, I just also wanna thank you today for your public service and also for the care of Oakland families. To the equity issue, I just wanna say that compared to other campsites and family campsites, we're actually leading the way nationally, compared to what equity looks like across the entire country. So despite these numbers here, I can let you know that camps in common, we do report these numbers and we have over 53% of our campers reporting as non white. We're also thankful for our ongoing partnership with the city and Oakland Parks and Rec youth development program. So that is a separate entity.

We do do direct outreach with OUSD and we particularly work specifically to provide our camperships with the community schools managers. So our camperships go all the way up to a 100% worth the cost of coming to camp. One quarter of all campers are campership campers. We also have created a partnership with First Five in Alameda County. It's a $500,000 grant over two years that makes sure that folks who are accessing First Five programs are coming.

And we have reduced all of the barriers aside from people coming directly and asking to come. That's why I emailed council member Houston yesterday and said let's find that bridge that gets people from your district to the camp. I just started as the executive director last May and I'm very eager to make sure that we have true Oakland representation showing up at camp. That was the quote platform under which I applied for the job. I'm Oakland all the way.

So I just wanna say that, you know, the thing about a septic system is it is it's a health risk, it's an environmental risk, period, end of story. A water filtration system, it's a health risk. We cannot operate camp unless we have these systems in place. This is almost a 40 acre campus. It brings people from all over Oakland and has for over a hundred years.

The inception of this camp was exactly about equity. Its location was placed so that people could go straight from the train station right up to the camp so that while there was a national movement to make sure that people could access the outdoors, that would be accessible to working class folks. I just wanna say that we have been growing the numbers. As you can imagine, after COVID, it was hard to convince people to wanna go camping or to wanna do a lot of things. So from 2022 our growth went from 644 to over 1,300 people from the city of Oakland coming and participating at camp.

And so far, we already have over 1,200 Oakland enrollees. So we're just really thankful for the fact that you all are considering this item. We are also

One of the speakers, I cede my time to

Yasi. Thanks.

What's name? Diana

Essex Latieri. Thank

you. We're also leaving no stone unturned to keep this camp strong in the future In addition to developing long term sustainability plan in partnership with the city, we're actively inviting philanthropy to help sustain Oakland Feather River Camp so that we can continue to serve Oakland families for generations to come. Again, this place has been around for over a hundred years. It its inception was about equity. In the time when the city decided that it was not able to continue the camp, I recognize admit that it is because of people with access and resource that the camp has continued to be viable place that continues to be able to work with OPRYD.

We have a lot of work to do, and I hope that if I reach out to you as a council member and talk about how we can bring people from your district up to camp, you'll respond so that we can find that access because we definitely wanna make sure this is for every every single Oakland family With all the issues that we have with respect to isolationism that the US attorney general reported on in 2022, this is an antidote to that. When you talk about ACEs, this is an antidote to that. When you look at the landmark report that just came out about the nature gap and particularly the fact that it's hitting, black and brown communities the most and rented communities the most and that the health disparities that come with a lack of nature, this is an antidote to that. So we invite you to please make sure that Oakland families can come, come to a place where they're disconnected from these things and reconnecting with one another.

Good evening, President Jenkins and members of the council. My name is Vanessa Cedeno, and I'm here on First on behalf of First Five Alameda County, one of our early childhood local county agencies, in strong support of this item, s 6.25, to fund critical capital improvements to the septic and drinking water system at Oakland Feather River Camp. First five is proud to partner with Oakland Feather River Camp to expand access to outdoor family centered experiences for Alameda County families with young children. Since launching our partnership in 2023, we have invested over $800,000 to provide fully subsidized family camp experiences covering transportation, meals, so that cost is not a barrier to participation as we heard there are barriers. Through this partnership we've supported hundreds of families each year growing from just 28 families in our first year to an estimated 50 families this year and over 65% of these families are from Oakland.

And for about seven in 10, this is their first camping experience. We consistently hear from families that these experiences reduce stress, strengthen family bonds, and provide rare opportunities to connect with nature and each other, outcomes that are directly tied to early childhood development and kindergarten readiness which is our North Star as a system.

