City Council - meeting_joint_special

Good morning and welcome to this special concurrent meeting of the Oakland City Council. Before I call roll, I will go over speaker card instructions. If you would like to speak on any any agenda item on this agenda, please fill out a speaker's card before the item is called or hour and a half, from the start of this meeting. This meeting was called at 9AM so that would be 10:30AM this morning. You can fill out a speaker's card by going to the table at the front where the clerk representative is seated.

If you're looking to fill out a card online that time has passed as they were due twenty four hours from the start of this meeting. On role for this meeting are council members Brown, council member Fife, council member Gayle, council member Houston, council member Unger, council member Wong, and council member Ramachandran who will be sharing this meeting showing five members present and three, members excused. Your first item on this agenda is item three. I'm sorry. Did you have any announcements today?

No. Happy election day. After this meeting, if you haven't voted yet, that is an option to you and, looking forward to getting through some important items today. Thank you.

And starting with item three on special orders of the day, item 3.1, receive an information report on Caltrans vision nine eighty and Interstate 580 access studies in the city of Oakland and I'm showing no speakers on this item. Okay.

Do is anyone from the city administration prepared to present on this?

And correction, we do have one speaker on this item.

To the city administrator, should we wait for a speaker or we can come back to this? Okay. Then in the next item, we'll change the order and come back to this. Thank you.

Noting we will come back to item 3.1 going to item four modifications to the agenda procedural items.

Thank you to the administration. I believe there's a change that you all would like to make.

Through the chair. Yes that we would request that the item be pulled for further consideration of vetting at this time.

Which which item?

Item number 27th Yeah. The 27th Street. Item number 8, 27th Street complete Street construction work contract.

Thank you. And I believe we need a full vote of counsel to officially pull this off. I will make the motion. And to the administration, is this to pull it off and put it on the pending list with no date specific or move it to a future council meeting?

Through the chair, we request we move it to a future council meeting, likely the next meeting that you all have scheduled.

Is that the twentieth? So

through the chair the next city council meeting would be December 2. Second.

Thank you. So the

vote would be to pull the item and then there'd also be a scheduling motion for the full council would be scheduling this item to the December 2 meeting. On consent, yes.

Through the chair to the city attorney is there a motion to pull the to withdraw and reschedule to December 2? On consent. On consent. There was a motion to remove item eight on this agenda and schedule to December 2. I will read item eight.

Item eight is the 27th Street Complete Streets construction contract award. It was adopted resolution awarding a construction contract to Redwood Construction for the 27th Street Complete Streets project, project number 1003978. The lowest responsive responsible and responsive bidder in accordance with project plans, specifications, and state requirements, and with contractors bid in the amount of $10,418,000 I'm sorry, $18,573.50 and as absent appropriate sequel findings there was a motion by council member Ramachandran, seconded by council member Brown to withdraw this item and reschedule it to December 2. And madam clerk On consent. I'm sorry.

The body will still hear the speakers when we get

to Yes. The was gonna say that. Yes. And just with with regular practice as this item was removed in this meeting we will still hear speakers on that item. Council member Brown.

Aye. Council member Fife? No. Council member Gaia? Council member Houston is excused. Council member Unger?

Can we get some clarification on why this is being pulled?

Through the chair to council member Unger, we have a representative from the department transportation here that can speak to that particular request.

Josh Rowan, director of Department of Transportation. Through the chair, there was a inappropriate effort to bid protest through committee last week. We have addressed this with Dwess. We have addressed this with the law department. Right now, we're asking for time so that we can address this this request properly and bring it back. So there's no rush on this item. We we need to thoroughly address the the items that were put before us.

Was gonna

counts number five.

Thank you. I would like to change my vote. I was concerned about not hearing the totality of information on this item. There was a lot of confusion surrounding it. Understanding the explanation that we were given I would like to change my vote.

Through the chairs of the city attorney, can I restart the vote over in its entirety?

Yes. The vote was not complete so you can recall the motion.

So there was a motion by council member Ramachandra and second by council member Brown to withdraw item eight from this agenda and reschedule it to December 2. Council member Brown.

Aye.

Council member Fife. Aye. Council member Gayle.

Aye.

Council member Unger. Aye. Council member Wong. Aye. And, chair Ramachandran. Aye. Motion passes with a vote of six ayes.

To the clerk, since item 3.1 is was passed over, can we hear that item at the end of the non consent calendar under item four? Thank you. To the city administrator, is that sufficient time to hear that item? Okay.

Thank you.

And I believe that dispenses with item four. There were two modifications. One to pull item nine to and reschedule to a future meeting, and the second was to hear item 3.1 after the non consent calendar and that dispenses with it.

Thank you. With that, we'll go to item five which is the consent calendar. Starting with item 5.1, a resolution regarding the declaration of a local emergency due to the AIDS epidemic. Item 5.2, a resolution, declaring a medical cannabis health emergency. Item 5.3, a resolution declaring a local emergency on homelessness.

Item 5.4, a resolution regarding the Rockridge bid annual report and intention to levy fiscal year '26 through '27. Item 5.5 a resolution for Montclair bid annual report and intention to levy for fiscal years '26 through '27. Item 5.6, a resolution for a lease of airport warehouse for urban search and rescue program. Item 5.7, a resolution in support of California assembly bill a b one two four three. Item 5.8, a resolution for OPD twenty twenty five DNA backlog reduction program.

Item 5.9, a resolution regarding iMex technology professional services contract. Item 5.1, a resolution regarding the corridor safety ambassador grants. Item 5.11, a resolution proclaiming October as domestic violence awareness month. Item 5.12 a resolution for OPD Concord Police Association's fire range agreement. Item 5.13 appointments to the advise I'm sorry the privacy commission.

Item 5.14 includes multiple pieces of legislation regarding the purchase of asphalt paving materials for in house paving and sidewalk operations. Item 5.15 a resolution to approve o Oakland Fire Department fire staff premium side letter agreements to the IAFF local 55 m o u. Item 5.16 information report on equal access to services ordinance annual compliance report. Item 5.17, a resolution for the 42nd And High Street I 880 access improvements. Item 5.18, a resolution to establish the right of way repair fund.

Item 5.19, a resolution extending no parking restriction at Lakeshore excuse me Lakeshore Cul De Sac. Item 5.2, a resolution for a feasibility study for a potential San Antonio BART station. Item 5.21 includes multiple pieces of legislation regarding the 2025 California Department of Housing and Community Development Homekey resolutions. Item 5.22, a resolution regarding Bonterra Tech LLC contract amendment. Item 5.23, a resolution for the amendment to PSA with the Urban Institute for grant evaluation services.

Item 5.24 is an ordinance for amendments to the city's conflicts of interest code. If approved, it will be approved for introduction. Item 5.25 a resolution for community champions game time grant 2025 for San Antonio Park. Item 5.26 a resolution for OPD enterprise rental car contract amendment. Item 5.27 is a settlement agreement for George Segura versus the city of Oakland. And your final consent calendar item is a resolution for a claim of Saba Grocers Initiative and you do have multiple speakers on this item.

Thank you. Can we go first to the public speakers?

Also noting the arrival of council member Houston at 09:12. Going to the consent calendar speakers, this is for item all of the item fives. If your name is called, please approach the podium in any order. Please state your name for the record before beginning. If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand so I can easily identify you.

Starting with miss Asada Olabala, you have multiple items on consent. Dave Kurtz, Barbara Pine or Fine, Emily Wheeler, Sarah Riley, Derek Barnes, Jennifer Finlay, Stephanie Warren, Quinn Edie, pastor Joe Smith, Ali Obad, Zoe Janik or Janik. Sorry if I said that incorrectly. Sarah Rowley. Oops.

You guys got multiple cards in here. Mister Hazard and Rod Fujita, Joan Lammen, and Diana Carrill. In any order, please approach the podium. Again, you are participating via Zoom please raise your hand so I can easily identify you.

Starting with item five 0.7, oh, oh, you don't have your clock up yet. It's not up.

Go, it'll sleep beep. I don't know why it's not showing there, but I can see it.

Don't know how to pace myself, baby. Okay, we'll work it out. I'll do it. Go ahead. Ready? Alright. Five point seven, appointment to the privacy commission of Bryant White. If you look at his resume, he has expertise in technology. He has no reference to how he has expertise in handling the police officer's non association with ICE or the Department of Justice. Item, the next item is 5.16, the Equal Access to Service Ordinance.

Every year, this annual report to the Finance Committee never gives any financial costs related to translation and interpretation documents and so forth. It's supposed to be a financial report, but you do not report on how much money is spent on the equal access to service ordinance. The other item is 5.21, a need to report on what's going on with the Oakland Housing Authority. You are responsible for public housing, and you're responsible for Section eight, you never hear from the Oakland Housing Authority what's going on, and you need to have a report out, you appoint members to the board, but you never have a report. The last thing is that besides these other ones, the city grant for $500,000 with 5.28, you never executed the grant and the matching funds.

Okay, let's go to 12 of the 28 consent items did not go to committee. That means you are approving them, and you have no dialogue or interaction with staff, anything publicly about these items. So, information report on the vision for 09/8580. Now, you approving this, and then you're going give the report after you approve it. You can't do that.

You need to pull that item and then vote on it after you have the report. Annual report on Moncler business improvement, you've never seen it. Lease of warehouse for the airport, over $355,000, so you're going to rubber stamp that for six years. OPD backlog reduction for D and A, that's $344,000, You're going to rubber stamp that, you never looked into if it's done right. OPD technology, dollars 300,000.

You never went to a committee on that, you're going to rubber stamp it. Carter Safety Ambassador Grant, dollars 2,000,000. Who's getting the grant? Never discuss it, you're going to rubber stamp that. OPD agreement for $250,000 you're not identifying the source of funding in that one. Assault, asphalt paving materials, $4,000,000. Now this one is the one you're gonna have the way

Thank you, miss Olavallo. Your time is up.

Good morning. My name is Barbara Rhine, R H I N E, and I'm here on behalf of 1,000 grandmothers for future generations, along with a broad coalition of a lot of other organizations that are supporting item 5.7 on the consent calendar. We're deeply grateful to city council members Zach Unger and Carol Fife for bringing this forward, and we very much hope it passes. Oakland has, it creates a super fund which eight major oil companies pay into to pay part of the cost of all the pollution caused during the decades of their lying about the seriousness of the climate crisis. 17 other cities in California have already approved similar resolutions supporting it.