Good evening. My name is Lucas Precky Meisner. I'm a fourth generation Oaklander, born and raised in East Oakland, and I'm a lifelong Feather River camper. My mom first got a job at Feather River Camp when she was 19, and my family's been going up ever since. And now I get to grow up, and I get to watch my my daughters, Valencia and Nayeli, frolic, run amok in trees, and it's been a a critical resource for Oakland just for a long time.

And, you know, when Camp was founded in the nineteen twenties as an escape for working class Oaklanders to easily get out into nature, it's brought thousands and thousands of Oaklanders up. And as the executive director of Oakland Kids First, I work with young people at Castlemont, Fremont, Oakland High, Skyline Tech. I know experientially how important it is to get our young people, get our families up into nature, and the investment that the council is considering in infrastructure is really critical. Can't, you know, was gonna be closed twenty three years ago, and it was community rallying to save it, programmatically that has kept it alive. But the city's commitment has continued in the form of a partnership around infrastructure.

And so, you know, council member Houston bringing up the stuff outreach and equity and access. We always have room to improve in all those areas, and yet we can't improve on any of it. Right? If we don't have septic, we don't have water filtration, etcetera. So I really encourage your support on this so generations of Oaklanders, can continue to have immersive access to nature, and continue to represent Oakland proudly. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Jesse Rosemore. Yeah. You know, council member Houston seemed proud of flipping us all off during the flock vote. He seems proud of being called out for his absurd, you know, interest in city contracts. And, you know, we got this thing about equity. If he really cares so much about equity, we'll see how that goes in the next item where celebrate is used inequity inequitably against black people specifically. We'll

okay. Miss miss Assata, please give this gentleman his time. Okay.

If, if council member Houston really cared about his district and the people in his district, you know, we would, see something different in the public ethics complaint that Sean Everhart of the of the Privacy Advisory Commission levied against Ken Houston. Everything in there shows Ken Houston's disdain for his district, his disdain for

Mister Rosemoor, do you have anything about Feather River or septic tanks?

Yeah. You know, this is a lot of pontification by the council member about Feather River and septic tanks and, you know, I don't appreciate as a member of the public having to sit through this council member's pontification and I don't think you should either. It's a little bit of a liability for you as you line up behind them for your right wing agenda. It's disgusting.

Thank you for your comments.

Miss Asada, mister Hazard, do you wish to speak on this item? Anybody else's name was called for item 6.25.

Leave that black man alone. I've got you brother. So I went and looked up this feather river camp and on their site they have family, basic camp, youth camp, group, rentals. So if you want to rent for four weeks or be a part of the camp for four weeks $9,800. Two week session $5,200.

One week session $2,600. So they have a 75¢ percent discount for Oakland residents, but they serve anybody that wants to come into that camp. It's not an Oakland camp. So since it's not just for Oakland, why are we doing like you did with the $700,000 for the training facility over there at at what used to be the raiders camp, paying for everything. Why are you paying for everything?

You have agreed to facilitate the infrastructure care for this place, and they're making money. Four weeks. I don't know what they're doing in four weeks for $9,800. Two weeks, $5,200. One week. This is not no charity group. They're making money, and we're helping them to make their money. And who participates? I know black folks. It's just like that ice rink over there that y'all helping to take care of. It's good as that.

No. You you you still got time. Mr. Saba, you mind putting that as a sign back up for me? Yes, sir. Thank you. Desmond, they had called you. Desmond, they called you.

Happy single to my old council. I was basically gonna mister Sadi took the words out of my mouth. I don't think this Feather River Camp, I think, is a good idea, a great place for the kids. But we have a lot of organizations coming to Oakland like a a cash cow, And, we're putting a lot of money out instead of putting money at we have a East Bay water facility sometimes that doesn't have enough lifeguards in Ken Houston's district. We have a lot of other recreation centers that need swimming the swimming pools need to get redone.

They need lifeguards at those centers. So are we just giving our money out and allowing other organizations to take it that are not residents or organizations that reside in Oakland? So just think about that. That's my word.

Thank you. Anybody online? Do you have a cart? You have a cart?

Even Cambridge.

Did you sign up for the item? Yes. Okay. Go ahead.

Alright. So I actually worked for the Boy Scouts for five years as a senior executive. I have experience running camps. I would say that a camp is a money pit. And, if we aren't asking the real questions of how viable is this camp, we need to bring this camp's finances as a matter of meeting item and actually look, is this camp solvent?

How solvent are they? How much are they profiting? With all that being said, you have to spend money on the septic tank. You can't not spend money on the septic tank simply because you can't sell a camp to anyone else if the septic tank is ruined. However, we should consider selling the camp. If we are not, if the camp is not viable, we should consider selling it for the simple fact, this camp is akin to gas subsidies for a oil company. If they're profitable and we're footing the bill for $500,000 for their septic, they should be able to afford that themself

Thank you, sir. Your time is up. If your name is called and you wanna speak on this item, mister Hazard, Vince, Joanna, Brecky, and Katrina. Otherwise, at this time, all names have been called for

item six point Mister Hazard, are coming up? Oh, you gave your time. Thank you for being thank you for that. Appreciate that. Anybody online? If not, council member Brown.

Excellent. Thank you so much. I just wanted to just say, you know, I fully support this Feather River Camp. I I remember just growing up, one of the first times that being able to actually attend for three weeks actually. And we did a lot of amazing activities and so I just know that it's definitely transformational for a young person to be able to have that experience.

And I think I also wanted to note, I think it's great that we reach out to OUSD. But also keep in mind that Oakland actually is full of charter schools, right? And all of those youth live right here in Oakland most of the time, right? So and actually I would say actually in District 7 there's probably more charter schools. And so that could be a part of the gap of ensuring equity as well. And so I definitely look forward to working with the executive director and team to help support the efforts because I think equity and ensuring that black and brown young people in our city can have access to this because I think it's really transformational. So and do we already have a second?

I think you might be the second.

Second.

Alright. Let's go to the roll call.

12. 3. Testing 12, 3. I just wanna take a minute of of your time. I've been to Feather River many times, several times, being parks manager and so forth and also from the neighborhood.

And the reality is some of these youngsters out of our neighborhood never have that that experience or that opportunity to see a different environment, a different discipline, to learn something different that you can provide. And but it's youngsters from other neighborhoods coming together. You know, they provide not just recreational, educational, but working together. And that's something we don't get in the hood growing up in East Oakland, but but it's a different positive environment that the children and young people can enjoy and bring back home. And so so with that, I I will support a feather the Feather River camp to continue, but I do wanna also acknowledge that, you know, we need to reach out to the neighborhood.

And, certainly, that decision is up to mom and dad to allow me to go as didn't have that opportunity. Yeah. You can shake your hand, but many of us didn't have the mom and dad at home. But what we received our discipline, information, and exposure through other avenues, and this is a a great avenue where children in East Oakland get that exposure working with other, other children from different neighborhoods, and the the environment is a real positive one. So everyone sitting on this council, if you wanna go up to Feather River and take a look at it, they provide those experiences for adults here in Oakland, whether you're in the leadership or the Oakland Unified or within government here in the city.

So just contact them. You can go up there, ride, and spend the night and be able to see what goes on. So with that, I also support the motion. Thank you.

We will all go up there and see the septic tank. Will you septic tank. You gotta keep it on the septic tank. Let's get to work. Alright. Let's win the roll.

On the motion by council member Houston, second by council member Brown to adopt the staff recommendation. Council member Brown? Aye. Council member Fife? Aye. Council member Gayle?

Aye.

Council member Houston? Aye. Council member Ramachandran? Aye. Council member Unger? Aye. Council member Wong? Can't do that. Council member Wong? Aye. Chair Jenkins?

Aye.