It comes before the California legislature in January and we definitely need to know that there's a great deal of Oakland's support. I'm from Zach Unger's District. Every time I talk to someone in

Good morning. My name is Zoe Jonick. I am here representing myself as a lifelong Oaklander, third generation Oaklander, and on behalf of three fifty Bay Area Action, which is a climate justice group here in the Bay Area, and our youth mobilizing team, which is in strong support of item 5.7 on the consent calendar, the resolution in support of the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund. This is a wonderful measure to take and thank you council members five and Unger and thank you to the rest of the city council for hopefully supporting this resolution as it will support a important bill that will make a huge difference in saving Californians hundreds of billions of dollars and putting the onus on the companies where that have caused the damage as it belongs. Thank you.

Good morning, council members. I'm Rod Fujita. I'm a climate scientist and an activist with Indivisible East Bay. You know, forty years ago when I started my career, I documented the effects of climate change on the coral reefs around the world, saw them dying en masse. And, I looked on it with outrage as the polluters who caused this massive environmental problem lied about them, profited handsomely.

And now, the effects are affecting us all. All Oaklanders, all Californians are suffering from the effects of intensified wildfires, sea level rise, infrastructure damage due to these pollutions, it's high time that we stop paying the full cost of these things and impose equitable fees on the polluters who caused this problem. That's what the Make Polluters Pay bill does, and I urge you to support the resolution.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Quinn Eyde, and I'm also here in support of the Make Polluters Pay item on the agenda, number 5.7. And would really like to add that we've already seen a measure like this pass in Richmond with Richmond being owed now money from Chevron as a as a result of their impacts on the Richmond residents. And it's really important especially in this moment of rising climate change that California's budget doesn't directly get impacted by the rising costs of protecting us from the climate destruction. So I urge you to support this resolution and help make sure that it's the fossil fuel companies that are held responsible for these costs. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Diana Curiel and I'm here in favor of item 5.7, the polluters pay climate super fund act. And Joni Lohman is also here in favor. And we're both citizens of

Hello, my name is Sarah Rowley. I am here to speak in support of Resolution five point o, which is a feasibility study for a infill BART station at 14th Avenue. I represent San Antonio Station Alliance, which has a petition with 1,500 signatures in support of the station. We have support from local organizations like Tribe and EBC, as well as several businesses and broad political support. We're in support of this feasibility study because this is the first step to bring such a thing to fruition.

Not only will it be a station, it will be transit oriented development, hopefully a green bridge that will connect our community to the waterfront and address the disinvestment that has been in our community for a very long time since the inception of BART. This will be of no cost to the city.

Bart thank you.

Greetings. Hope all is well to my council person and the rest of the council Noel, mister Houston, and whatnot. I'm here speaking about the West Oakland Senior Center. It was supposed to be open over a year and a half ago. For whatever reason, it's constantly getting pushed back and we keep telling them the longer it goes pushed back, the more it's gonna create blight. People are gonna go in inclement weather. People are gonna use the building. We have $25,000,000 worth of insurance. We can move them. We have trucks and trailers.

We have the manpower. We're willing to pay for it. We just want our seniors to be able to have a place. And our senior director who's been moved to North Oakland where we've displaced and misplaced our seniors. We want to be able to come back home and please keep your hands, your staff keep your hands off of our senior director. Thank you.

Sorry and to the member of the public can I get your name for the record sir?

Yours? Sorry. Thank you. Teresa. Thank you.

Good morning, city councils. Before you start my time, can I can I find out if every one of you guys got the packet before you start the time, please? And, I have two speakers that yield their time streaming, pastor Joe Smith and Taha Obad.

To the member of the public, there's no seating time during consent.

Good morning, city council members. My name is Ali Obad. Dear mayor Lee, president Jenkins, member of the city council, city attorney Richardson, as a corporate owner of multiple stores participating in the Saba Grocers Initiative, I respectfully request the agenda item 5.28 file number 26 dash zero two point nine. Claim of Sabah Grocers Initiative be removed from this from the 11/04/2025 council agenda postponed pending further review. It is both prudent and necessary that no council action be taken until the city auditor find in a fraud, waste, and financial mismanagement related to sub funded programs.

Thorling investigated the city auditor, 07/01/2024 report and related past statements, documents, serious deficiencies, including unauthorized payments, misuse of debt debit cards, and undocumented expenditures. These findings indicate systemic control failures and raise credible con concerns that the program remains at risk of continued misuse of public funds. Given these unresolved issues

time is up. Mister Obadj, your time is up. If there's anybody left in the chambers who would like to speak on consent, please step to the podium. Otherwise, we'll be moving to the Zoom speakers.

Houston.

Kinda like stand away from the mic a little bit, Ali, mister Ali. I mean, when you're talking so we can really hear what you're saying. Can you just elaborate a little bit more on it? And I wanted to say through the chair to the city attorney, can I speak to this now that it's in open forum because it was in closed session? Can I speak to this and ask him a question and elaborate on something? Because I got eight minutes on anything I wanna speak on. I wanna make that clear. So so can I speak to can I speak to this because it was in closed session and it's out of closed session now? Correct.

This this item this is a settlement that the city council approved in closed session on Thursday October 23. So what would be appropriate to speak to is what is in the public documents in the agenda, the report and the resolution. This was a final action that was reported out of closed session.

Right. Not voted. No on it. It's okay. I just wanna make sure I'm clear I vote.

Houston, we're still in the middle of public comment. Afterwards, we will each get a maximum of up to two minutes to speak on the consent calendar and we can ask the city attorney more clarifying questions. Questions.

So through the chair again. So you're saying I got two minutes?

After public comment finishes.

Okay. We all do.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Go ahead, Ali. Sit down. I'll talk I'll talk to you in minute.

Gene has it. Go to cleanoakland.com and look at that. Go to my blog and you'll see the disparity study from doctor Ramsey on the fact that black folks don't get contracts in this town, 1%. And you also those who have disabled individuals, you will see all that also that disparity study. Let me say this.

I don't even know why this meeting is called this morning on election day. Where is the urgency? See, you keep violating your own rules. This meeting is a bogus meeting, and you knew it was gonna be sparse attendance. Also, the January 15 meeting wasn't an illegal meeting, madam chair, because you said an urgency.

You didn't describe an urgency. The council's gonna be held the next day, and you went through the entire agenda. And I noticed you on September 22 to cure and correct. You didn't do that. So I'm gonna file the next legal action, which is a writ because everything that you did on that date is void.

And also, you've been properly served, madam city attorney, with the writ I filed on May 19 and on August 22 this twenty fifth, the supplemental on measure a that you said was a sales tax, you are illegally collecting the sales tax that went into effect on October 1. And you sit there with grins on your face as though you don't know what I'm talking about. But you have thirty days from October 29 to answer that what you've been properly served on measure a, the transaction and use tax. It's not a sales tax, council member Unger. And when council member Jenkins on December 16, in an agenda report, talked about a sales tax.

Well, why didn't he talk about that on January 9 when you approved the ordinance one thirty eight thirty three? It wasn't. So that wasn't a sales tax. It wasn't a sales tax when you approve resolution nine zero seven four o on June 3 with the state to administer the tax. Go to and this this should be pulled. This is real clear. Saba is fraud. Read the auditor's report and you're doing this service disservice if you

Thank you, mister Hazard. Your time is up. Again, if your name was calling you in chambers and you wish to speak, please approach the podium. Please state your name for the record.

Fifth, Bay Cities Ministers Baptist Union. We again we again are sitting here working with the city, doing the work of the city. But when it come time for funds to go out, it looks like everybody forget about us. They remember us at election time, they remember us at every other time, but the churches are the ones that do the work. And Bay City represents 85 churches in the Bay Area. And so all we're saying is that you need to consider us and what you're doing when you had a closed door meeting. We actually not do it today and do it later. My church is in West Oakland. I hope you receive that.

Thank you for your comments.

Good morning, council members. My name is Stephanie Warren. I'm a licensed general contractor and lifelong Oakland resident. I come from a proud legacy of builders of builders in this city. My father, John T.

Warren, founded John T. Warren and Associates and contributed to major public works projects, including the BART Extension Projects. During his era, the city Of Oakland and its agencies made intentional efforts to contract with black owned and local businesses. Those policies didn't just build roads and rail lines, they built generational opportunity. They allow allowed small contractors like my father to hire locally, and train apprentices and young engineers, and reinvest in Oakland neighborhoods.

Today, however, those pathways those pathways have narrowed. Too many contractor contracts go to large outside firms.

Thank you. Your time is up. Moving to the Zoom speakers. If your name was called and you were online, please raise your hand so I can easily identify you. At this time if you still wish to speak please raise your hand.

Jennifer Findley I have you with multiple items. You will have three minutes. Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Good morning. It is really unfortunate to say at least that this meeting is being held at 9AM, and I'm grateful to missus Sada for bringing up that there were 12 items that were moved to the consent calendar on rule 24. They did not go to committee. We've got 12 items now that are have not been reviewed by the council, were not reviewed by committee, or not being presented to the public, and were given a short time on the agenda that was available to the public before today's meeting. This is part of a long standing if there's going to be a history of the the Oakland City Council for 2025, it's this lack of transparency and this clear intent to avoid the, scrutiny and input from the public by moving public safety meetings from 6PM to 9AM, from changing meeting dates, from making meetings early, from deciding that public can only have one minute to comment for different things to, the more things go on to consent, people have less time per item.

There are any number of reasons as transparency is an ongoing issue. I'll talk about it more at

At this time, I don't see any other hands on the Zoom raising the Zoom queue. Again, if your name was called on Zoom or you are in chambers and you still wish to speak, please approach the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. Otherwise, we will be closing public comment at this time. Madam chair I don't see any other hands raised and there is no one in the chambers Thank at the

you colleagues. Colleagues questions, comments on the consent calendar. Council member Houston, know you wanted to say something after council member Brown. Go ahead.

Excellent. So just want to start off. Thank you so much to the members of the public that came and spoke on various items. Thanks to the leadership of council member Unger and council member Fife for the polluters pay climate bill and being in support of that. I definitely am.

Also thank you council member Wong and the coalition from San Antonio Street Station. I'm very looking forward to that feasibility study as I've been supporting so much of the efforts that you all have been making for some time now. And then in addition I just wanted to uplift that any of the items that you see on the consent calendar be it especially ones that are regularly scheduled for community and economic development given on average we've been averaging about seven to eight items per agenda meeting. The corridor safety ambassador grant that was an item that we we wanted to ensure we move forward with as so many of these community groups have been waiting on this funding so that was a priority. And then in addition there is item 5.6.