Motion passes with a vote of eight ayes. Going back to item 5.3. Going back to item 5.3, adopt a resolution authorizing the city administrator to enter into a professional services agreement with Cellbrite for provision of universal forensic extraction devices and related services the Oakland Police Department for a contract amount not to exceed $140,000 for the period of 07/01/2026 to 06/30/2027, waiving the competitive multistep solicitation process and local small local business enterprise program requirements, and accepting the 2024 sale bright annual report and making a determination regarding whether the city should continue to use this technology. You have 23 speakers on this item.

Thank you. Staff. To the staff.

Good evening, council members. I'm sergeant Zhao with Oakland Police Department. I work in the, cold case section of the homicide unit. To kinda begin, I just wanna give give a really quick rundown of what this technology is and how it works. It's a little box that OPD owns.

What it does is that it downloads cell phone data onto onto for a forensic report for criminal investigations. So the way it logistically work is that OPD sees a cell phone, pursuant to either search warrant or probable cause. And in almost all but one or two use cases, OPD would seek a search warrant to extract data from this phone. The other cases would tend to be on consent. So once we have a search warrant to search his phone, it's gonna be pursuant to a criminal investigation.

This device is the cell phone is hooked up to this device or extract the data on the phone. California law and also, OPD's use policy, dictates that the investigator to seal informations on that phone that's unrelated to the investigation. At which point, they examine the the report that's generated by this device, pursuing their investigation. And to kinda give an example, sometimes in gun investigations, a photo of the suspect holding the gun is obviously extremely important to the investigation. We tend to see a lot more usage in terms of robberies, homicides, human trafficking, where we're building a relationship of the user device to the victim or to other suspects, how a robbery is planned, or do you worry about how homicide occur because of prior communication between victim, suspect, fuse, what have you.

So it's a piece of evidence that's critical to a lot of the serious felonies that we investigate. Once it's done by investigator, this data is uploaded into our evidence.com for safekeeping and encryption and it is shared with the district attorney's office for discovery process. And if other law enforcement agency serve OPD with a search warrant, obviously, pursuing a judge order, would we have to compile a search warrant and provide that data over. And to kinda go into the practical usage for OPD. Last year, OPD used OPD extracted over 700 cell phones pursuant to search warrants.

I believe one or two was under consent, but everything else almost everything else is on, search warrants. Out of those, we rely to Cellbrite to extract almost all Android devices that OBD encounter. It just because of technical of the technical build that the Cellbrite device, and and it is it is the only device that OPD and other forensic lab have encountered that works very viably in terms of Androids. Out of those 700 devices, about 30% were Androids, so which translate to a little over 200 devices that were searched pursuant to these criminal investigations. Almost all of them usually come to us locked.

It's very rarely do we get a passcode to phones, and so we tend to be dealing with a locked device that we're trying to get evidence in. From consulting with outside experts and other labs and the best practice, OPD have not identified any viable alternatives to this vendor in terms of Android extractions. OPD does understand the optics of this company. Unfortunately, we have done some testing and some other alternative vendors in terms of looking for possibilities. For example, right now, we're undergoing a thirty day testing and testing process with a particular vendor and to kinda highlight how a lot of these sales pitch and how a lot of these vendors present their products.

When I was in the initial meeting with this particular vendor, it was the you know, the the way they sold the data sheet, the way they sold the product, it was a direct one on one replacement for Sellbrite. It works just as well if not. Or it should be able to meet your needs. We have this particular device for about a week now. We're gonna do a we usually run thirty day tests on these things.

We have tried eight locked Android on this device, and he has failed on all eight. In contrast, we tried these same eight devices on the Cellbrite and has passed seven out of eight. And these are not devices OPD particularly use. These are devices that OPD has seized pursuing the criminal investigation and are searching using a search warrant. So we're using we're testing in terms of, you know, real world experience, and we have not encountered anything that's viable as we stands.

So therefore, OPD is asking that we're allowed to continue to use the CellBrite with the understanding and continue search for a better alternative that can replace this capability. Because the capability to extract these phones are so important to our investigations that OPD would it would be a detrimental to OPD's criminal investigations without this technology.

Thank you. Any questions from the council members? Council member Gayle, then press your button.