As with all items that are here every council member has the opportunity to be briefed by staff to ask any questions, any questions. And so I just wanted to share those things out and so I'll happily make a motion on the consent calendar. Thank you.

Thank you. And I will second that. Council member comments, council member Houston.

Make sure through the chair, I wanna make sure that five point one four and five point two eight, I say no on. I wanna just make sure that's clear, and I'll vote the rest on the consent. And I did wanna speak to I appreciate that item number 8 27th Street Complete Street construction contract was pulled. I appreciate that because of the things that were said. Patricia, I want him to hear.

The things that were said about me last week which I made a complaint to the public ethics commission and I just passed it around to you guys because I don't appreciate things being said about me that's not true. So I appreciate that being pulled and if I like I am I'm a new council member. If I say something that is not right or a little bit harsh teach me, show me. Right? But I don't appreciate people saying things that aren't true to my staff.

So I wanted to share that with you and I appreciate that being pulled. Yeah. The public will find out very very soon what I'm talking about.

Thank you council member Houston. Any other comments or questions?

I want to just thank the individuals who came out from Make Polluters Pay. Barbara Ryan, thank you for working with your neighbors to organize this. I'm proud to support this in conjunction with council member Unger and I also think it's important that in this moment where we see incidents that are happening in Kingston, Jamaica, flooding, heat, fires, wildfires, all of the things that I've been trying to figure out how to work with community to hold these some of these big polluters accountable for that we're moving in support of the state legislation. So I wanted to say thank you to everyone who came out for that, and I also wanna register a no vote for item 5.14. There's some potential legislation coming forward that contradicts this and I wanted to my voice to be very clear on what's happening that's underlying this this item.

Through the chair, can you repeat what your no item is, please?

Item 5.14.

Thank you.

Okay. If there's no more comments, madam clerk, we can call them.

On the consent calendar moved by council member Brown, seconded by council member Ramachandran noting a no vote for council member Houston on item five point two eight and five point one four and a no vote for council member Fife on item 5.14. Council member Brown? Aye. Council member Fife? Aye. Council member Gayle.

Aye.

Council member Houston. Aye. Council member Ramachan I'm sorry. Member Ramachan. Council member Unger. Aye. Council member Wong. Aye. And chair Ramachandran. Aye.

Motion passes with a vote of seven ayes one excused Jenkins. Going to item 6.1 We need a motion to open the public hearing. There is a motion by council member Houston, seconded by council member Gaio to open the public hearing. Council member Brown. Aye. Council member Fife. Aye. Council member Gaio.

Aye.

Council member Houston. Aye. Council member Unger.

Aye.

Council member Wong. Aye. And chair oops chair Ramachandra. Aye. Motion passes with a vote of seven ayes, one excused. Jenkins, I'll read the title, conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopt a resolution requesting that the California governor's office of land use and climate innovation grant a two year extension for the adoption of the updated open space conservation and recreation element of the Oakland general plan pursuant to government code section six five three six one. You do have one speaker on this item. Okay.

To the staff, we can put up to ten minutes if necessary.

Good morning, chair. Ramchandra and members of the city council. I have a brief report for this item. My name is Lakshmi Rajagopalan, and I'm a planner four with the strategic planning division in planning and building. Our And staff are here to request that the city council adopt a resolution requesting this California Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation grant a two year extension for the adopt adoption of the updated open space conservation and recreation or the Oscar element of the Oakland general plan.

As the council is aware, the city is currently engaged in a comprehensive update of its general plan in two phases. And phase one was completed in 2023 and included adoption of the housing element, the safety element and a new environmental justice element. Phase two of the general plan includes comprehensive updates to the land use and transportation element or the LOOT, the open space conservation and recreation element or the OSCAR element as well as creation of a new infrastructure and capital facilities element and updates to the noise element. The estimated time line to bring these elements for adoption to City Council is spring twenty twenty seven. Senate Bill fourteen twenty five, which was passed in 2022, qualified as government code section six five five six five point five requires all cities to update their to review and update their open space elements by 01/01/2026 in correlation with the city's safety element and the environmental justice element.

And cities can request that the state the governor's office of land use climate innovation can grant a two year extension. The city's current EJ element and the safety element already includes several action items that provide a strong foundation for demonstrating compliance with SB fourteen twenty five, and attachment a in your agenda packet provides the list of current goals, policies, and action items that are in these EJN safety elements and also address equitable access to open space, climate resilience. Requesting this extension will ensure that phase two elements are updated in a coordinated manner, and this avoids piecemeal compliance or omissions across these critically integrated elements. So this is why staff is requesting a two year extension from the state LCI. In conclusion, again, we recommend that the city council adopt a resolution pursuant to government code section 65,361 requesting that the California Office of Land Use and Climate innovation grant a two year extension for adoption of the OSCAR element of the open space I mean, Oakland general plan.

This concludes my report, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Councilor McGaile.

Thank you. Thank you for that information. I certainly enjoyed speaking with you and getting more clear clarity on it. But for the public's information, what is the financial obligation or or the financial concern with the city of of Oakland to make sure we carry through with this?

Sure. So this, general plan update process kicked off in 2021. And as part of this process, staff did bring forward to council in 2021 a contract, a resolution to adopt, to approve two contracts as part of this. So we have we are working with two consultant teams, technical consultant team and a community consultant team, and, it's all within the budget that's approved as part of that resolution.

But but for 2026, what is the number that we're looking at? Because right now, we're making many investments, many concerns, but then I wanna make sure we stay balanced and the public understands the money that we are receiving, whether it's from the county, the state, you know, where is that money gonna be invested and how and when. And I don't wanna show up after the fact like we did last year. I've never seen the council at this level. We find out after the fact what we're doing or didn't do with the money that we were committed to use in Oakland.

Yeah. Through the chat of council member Kayo, we are not requesting any additional funds or, anything. So this is a resolution to request the state to grant an extension of the update that's already currently underway, which is already included as part of our budget.

Alright. Thank you.

Thank you.

Council member Wong.

Thank you. Through the chair. This is really important work. Can you just clarify for us who who are interested in land use updates or just the city council members? I I look at ways in my district where I wanna see zoning changes, maybe opportunities for mixed use development, more housing. How do we weigh in? What what is our opportunity as city council members to to to help shape this plan? Yeah.

Through the chat of council member Wong. So the general plan update process includes an extensive community engagement process. But to your question on how can we involve community, city council members, staff will, continue to hold study sessions with council at key milestones in the process. But, independently, we can also work and, hold community engagement meetings in your district, which we are doing. And the general plan update website does include all the events that have been conducted to date across the city, and that's a priority.

Okay. And just to confirm, this is the process by which if we wanted to make zoning changes, this would be one tool

to do that? So the general plan update includes updates to the land use elements. So we will we are looking at changes to land use designations or any updates to the land use designations. As part of this process we will also be updating the zoning codes so yes.

Okay great thank you.

Councilmember Brown.

Excellent and so I just wanted to say thank you to the planning and building team for your due diligence on this item. We know that it's related to the senate bill fourteen twenty five and so basically we're just you know granting that two year extension to ensure that everything we we can we can fall in line with everything as planned. And so I'm I'm happy to make a motion to close the public hearing. We have to ask public comments.

Thank you. Council member Houston.

And real quick. And and adopt the resolution.

I'm sorry. That wasn't that was a motion. Okay.

Council member Houston.

Yeah. Through the chair. I just got one question. Between what's the difference between Oakland? What is it? A I mean, OSACR plan and the state local open space. What's the difference between those two?

So cities are by state law, cities are required to adopt and update their general plans, and they have specific topic requirements. So open space, land use, conservation, recreation. And the city's general plan, we decided to include open space conservation recreation or OSCAR as one element, and the state law requires us to update the open space portion of that area. So we are since we are already working on a general plan update, we are we are gonna be updating the OSCAR element as part of this process.

So that that that requires a two year extension?

So if you look at your staff agenda packet, figure one provides a timeline of when we are hoping to bring these elements forward to council for adoption, but we are also underway, and we are undergoing extensive community engagement process. And we've held several events in across the city. So requesting this extension from the state will make sure that we are able to adopt all the elements in a coordinated manner.

I got it. Yeah. I got it. I got it. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate

it. Thank you. If there's no more comments, we will take public speakers.

You have one speaker on this item, miss Asada Olabala.

So issue of preservation, the issue of protection of natural resources, I'm sure is gonna be in the plan. When you address funding, the source of funding, is there any obligation from the city of Oakland or all of this coming from the state, coming from grants? If there's an obligation for funding from the city, what is that source? That should be identified in this discussion right now. That's important.

So when you talk about Oak Oakland's spaces, you're talking about Leon Canyon Region open space, King Estate Open space, No Land Park open space, and you got a Timmis Simmis Hill Park, and then are we all doing the exact same thing for all of these spaces or are there some differences? What are the differences? So I live close to the Leon Canyon region. My concern about that space, there is a lot of animals who are considered potential threats. There's coyotes, there's mountain lions, bobcats, snakes of different varieties.

And I've been in there and I've had to leave because I've encountered some of these animals. What are the safety enforcement processes for encountering any safety issue in these open spaces? Who is the enforcement authority in these open spaces? Who is the maintenance, If any, you have to have some form of maintenance in these spaces, how does that happen? Personnel wise, staff wise, if any, how what kind of staff exists in open space?

Okay. Thank you to our public speaker. Colleagues, I will entertain a motion or additional questions, comments if you have them.

Through the chair, you just need a second. Councilmember Brown. Apologies. I will entertain a second.

I'll second that.

On the motion by council member Brown to close the public hearing and adopt a resolution second by council member Unger. Council member Brown. Aye. Council member Fife. Aye. Council member Gayle.

Aye.

Council member Houston. One more time. Council member Unger. Aye. Council member Wong. Aye. And chair Ramachandran. Aye. Motion passes with a vote of seven ayes. One is Hughes Jenkins.

Madam Clerk before moving to the next item, because of some technical speaker issues, I would like to, make a motion for a five minute recess.

Council chair Ramachandran has requested a five minute recess moved by council member Houston. Council member Brown. Aye. Council member council member Fife. Aye. Council member Gayle. Aye. Council member Houston. Aye. Council member Unger. Aye. Council member Wong. Aye. And chair Ramachandran. Aye. Motion passes with a vote of seven ayes.

If council members are present, we are waiting for quorum to restart the meeting.

I'm sorry.

The recess is over. It looks like we have a quorum on the dais through the chair to the city attorney. We will take a vote to reconvene starting with council member Brown. Aye. Council member Fife. Aye. Council member Gaile. Aye. Council member Houston.

Aye.

Council member Unger. Aye. Council member Wong. Aye. And chair Ramachandran.

Aye. Motion passes with a vote of seven ayes one excused showing seven members present. Going to your regular non consent item starting with item eight which was pulled but I will read it and we do have speakers on this item. A resolution awarding a construction contract to Redwood Construction for the 27th Street Complete Streets project number 1003978, the lowest responsible and responsive bidder in accordance with project plans, specifications, state requirements, the contractors bid in the amount of $10,418,573.50 and adopting appropriate sequel findings. We do have two speakers on this item, Miss Asada Olab sorry.

One speaker on this item. Miss Asada Olabala.

I am totally frustrated with the amount of money that is being allocated for bicycle lanes. $10,900,000 to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety, and accessibility for making streets calmer. $10,400,000. Protective bicycle lanes. I just don't get it why this city spends so much money on that and we can't get the potholes done.

And, we can't eliminate the illegal dumping. We can't deal with our homeless community, but we got good bicycle lanes on the roads. It just doesn't make sense. Improve the crosswalks and curve ramps. $10,400,000. Why you pulling it? And why when you pull it I thought she said you're gonna put it on the consent agenda when it comes back. Madam Clerk, is that correct? Just to shake your head, yes. It means you're gonna do something to cover up whatever reason you were bringing it to non consent.

This is You do so much stuff that doesn't allow for the trust that should be existing, for the opportunity to say we're going in the right direction. Somebody needs to stop this agenda of bicycle lanes. Look look outside the door here, with that mess that was created with these protected bicycle lanes, and we got the majority of the city being one lane, one lane. God help you people if you all gotta evacuate folks out of this city. With one lane in all the major corridors created so you can have your number one priority related to transportation is bicycle lane.

Thank you miss Olabala. That was our only speaker on item eight.

Thank you. We do not make a motion correct because we've pulled this item off. Okay. Thank you.

Going to item nine, a resolution amending and restating the council rules of procedure in their entirety in order to assure council meetings run-in an orderly and efficient manner, allow for non consent items to be heard earlier in the meeting, create an additional presiding officer position to serve as presiding officer in the absence of the council president and make non substantive technical edits. And you have about six speakers on this item.

Thank you. If KTOP can pull up the presentation please.

Okay.

Great. In council president Jenkins' absence, I will run through this briefly just for a little history and context. These amendments the process to draft these amendments started about eighteen months ago. Much gratitude to the city attorney's office, the city clerk's office, and city administration for really trying to do a thorough job of seeing how we can bring these council meetings in a post COVID era in a way that's efficient and effective for the entire city council, members of the public, and our staff. These are unprecedented times still, and I am grateful that as a city we have made an active choice to continue hybrid meetings.

Not all cities do this, and I think that's important. That being said, there are things we have to do to adapt given having these hybrid meetings continue, and changes to rules of procedure are natural. They're normal. And just running through the timeline, the first set of amendments in recent past was post COVID bringing back meetings into a hybrid format, then was in December 2023, which was myself, then council president Nikki Voss, council former council member Treva Reid, former council member Rebecca Kaplan, and myself that authored the next set of amendments. And then from that time onward, in the December 2023 resolution, there are a few whereas clauses that directed city council within six months to contemplate a second set of changes, and that is what we basically started about eighteen months ago, myself and council president Jenkins.

So all that to say this has been a very detailed process. These amendments were first released in September. We went through two different rules committee meetings to flush out more details and and and receive feedback, and so the final version is in front of you today. Again, I've already stated the goals. I'll run through it quickly.

We want to have reasonable time for input from the public and also input from our fellow council members and staff that have effective meeting agendas and some predictability in which key items requiring active votes will be discussed. And that being said, the first major so this this set of amendments have both substantive and non substantive changes. The non substantive changes were proposed by our city attorney's office and our minor our minor details that will not affect the course of meetings effectively, but they are present and happy to explain the non substantive amendments or elaborate on these substantive changes. The biggest proposed change is changing the order of consent and non consent. Basically, this means that once the meeting begins, we will go straight to the items that require an active vote from council.

Why? Because everyone's energy is brightest right at the start of a meeting, and the public will have a better sense of predictability to be able to make comment on items that that require an active vote. When a public makes vote on an item on a consent calendar, that's already on the consent calendar. And the most council members can do is a no vote, but typically they pass versus non consent items being at the start of the meeting, expedites the process for having constructive debate and dialogue with the public rather than at the tail end of a meeting when we're voting on important items where our where our ideas can in fact be influenced by, very much so, by public commenters who are present. That being said, the meeting start time is not the meeting start time is not changing, it remains 03:30PM, But the requirement to have non consent items start at 5PM will be eliminated so that all the consent items can start as close to 03:30 as possible.

Moving items off of consent. Now this is this was a proposal to require a majority of council members to move an item off consent rather than just a motion and a second. We have received feedback that some council members would prefer to keep it the status quo and I will make a friendly amendment to remove this portion of the amendment and keep the status quo as is that pulling an item off of consent only requires a motion and a second. Ceremonial items this has already been our practice for the last several months of this year that we are not gonna have ceremonial items during the course of the meeting. Ceremonial items are still can still be voted on.

They would just be via advisory resolutions on the consent calendar. This does not take away from the ability of council members to be able to have ceremonies either in committee when individuals might be on or groups might be honored or in stand alone ceremonies that will be noticed to take place in these chambers. They are just no longer a stand alone item at the start of council meeting, which has been our practice for the past few months unofficially already. This is a change to the unanimity requirement for non consent. This is really just a clarification.

Right now, the rules committee has say in whether an item is scheduled to consent or non consent. This has not changed. The only difference is that the recommendation that goes to rules is currently the chair making a recommendation whether an item goes to consent or non consent, whether or not the vote was unanimous. This would change the recommendation being the entire committee would make a recommendation to send an item to consent or non consent. But the ultimate decision making body is continues to be the rules committee.

And, of course, all council members who are not on rules committee are welcome to come to rules committee to make their voice heard on whether or not they wanna hear items on consent and nonconsent. And just to paraphrase the flow of how items are heard, items are brought to rules first. Then they go to a committee most of the time, and that's what we encourage to happen, not to go straight to counsel. At that committee, there is a vote made. If it's whether it's unanimous or not unanimous, as long as it passes with at least three votes, it goes back to rules committee.

And it's that rules committee that decides whether or not that item goes to the consent calendar or non consent calendar when it's heard by a council. So that is remaining the same. It's the recommendation that's taking that's not just the chairs but the entire committees that's gonna be the recommendation now. This is an addition for an additional vice chair for committees. This proposal will give committees the opportunity but not requirement to vote to designate having a vice chair for committees that members of the committee will choose will vote on, not full counsel.

This is especially in cases of absences of of chairs to be able to maintain quorum and keep meetings flowing. So just to recap, based on the proposed changes, this is how the order of business would would go. Meeting would start regular meeting would start at 03:30. There would be a roll call. We'd hear modifications to the agenda.

That means that's the opportunity where council members or staff can pull an item, can change an item from can request to change an item from consent to non consent, and we can modify the order of agendas too. That remains the same. Next, we'd hear public hearings on non consent, then we would hear other non consent items, then we'd hear the consent calendar, then council member acknowledgments, announcements, followed by open forum and adjournment of the meeting. There's no change to the start and end time of the meeting. There's no change to speaker card processes.

There's no change on the ability to hear items on emergency basis and ability to hear ceremonials in committees and other celebrations and chambers. No amendments to the discretion of the rules committee. There are non substantive changes as well that do not impact the flow of meetings whatsoever that the city attorneys have proposed and can explain if if there's any questions, but just clean up language. And happy to take questions and comments. Council member Houston.

Due to chair, I just wanna make sure you said we're pulling the one that the we just have to have a second and then okay. That's pulled. Right. So let's make get the one number bullet point number six real clear. I wanna understand about removing the requirement that committee recommends recommendations that are not anonymous must go to the non consent calendar. So it goes to rules then it goes to committee and then if it's three votes that says yes and one vote that says no, it goes to non consent. Correct?

Not automatically. It goes back to rules committee. So I have been part part of votes for example, where it is the vote on a specific committee and this was last year, have a very specific example in mind. Three of us, three of the committee members voted yes, I voted no. The chair of that committee, which was not me, said we would still like to forward this to the consent calendar even though I was a sole no vote.

We still the chair of the committee recommended to rules to move that to the consent calendar. At rules committee, we discussed that item again, and the rules committee said, you know what? In the interest of the public, this should actually be moved to non consent. So the item was moved to non consent, and at the next meeting, we heard it at non consent. So, basically, the process is to change it from rules committee to is is the opportunity to change whether an item is at consent or non consent remains at the discretion of committee.

And sometimes council members I was part of the rules committee, so I I mentioned in rules committee, you can anyone can come in and say the item that got three votes, that we got a unanimous vote, that should still go to non consent for such and such reasons being in the interest of the public blah blah blah and that that part remains out.

Okay. So so so when it goes to full counsel that means me and okay. Say for instance I say I wanted to move it to non consent And Anger, council member Anger says second it then it goes back to non consent. So we're just going around in a circle with that one. That's what that means to me. It's like because if I wanted to start it off with consent then it goes to consent then I go back to counsel for non consent. It was just going in a circle. Can I through the chair, can I have the city attorney address that?

Sure. This is Michael Branson, deputy city attorney. Essentially there's an order of precedence for setting things on consent versus non consent that moves from the standing committee, the substantive standing committees to rules and then the council as a whole. So, when the item is heard at standing committee, the current language reads that the chair may designate an item as consent only if the standing committee's recommendation was unanimous. So, let me take that section first.

So, there's discussion at standing committee as to whether it should go on consent or non consent that then is actually made by the chair, but can only be done if there's a unanimous vote on it. The next section of that, the next clause says, provided that the rules and legislation committee has authority to make a final determination of consent or non consent. So, the item has gone to the standing committee, it then goes to rules on that Thursday to finalize the agendas And, during that section of the rules meeting, the rules committee can revise any of the recommendations of the standing committees to move something from consent to non consent or non consent to consent. And then, if I may, Council Member Huston, last thought. Then there's the final jurisdiction of the council as a whole.

So, when the council meeting occurs during the agenda discussion, there's an opportunity, and this is the subject of the friendly amendment, there's an opportunity for the council, a council member to request that an item that is on the consent agenda be pulled off and moved as a non consent item. And, the current rules provide that that is done based on a motion and a second regardless of the council president's opinion on that topic.

Got it. So through the chair, exactly what I just said. It just went around the circle. So but you said something through the chair, you said final. It's not final because final means that if it went to committee it couldn't be changed. That's what that means to me. You said final.

Through the chair, I said final with regard to the rules committee?

Right.

That's it's final in terms of what's agendized.

Okay.

What's printed on the agenda. But then at the actual meeting, there remains that prerogative for a council member with a motion of another council member

Right.

To remove that item. Those two go hand in hand. So I I I that's just going to serve as a waste of time in my opinion. And like I said, I'm new. I'm new. Teach me. Teach me. Because what I hear is totally going around in a circle.

To council member Houston, this is something that came up that's come up a lot in my now three years on this body. The public's opinion changes on what is considered an item of interest. So sometimes things pass through committees where they're seemingly non controversial and then someone groups decide, actually this we didn't realize that at committee we wanna we wanna have discussion and debate on or we wanna pull it. So it's not linear, it's not where something comes to committee that's automatically if there's four votes, it goes to consent. If it's three votes, it's going to non consent.

Because these processes take time, people's and even council members opinions change on a lot of items. So I think having this process with multiple checks to be able for council members to decide, you know what? We can change our mind now. We can change our mind again. It is important because we're we're trying to make this a deliberative process where it's not like we're deciding on the first time it ever comes to council. That's just my perspective.

To the chair, I hear you. I hear you. I like that. But my main point is transparency. If if one council member agrees to actually want it to be transparent to the public and another one agrees with them, then I want the public to hear it to be transparent. So I hear what you're saying but that first one, that's first and second, let's pull that one off like you said. So I'm good. I'm good.

Council member Brown. Okay. Council member

Do we need to make a formal amendment to change back to the status quo or you can you can just pull it?

Since I'm the author, I can verbally delete that portion and it would restate to the status quo.

All good.

But police

parliamentarian That's correct. Whoever makes the motion can include that we'll be removing that proposed change so it will revert back to the existing language which requires a motion and a second to remove things from consent to non consent.

Great. Thank you for doing that.

And to the chair if I may, just can I read in specifically what sections you're proposing to retain? So it's I think it's in rule seven. There's a change that currently says for modifications of the agenda. A request with a motion and second from council members to pull an item from the consent calendar and reschedule consent item on the same city council meeting agenda pursuant to rule eight six. And then so then there's a corresponding revision in rule eight six that says that any council It currently reads the rule, reads any council member is entitled to pull a consent item from the consent calendar and place the item on the non consent calendar as a non consent item.

If another council member seconds vote on or pass the motion and it is not necessary that the presiding officer consents. So that would be the language that's retained.

Thank you. Council Member Wang.

Thank you for working on this Council Member Ramachandran. Few questions. So just to confirm on the non consent piece. So it sounds like now the chair has the discretion to make, an item on the consent calendar even if it's not unanimous, that's a key change?

The rules committee maintains that discretion.

Yes. They have the final decision but now the chair has this next lever of

discretion. Discretion. I I will will let let the the city city attorneys attorneys explain explain. The nuances again.

It is at the discretion of the committee. So the committee would include in their motion whether to place it to recommend to place it on consent or non consent. And if that motion passes with the majority of the votes, then that would be the recommendation. So currently you would need four votes of the committee to place it on consent. Under the change you could have three votes if that's what the motion says to place it on consent. That would be the recommendation that goes to rules. And then it would be up to rules committee as to whether to proceed with that recommendation.

Okay. Thank you. And then I'm hearing from some members of the public too just concerns around the ability to hear the nonconsent items earlier than 5PM. Can you just explain the rationale behind that amendment, council member Ramacharvon?

Yes. So last week the last council meeting we had, we had to take a fifty minute recess in the middle of the meeting because our meeting time is remaining the same, 03:30, but then you can only hear non consent items at five. So we'd effectively start the meeting and have to wait around and tell the public to wait around before 5PM otherwise. So it's just at the start of the meeting. We're having business in the order that it happens. Okay.

We're letting that

Which could very well be 5PM

in And our staff are waiting around essentially during that time. Okay. I think I had one other one other question but I'm forgetting it so I'll get back to you.

Okay. We will move to public comments then if we did we do that already?

Yes. Thank you. I thank you chair. I appreciate this item being heard at a time where I could be present. I did have some concerns when it came to the rules committee with several of of the amendments being proposed, but I think overall what I'm hearing from the public is a concern about diminishing democracy and access to counsel.

And so the fact that our meeting we are having far more special meetings than we've had in the past. The meetings are being scheduled for earlier in the day. One of the things that really stands out to me is the the item that council member Wong just talked about, which is waiting to begin the meetings at or waiting to have the non consent items until after five. I I do want us to consider the fact that we move the start time earlier before people get off work and my interest is having more public participation and not less. And and if we're hearing consent items I'm sorry, non consent items earlier in the day, we run into potentially having less public participation than than we should have.

So I I would like to have this body consider changing that so we can have the the items that people really care about happen after the traditional get off work period at around five, six. So I I wanted to to talk to debate that with this body to see if there was room for amendments in in that particular area.

Thank you. Neither myself or my co author Council President Jenkins are interested in that primarily because our flow of meetings is we typically have a lot of items, especially in our busy months, is around the budget, is around the end of the year. Items are gonna be heard way after 5PM. Even with the same 03:30PM start time, when we have a lot of items and an impacted calendar, our meetings are still gonna go past 9PM. And so starting the meeting a little earlier does not necessarily change that.

Also, we still have public hearings first. Typically, there's fewer public comments on our public hearing items and that's still gonna have to be first anyway. So realistically, by the time the items that people really wanna comment on come in, it's gonna be later in them. It's gonna be later. As well as the consent calendar.

Actually, even more than non consent items as the last several years of meetings have shown, we have the most number of public speakers on the consent item. So in fact, we're moving we're increasing the ability of people to be able to comment on the item that most people come to comment on, which is the consent calendar. From moving it from 03:30 which is typically right when it's heard to later in the evening after non consent items are heard, we're actually increasing the ability of the public to participate without having them have to stick around and wait for the period of time and have to recess and all of that. So there's always gonna be multiple different interpretations and I understand that. And there's gonna be people in different sections of viewpoints on this that are going to be frustrated and that is part of the process.

How again, not all cities even have hybrid meetings. We're making intentional choices to keep our meetings as open to the public as possible while maintaining our ability to debate voting on key items. I remember so vividly, we had to vote on a general plan update that had a series of amendments two years ago. That's that discussion started at eleven p. M. At night. And that's the kind of thing that we are trying to avoid. On items that are non consent items, we want to be able to have maximum meaningful participation first. And again, the people that will be that historically comment the most do come to the consent calendar, which will be way later than five p. M.

In their ability to make that comment. So this does increase that ability. But I understand there will be lots of viewpoints on this, and we are always a city in progress and our rules of procedure is always a live document. So if we take this as an experiment to improve democracy and improve creative output, maybe we like the results. Maybe six months from now we say, you know what, that was a good experiment, an innovative an innovative democracy and good government, but maybe we wanna go back to the way it was. This is a live document. And as we've already had amendments since this since COVID, we can continue to have amendments. Council member Wong.

Thank you, chair. So I remembered first just my question. On the vice chair for the standing committees, can you elaborate more on the process? Like would it be initiated by the chair or can any member of the committee make a motion? How would that play out in reality?

To the parliamentarian, if you wanna explain the process. Yeah. Go ahead.

Yes. So it would occur during the standing committee meeting but it would still be agendized the same way any other item would be. So there would be an item that would go to rules similar to the resolution that comes for nominating a chair of the council as a whole where it basically says an item to nominate and then there's a blank certain member to be vice chair and then that would be scheduled on a certain standing committee meeting. The significant difference is that the standing committee would be the final actor on that. So I believe it would be taken by a motion, not a resolution.

It would be agendized as a motion. And it's the standing committee's authority to to choose their vice chair. It would not then go through the process of getting sent back to rules or or going to the city council as a whole.

Okay. I think that's helpful. My other question is back to this debate on the non consent piece and the timing of it. I think some of it for me matters on the logistics of public comments. So can someone only submit their speaker comment at the start of our so at around 03:30 that's when they have the time to submit their speaker comment. And so even if we have this now only at five p. M. Someone cannot after work at 5PM submit a speaker card at that point in time?

This nothing changes the speaker card process to the city attorney and or clerk if you wanna clarify.

Can we

clarify this what the current speaker card is.

Yes. So it's in rule 12 that covers the submittal time for speaker cards. There is a perhaps minor adjustment to extend the time for submitting speaker cards to be within the first two hours after the meeting is called to order rather than the first hour and a half. Just we felt was an appropriate adjustment based on the change of order. But otherwise, yes, you would need to submit a speaker card for a non consent item within the first two hours after the meeting is called to order or before the clerk begins reading in that item, whichever occurs earlier.

And for the consent calendar again within the first two hours after the meeting is called to order or before the city clerk begins reading the first consent item because we treat the consent calendar as a whole.

Okay. I see. So and just through the chair to council member Wong just to clarify and none of this would change the online speaker requirement because that is a different system so that portion would still be twenty four hours before the start of the meeting. Okay. Okay thank you.

We can move to did I call another room? It's a public comment.

Moving to public comment as I call your name please approach the podium in any Did

council member five want to speak before public comment? Yes.

Thank you. I'm sorry I'm trying to work out another agenda item. I appreciate the the conversation about you know, the the two maker or bringers of this this item forward not wanting to change the consent start time, but I I I'm really I'm really concerned about the public being able to participate fully especially for working class people that the reality is a lot of times folks get off late and the reason why I that I've observed why so many people comment during during the the beginning of the the meeting is because so many items from committees get moved to consent that you have to have a number of individuals speaking on consent because that's where that's where the items are. Because, you know, things are moving from committee straight to council and there are a lot of changes that have been made that are limiting the the ability of the public to participate as fully as I think is is is necessary and that's what I'm hearing from people as well. So I am gonna make a friendly amendment to to change that so that we are hearing our non consent items.

And I I understand that there are two members of the council that don't wanna do that. I'm asking for us to think deeply around who actually gets to participate and how and why there are so many commenters on on on public comment right now. So I'm gonna make that as as an amendment. There are also other items I think having a vice chair for committees. I I have not heard from any of my colleagues.

We're having this debate right now, so perhaps we can hear it. We can have some more debate around is that necessary. To me, it sounds like well I I would like to hear from from you all around the need for a vice chair for committees because right now as it stands we can call each other and say hey I'm out sick can you chair this meeting. I don't I don't I I would need to understand why it's being memorialized in this way. My colleague to my left just left.

He's saying that this feels very political. And I unfortunately, council member Gayo isn't here to express his full perspective on what that meant, but that is what I'm trying to understand. So I I wanted to state that before we go to the public speakers because, again, I I think that is a deep concern for me. It's just the the ability for the public to to participate particularly working class people who are not retired, who are not wealthy, the people who are working jobs that find it difficult to participate in the public process despite all of the the rules and the barriers that make it challenging sometimes. I'm complete.

Thank you. Before going to council member Houston, just a note, I think the real question is we're always trying to figure out what's the best way for people to participate. There's if you want to come to counsel to make comment on a consent item that's already on the consent calendar, you know you're making a public comment to show to make a statement, not change a vote, which is important. I've done it. I've done it plenty of times before being on council to make bold statements, which is part of our democratic process.

But the people who want to come to make public comment on items that we are actively debating, whether that's a contract or a general plan, those are the people who want to influence this council's vote. And to make them have to wait till 11PM at night to make working class people have to wait till middle very late at night to do that is inherently unfair. To make the people who want to come to this council to change our minds, not just make a statement, is absolutely critical. Once we hit that consent calendar, the most someone can do is register a no vote. You can't pull it off of consent anymore.

That is how it is. And in our rules of procedure, the first round of amendments that I worked on with then council president Boss expressly says, we want to limit the number of items being ruled 24 to council. In the whereas clauses of this very resolution, we encourage council members and staff members from various departments to move everything through committees. When I'm in the community every single week, I talk to people about attend committee meetings, participate in that. This is something that is important about how legislation is really baked and debated.

So there's a lot of debate about coming to council meetings and when people can. But when you have a lot of us have been here, a room full of children and young people and youth and elders waiting till late at night to have to comment on an item that will actively influence our active vote on a non consent item that is undemocratic and unfair versus having it at the start of the meeting with a sense of predictability is, in my perspective and the perspective of a lot of people that we've discussed over the course of these eighteen months of this amendment, is something that is important to give people who are coming to sway counsel's vote a chance to be heard in a timely fashion that's not super late at night. Council member Houston.

Mine is just a comment to the chairs that this relates to the encampment abatement policy on the street, walking down the street, phone calls and people are just saying, the people that came to speak against it don't speak for us. And they were business owners, they was residents, they said why do we have it so early? And you know per my council member Brown said, Ken, why are we having this so early? And I should have listened. It should have been a little bit later because they're saying that it was too early for business people, residents, and people that are working.

It's just a comment from what my constituents are. As a matter of fact, across the board, across the city of Oakland, not just my constituents. But that Zoom does make it really easier for people to speak because a bunch of the business owners had called me up and said, hey, we're gonna use the Zoom link so we don't have to come down. That does make it pretty good. But that twenty four hour before, sometimes people wait until the last minute to do it then they can't speak and I've heard that a bunch. So mine is just a comment on that process because I thought 09:30 was pretty good until my council member Brown said nope. So so I understand this so mine was just a comment.

Council member, did you have any comments on the vice chair item?

Oh, no I really like that. I mean, no I really I really do because just in case like like if the council member is not there you are are not comfortable or maybe be feeling good not good and they that person could take that person's place or it might not even be that person's skill set. Right? It might be the other council members like say for instance is like with me and council member Wang. If it's about sideshow, she might say, hey, you know, you might have a little more experience on the sideshows for safety, maybe.

I don't know. But I really like that vice chair. It's almost like being a vice chair of pro tem, you know. You have somebody pro tem at at council, right, so why not have a vice I really like that. So I'm I'll approve that one.

Council member Fife.

I am happy to hear from the public speakers if you want to move on to the public speakers chair. I do I I will re reiterate my amendment after we hear from the public.

Thank you. Moving

to public comment. As I call your name, please, approach the podium or raise your hand if you're participating via Zoom. Please raise your hand so I can easily identify you. Brook Levin, miss Asada Olubala, mister Hazard, and Ali Abad. Whenever you're ready, mister Hazard.

These are kangaroo proceedings. This matter should be kicked. You don't even follow your own rules. This meeting is illegal. Two o section two eight of the Oakland City Charter outlines the rules of Oakland City Council's meetings. Special meetings, calling special meetings can be called by the mayor, city administrator, or three members of the council. Emergency, the charter also addresses holding meetings and an emergency outside the play. You could only talk about one agenda item. You're talking about multiple agenda items. You don't even follow your own rules, madam chair.

And council member Houston, when you talk about transparency, and you got the unmitigated nerve to say that you and president Jenkins are not interested in what the public says. Council member Fife indicated what the public's sentiment is, but you're not interested in it. You violate your own rules, and I get tired of that. And you sit up here, you talk for twenty five minutes on some b s, and the rules are real clear. This meeting is illegal on his face.

It's not a urgency meeting, plus you called for a a multiple item, and you should reconsider a 5.28. You could do that When mister Obad showed you the auditor's report on Saba, they violated and committed malfeasance, and you went along with it. Pull that item. Reconsider that item. It's illegal, and you're complicit Thank

you, mister Hazard. Your time is up.

I I just don't understand why, city council members can't do a get in a motion and try to re pull out the items from 5.28. When it's right here with the city audit report, that shows there's so much fraudulence going on with this organization. And you guys are still insisting. I've given them another $500,000. Where they already there's another million or 2,000,000 that's already there approved to them again.

So right here in front of you guys, and you have it, the city auditor is right here. You can call your city auditor himself. And it's right there in front of to the public. So much fraudulence was going on with this organization, and you telling us telling the public that you cannot pull it out of, to get a motion and pull it out of cons of the consent calendar. This doesn't make sense.

And if the city, if the city council keep giving away money like this to these fraudulent organizations, the churches are here doing so much for the city of Oakland, they don't give 1 single dollar. Where you got these nonprofits that come in front of you, lobbying and the the people, Nikki Bass and Kaplan were the ones that were pushing so much with this organization because they were working for their, under their campaigns. So if this thing keeps going on, keeps giving out to this organization, I think we should get the Department of Justice to investigate the city council, to investigate the city of Oakland, and to investigate these organizations. Thank you.

It's quite insulting to hear the statement we're hearing from the public. When I come to just about every meeting and speak and you never respond, but you respond to some hearsay public that's telling you what they need to have done, and you're acting upon it. But, the people that actually come to the meetings and participate, you ignore them. That's insulting. So, you should have rules that say under certain conditions only, items will not be allowed to go forward without returning to counsel unless there is a valid explanation.

You should have a rule that says every item that is funded by the city has to identify the source of funding. You should have a rule that once an item is approved, it has to be followed up within a certain time limit. I'm talking about Art Shanks, renaming of the street Art Shanks Junior, has never happened. You should have a rule that once you have a grant, you must identify all of the possibilities for which that grant be can be used. That's because your staff is picking certain ways the grant can be used, but there are multiple ways that the grant can be used, and you need to understand that to follow-up if you have another recommendation other than what staff is recommending.

You should have a rule that all items that are under rule 24 and rule 28 has to go to the non consent item. Okay? You should have a rule. All amendments that you make has to be presented before public comment. You should have a rule that states that requires that the mayor and the council make appointments to all boards and commissions within a timely manner. Because sometimes you go years without appointing people. You should have a rule that you should notify.

Thank you, miss Olavalo. Your time is up.

Thank you, colleagues. I will make a

You have hold on. You have your Zoom speakers. Moving to your Zoom speakers starting with Brooke Levin. Please unmute yourself. Please put two minutes on the clock for her. Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Thank you very much, chairperson Ramesh Andre, members of the council, Brooke Levin. And I only really have one comment, and that is about rule 12, the twenty four hour requirement for e comment and for Zoom speakers to sign up. It was impossible last week in the case of the published rules committee agenda on Wednesday at about one in the afternoon and the meeting the next morning at 10:30. It would have been impossible to actually sign up for that meeting or make an e comment on anything on that agenda. I was very thankful that the city clerk's office was willing to sign me up a speaker's card for that.

But other than that, you could not sign up, online. And I don't understand why there has to be that twenty four hour rule. I think it's an impediment, especially in light of the fact that there are many, many special meetings that are extremely last minute. Today's meeting, for example, the agenda was published on Friday, and that was the first time we saw the item 10, which is the next item on the grand jury reports response from the administration. So that was Friday, and we had the weekend.

And then we have early today to address that item. It's hard to get people to sign up. It's hard to organize for people. And, additionally, I do agree with some of the other speakers and council members that having these special meetings popping up without irregular times is is very difficult for the public to track. So thank you for considering changing that twenty four hour for ecomment and signing up and also, you know, making an effort to have less special meetings unless there is something extremely urgent happening because it is a burden on the public. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Moving to Jennifer Finley. Please unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Hi. Jennifer Finley, district two. I've got a few things. We really need to make sure that things are accessible. Of course, this means we need consistency, and we need the opportunity to speak. Later meetings, consistent meetings at the times that they are scheduled, it's it's key. The public needs the information. Right now, we've got 12 things that went to the consent calendar that, came through on rule 24. The consent calendar is meant for things that are came unanimously through committee and were noncontroversial. But rule 24 is they are urgent so urgent that they're bypassing committee.

That's the obvious of unanimous. Nobody has had a chance to discuss it, let alone vote for it. By putting it on consent, listening to chair Ramachandra, and she's saying this is effectively a yes vote before, you know, you somebody can wage a lodge a no vote, but, that's not gonna change the turn of the tide. It's basically considered pass at that point. Anything with rule 24 needs to go on nonconsent.

Also, what there's some confusion about what things are going to which committees. It's very confusing to me still that the EMP or the EAP was assigned to public safety versus the LEC or public works to frame it in that way as a public safety commission. There are just too many things going to consent right now. The more things that go on consent, public still only has a very limited number of time. We don't get more time per item that gets cut. We get less public conversation. Oftentimes, we will get time cut

Thank you, miss Finley, for your comments. Madam chair, that was the last speaker.

Thank you. I fully agree with everyone that's talking about a) have fewer special meetings and b) don't send as many items to committee. And these rules of procedure don't change any of that. That has to be that has to be decisions that we're making on rules committee predominantly to decide whether or not we hold special meetings and when items are sent to committees with urgency. I would strongly prefer that we have no items sent by rule 24 but like last week we had two committee meetings that were cancelled due to lack of form.

Departments requested to hear that item today on the consent calendar so that they can be approved, so grant money can be received, executed. But that also means that as council members we have to do our best to make sure that we have quorum for meetings, that items we bring forward go through committee first. But that has nothing to do with these rules and procedures nor is bringing emergency, sorry not emergency, special meetings. That is something that is the choice of counsel and the rules committee and we can all work on having fewer special meetings and also fewer items sent to rule 24 including departments. So I fully agree with all those commentaries.

That just has nothing to do with these rules of procedures. Council member Brown.

Thank you. Thank you, madam city clerk. I just wanted to reiterate reiterate my amendment to retain the existing orders of business in rules rule seven, sans the change to ceremonials. I wanna make sure that the consent calendar is heard after modifications of the agenda. And I also want to request to retain the non consent consent item be heard no sooner than 5PM.

I have been an elected official now in in this body for a little over five years, but I've been coming to this body consistently for eleven years. Sometimes we were here and not this is not the model of how things should be, but it would be until 2PM 2AM in the morning sometimes, 1AM midnight. That does provide a burden on on staff and it allows people who no longer get to comment as one of our public speaker said on every single item, but it allows the public to know that they can get off work and be here and speak to an item versus not being able to speak to it because they can't get here in time. And I also I'm in community all of the time. We just heard public speakers who I have no relationship with express their concern with how all of these issues come together and limit the ability for the public to engage fully in this process.

So I again want to reiterate that amendment to rule seven. I believe that that will help facilitate what the public speakers who spoke today and the countless public speakers that I've heard over the last year do when it comes to being able to fully participate in these meetings. So I would like to make that amendment and make that as a motion.

Council Member Brown.

Okay well thank you so much council member Ramachandran and also council president Jenkins for bringing forth these amendments and I do think that a lot of the feedback that we heard from the public is definitely important. And also just I think even in in rules committee we've consistently just kind of uplifted the fact of you know ensuring that we're not having so many special meetings at times like at an earlier time. And so I think what my hope would be is that as we are making some of these changes if we can ensure that our meeting time stays consistent with our rules of procedure of us starting at 03:30 p. M. Being as close as possible to you know hearing some of the key items after five.

And also at the same time we have been operating in this manner for some time and so I am interested to see how some of these proposed changes would impact the flow of the meeting. And so you know with that said I don't have any amendments that I want to propose but I do appreciate the amendment that was made to the item that council member Unger had mentioned. But overall I think that the changes that have been made I'm interested to see how they will kind of impact the flow of our meetings. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Wonk.

Yeah. Just going back to rule seven. You know, I hear the challenges that, you know, the the tax that we have on staff time, but I do think about just rereading the logistics around doing the the speaker comment that, you know, especially someone who is, say, working, like, a job at a coffee shop or something where they're standing, they're not able to make, like, a virtual comment, like someone who does an office job that I think about, you know, I I would say that either I I second council member Pfeif's amendment or if we wanna compromise to to make the limit so it's 04:30. That way someone who has, like, submitted a speaker card. I don't want them to come to the meeting only for the item to already have passed and for them to have to have made that time to come all the way to city hall or to submit a virtual speaker card and unless there's an ability for them to make a retroactive comment, then that person loses the ability to to say their piece.

To council member Wong, I

think I'm trying I'm understanding your motive but not the actual solution. So Yeah. If someone who is working a full time job wants to make public comment on an item for non consent that we're voting on. That's something that currently, they're gonna have to wait a long time with no sense of predictability when it will be heard and they leave. I've talked to people from all over Oakland, not just constituents, about this.

So one of the motivating factors for this were groups of communities who said, we need predictability on when items are heard. And typically, the items that are up for the most contentious debate, where council members are making up their mind, are aspects of the non consent calendar that's not public hearings. So if we adopt these rules, we give people the greatest amount of flexibility after 5PM but not as late as 9PM for people that wanna make public comment because right now the issues that are really affecting people from all over Oakland, they're held at the later ends of meetings and especially when things get when our calendar gets impacted, that can be as late as 10:11 and beyond PM. So when we have people of all ages coming here to talk about renewing violence prevention contracts, is an example that I remember very clearly where we had youth here, a packed room of youth who had to wait five hours to be able to be heard. Many of them had to leave, but many of but if that was moved to earlier in the evening, after the non after the public hearings items, that's gonna be after 5PM.

But it's the most predictable way to say, hey, between the hours that make most sense for people five to 7PM, that's only two hours of time where you would have to predict being able to sit at a council meeting. Not come at 03:30 and maybe your item will be heard by ten. So I think this is in response to basically people who want to comment to influence our vote. The consent calendar, that takes up some of the most amount of time on our calendar for items that have no ability for us to change our VONA because on the consent calendar, which is to make a statement and that's a powerful part of our democracy. I'm not again, I've done that for years, but the the people coming here who really wanna come, the people who come for their first time to council meetings because they wanna help influence our perspective, those are on non consent items.

And now we're gonna give people a sense of predictability. Between five and 7PM, your item's gonna be heard versus between 03:30 and ten you might have to wait. So I think if your objective is listening to the greatest number of people who want to impact votes that have active consideration from council, these amendments are the way that we get there. So And again, it is also an experiment and

we like to take it. So I I am viewer to council, only been here for a few months. I haven't yet seen one of our full council meetings go that late in part because I think we've been doing a good job of through the rule you know, the rules committee has been doing a good job of putting many of just saving only the most important items for the non consent calendar, so I haven't seen that yet. I'll just say that these sort of late night meetings. I hear you.

We I I don't want people who show up are frustrated leaving, but I haven't seen that play out yet. And I do worry that this change may I I'm fine with everything else that's laid out, but I think this one piece, I'm worried that it could it would do the reverse.

Councilor Moker.

I think there are no perfect solutions here, right? If we hear substantive stuff early, there are people who are gonna be at work and not gonna be able to make it. If we hear the substantive stuff later, there are people who are dealing with childcare or have to go to bed so they can get up early the next morning. There are no perfect ways to capture everyone who wants to speak. I do know that we, or let me speak for myself, that I am not at my best at midnight when and if we try to debate the substantive items very late and make complicated amendments, I would rather do that when my energy is fresh earlier in the evening.

I think that that is an important consideration for me. But I do acknowledge that whatever we do, we are going to leave some people out and that's unfortunate, but we to pick a time. And I also appreciate the comments about predictability. I like people being able to come here at a predictable time for what are generally the most contentious and most important issues.

Through the chair. Brooke Levin had mentioned and I had mentioned too about the twenty four hour to register for the Zoom. Is it any way we could change that as a as a council to make it longer or

Through through the chair as I've stated before multiple times. We use a system that is outside of the city of Oakland.

Say that again. I'm sorry.

We use a system that is outside of the city of Oakland to for people to sign up to speak. When the council has regular meetings that start at 03:30 that are noticed via sunshine, the members of the public have approximately thirteen days to sign up to speak and provide e comment. When you all shift into special meetings depending on when you call the meeting and when we have the materials to notice we'll determine when the public can sign up. It may be only a day or two before the start of that meeting depending on when we receive the materials. There's nothing else that can be done to for it to correct that.

If people are having trouble signing up, there are directions on the agenda for them to reach out for my office to my office. We will sign people up to speak if they are having trouble with the system but there's nothing that can be done about that.

Okay. See that's what I need clarity. I'm good. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Through the chair to council member Wong was that a second or is a friendly amendment to my amendment to change the time to?

Yes. It's a friendly amendment to your friendly amendment and if it gets turned down then it's a second. Understood.

I I I do wanna say I wanted to also ask the clerk because you were here on many of those evenings where we were here until 12:00, 01:00 in the morning. From to the clerk, do you recall any times in the last maybe year or two where we've gone until 02:00 in the morning, 01:00 in the morning? Or had these late meetings, intensely late meetings?

Through the chair you've had many different iterations of your rules of procedure. As you guys have been in this three thirty start period, you have not had meetings that have gone into the wee hours of the night. Most of the time in the past where your meetings went into the two a. M. Time period your meetings did start at 05:30 at a time and that is when you tended to have later items going into the wee hours of the night or the morning.

Thank you for that clarity because I I don't recall having those those meetings not in recent history and again I don't understand and maybe I I just need more conversation but I I would definitely like to move the amendment that I I passed and and see where the body stands on this. I don't see how this offers any additional predictability in that we don't know how long certain items will go and I do agree with council member Unger that, you know, someone is not going to be happy. I would just on the side of giving more folks the opportunity to to participate during the later hours after as council member Wong stated, if they have an office job or some other things, the consent calendar has been extremely overburdened. So it forces people to condense their conversations on substantive items to the consent calendar because of the things moving from the rules committee to or bypassing committee to come to the full city council. I would also argue that we can agendas can be modified at the top of the agenda.

So if we need to make changes because if there's an item, say the youth vote that's on the agenda and young people come to speak at the top of the meeting, the chair has the the ability to move that item up on the agenda so people don't have to wait very long. So there's already we already have the capacity to do the things in here and that the scheduling is one of those items and the better we are at rules, the better we are at our full city council meeting. So I feel like we're going around in circles. There's been an amendment. I I I could point out every single thing that's concerning with these rules of procedure, but it is a living document.

They can be amended at a later date. I'm just asking for the specific amendment on rule seven that I made today.

Sure. Councilmember Brown.

And then I just had a quick question because I thought that council member Wong I know you said that you're supportive of council member Fife's motion, but I did you change it actually? So can you just please restate? Thanks.

The substitute amendment or whatever it's called is to change it Sorry.

Just to clarify before Okay. You go on council member.

Yeah.

There's a motion on the floor from council member Fife. Does that and and council member Fife, perhaps you can restate it and the clerk can correct me, but I haven't heard is there a second to that motion?

I I did.

Okay. So you're just seconding the motion without not making a substitute motion.

Yeah. I let's do this vote, I would recommend. And then if that gets then I would like to advance the substitute amendment as a compromise.

Right. Okay. If council member five can restate her motion and then council member one can state on the record whether there's a second and whether or if there's a friendly amendment whether it's accepted by the maker of the motion.

I am making an amendment to retain the existing order of business in rule seven so that the consent calendar is heard after modifications of the agenda. And additionally requesting to retain the non consent items be heard no sooner than 5PM or 04:30PM. Oh, no. No, ma'am.

To the chair, just to get clarification on the motion. The 5PM rule is written into rule seven. There's also a line in rule eight that restates the 5PM rule. So I'm assuming that your motion includes modifying rule eight as well to say 04:30. I'm seeing a yes to that from council member five. So it's motion to amend the current proposal with amendments to rule seven and rule eight.

Second.

I need it.

And I would now like to make a substitute motion.

Do the

Oh, council member Houston.

Yeah. What I'm just sad that council member Gallo is not here because I don't know if you guys is counting because there's six of us here. And I'm just hoping the mayor is available because I see a split here. This is what I see right now. So I'm saying this, I wish council member Noel didn't say that this this meeting was political. So that's what I wanted to say. We better see if the mayor is available.

Thank you. I would like to make a substitute motion to adopt these rules as is with a friendly amendment that I think gets a little to a compromise of starting the meeting at 4PM, which would basically, given all the things that happened in the first hour including public hearings, start public start non consent items by 5PM. In order to try to compromise between the two. Is there a second? I'm making a substitute motion to go back to the way it was written with the one exception of changing the meeting start time from 03:30 to four.

So we get closer to that 04:30. We're basically compromising between 03:30 and 04:30 by starting at four.

Four.

Second it.

My amendments would my substitute motion is adopting as is the originally submitted proposal with two amendments. The first one that was discussed earlier which is canceling the part about requiring majority to take the an item to pull an item off of consent to non consent, keeping it as is for a motion in the second. And the second amendment would be to change the meeting start time from 03:30 to four. So that's a compromise between 03:30 as it is now and 04:30, which was the proposal.

Starting with the substitute motion moved by council member Madam Clerk, does anyone need does the body need clarity on on either of the motions?

If not, yes. You'd vote on the substitute motion first.

Starting with the substitute motion that was made by council member Ramachandra and seconded by council member Brown to adopt these rules as is with the amendment of starting at four and keeping the motion second requirement to remove an item from consent starting with council member Brown. Aye. Council member Fife.

No.

Council member Gaio is absent. Council member Houston.

Before I say aye, this is just thirty minute difference from what council member Fife said. That's all this is. Thirty minutes difference.

If I perhaps I need clarity on them. I think the substitute motion on the floor is to change the start time of the meeting which is currently 03:30 and move the start time to 04:30.

No. Four. Four. Four.

Council member Fife's motion was changing the time for the non consent calendar or were you also changing the start time? Yeah. So I think council member five, your motion was changing the time to start the non consent portion of the meeting, not the meeting, not the start time of the meeting, if that makes sense. To to council member Houston.

So it's thirty minutes. That's all. Ask them first.

Council member Ramachandran's substitute motion was to have the start time of the meeting, the the full meeting start at four.

So I'm sorry. The reason I'm saying half an hour is because council member five's proposal was to not to still have the consent calendar first and not have the non consent calendar first, which is which is the biggest change of these amendments in order to give people a sense of when you can anticipate your item being heard having non consent items moved up. The real issue that was is being brought up is when can people start to speak on the calendar? And that as was discussed by council member Wong and Fife was we want people to be able to start speaking on non consent at 5PM, which is what we currently have. If we change the meeting start time to four, by the time we go through the first few items of the meeting as well as public hearings, the earliest anyone is gonna be able to comment on the non consent items is 5PM.

So it's basically the same start time for non consent items given that the first hour is all sorts of other stuff that start our meeting. So really getting to that same start time by pushing our meeting start by now. Otherwise, people are gonna have to come in and we're gonna have to recess and they're gonna have to wait to be able for it to be heard.

Council member Houston.

I said move it. Let let I wanna wait. It's okay. Let them vote first.

Do you have to state?

I could do that. Abstain.

Council member Unger.

Yes.

Council member Wong?

Not to be a pain but I okay. So the forty is can I do a substitute to the substitute motion for 04:15PM? Because I think that is at least what I've seen with these meetings play out is what is needed.

For the start time?

Yeah. At this point, there's a motion and a second on the floor. So that's what we're voting If the substitute motion fails, we'll revert. If the substitute motion passes, then that's the vote, and the original motion is moot. If the substitute motion motion fails, we'll go back to the main motion.

You know our meetings don't start till fifteen minutes minutes after anyway. But, yeah, I'll let them continue.

I think for now, I get where you're getting at, council member Ramachandra. I don't think it's enough for me to feel I I like the solution only if it's more delayed so we can ensure that people who get off at work can make comments. So for this I have to vote nay.

Ramachandran? Aye. Motion fails with a vote of three ayes, two no's, one abstention, one absent. One excused.

So can we make a substitute now at this point?

So we're back to the main motion which had a second. Is there are you asking if someone can make another substitute motion?

Yeah. Yes.

If it has a second.

I'd like to make a substitute motion to move the start time of meetings to 04:15.

Correct. The substitute failed but now a council

That's

what

I I can get

you asked

for.

If I may, through the chair to the parliamentarian, ask for clarity on what exactly is happening right now. We had a substitute motion fail. We should be going on to the main motion. Is there another substitute substitute squared motion being made right now?

Mhmm.

For if if so I I need that restated on the record. I'm I'm deeply confused about what is happening right now.

That was that was to you, I believe.

Yeah. It sounds like there's another substitute motion on the floor. I have not heard a second.

This would be to the 04:15.

I will second this one. Okay. Thank you.

With another substitute motion on the floor moved by council member Ramachandran, second by council member Wong to have the start time of the meeting at 04:15 p. M. Council member Are we having debate on any of these things? What is happening?

Low because this is I'm I'm floor. So we want consistency, but now we're talking about moving the start time of a city council meeting from 03:30 to 04:30 to 04:15, but we're advocating for what we want is more consistency. I'm asking my motion was to maintain the existing order, period. If we if we really want consistency, that is consistency. But these games we're playing right now are ridiculous.

We had parliamentary procedure and we are allowed to make substitute motions something you have done many times before so this time I'm doing it. You can vote no.

Okay. Relax. All I'm just asking is for clarity and for things to be restated on the record because this is abnormal. To have a substitute fail and and then ask for another one for fifteen minutes to change from a 03:30 start time to a 04:15 start time to me is is odd. So I am ready to vote no on this substitute squared motion.

Council Councilmember Brown. Aye. Council member Fife? No. Council member Houston?

No.

Council member Unger? No. Council member Wong? You don't have to press the button. Let me unmute you myself.

I.

Council member Ramachandran?

Okay. Aye.

Motion fails with a vote of three ayes, three noes, one absent, one excused. Going back.

I will I have confirmed I can do this. I will make another substitute motion to vote on the original proposal. The original proposal as is written here with the one change being the request to change the taking items off of the consent calendar requiring a second. Say I'm sorry please restate your motion. My motion will my substitute motion is voting on the original item that is on our agenda with the one amendment of changing the ability to take something off of consent requiring majority vote.

So what was discussed earlier?

So the one the one amendment you read as you were giving your report? Second One amendment. Okay. On the substitute motion moved by council member Ramachandran.

This

is the original item that was before us with the only change was what I had verbally stated which was taking out the ability to move something from consent to non consent requiring majority vote. That's the only change.

Council member five's main motion with the second is still on the floor. So if the substitute motions fail, we'd go back to council member five's main motion.

Seeming as there is no second for this item we will go back

Oh, to two second. That's sorry I forgot to press it.

Can you state your second say

your second into the mic? Yeah.

I second council member five's amendment

on rule seven and rule eight. So you're not seconding the substitute motion that is on the floor?

I thought we already voted on that. There's a new one. The motion

on

the floor is to keep what is noticed in the packet and keeping the amendment that council member Ramachandran read into record about keeping the language in your current rules of procedure that allows the item to be removed from consent. I'm from consent with the motion and second. That is what is on the floor.

Yeah. I'm I'm not seconding that I'm seconding Okay. The

you don't have to say Okay. So is there a second for council member Rama Chandra's motion? Seeing as there is no second for that.

Council member Houston and Unger are on the speaker list if either of you wanna speak.

I'm I'm in favor of of council member Ramachandran's motion, I want us to vote on council member Fife's amendment.

Okay. Then I will remove my substitute motion and we vote on that first.

Just for clarity since we keep going back and forth for myself and my staff, council member five can you restate your motion one more time? Her motion was she she stated her motion. This is what council member Wong seconded for clarity for the public so there's no confusion. Can you please state restate your motion? I'm not confused either.

I'll say it. It was keeping the status quo with rule seven retain existing rules including the removal of ceremonial items with the current language of non consent starting no sooner than 5PM. That motion was made by council member five seconded by council member Wong. Council member Brown.

Madam chair sorry to council member Unger to your comment. This is the main motion on the floor so if this passes then this is the final action of the council.

Council member. Council member Brown. I

am in favor of council member Ramachandran's measure as she stated it, but I think out of courtesy to council member Fife who put an amendment on the floor that we haven't voted on, I would like to give the option for us to consider council member Fife's amendment.

Another council member I mean, that's the main motion. So if you vote on that, it's gonna be a final action. There's Council member Amitraner proposes a substitute a motion, doesn't have a second. Another council member can find another, you know, motion that they wanna propose. And if that one gets a second, you know, you can vote on that first if you're trying to.

Is that it?

Yeah that's cool.

We do need quorum for the rest of the meeting if council members wanna hear the grand jury item which we need to submit by November 7. Okay. We will see if we can bring back quorum to be able to hear the other two items on our agenda today. Council members, if we could return to our seat. Thank you.

Madam city clerk attorney, if you could just restate what motion we're voting on right now.

So I understand that the last substitute motion on the floor has been withdrawn. So we're back to the main motion, which was council member Fife's motion. And if anyone needs that motion to be clarified again, please let the maker of the motion know.

To the chair, I wanna skip over this and go to the grand jury. I I wanna pass this over. Council member Fife. Let's just fill it and move on.

Order. We're voting on we're we're voting first on council member Fife's motion motion and then seeing what happens and then

More amendments and all that stuff. Man, it's crazy. So let's just let's fail it and move on.

Council member Brown. And then I

guess just for clarity, when we vote on this this go around it no matter the result it will either pass or fail and there can't be any other motions. Is that correct?

No. Then we can make a motion if it if it passes it passes it fails, then we can make another motion to consider what was originally agendized.

Through through the chair to the city attorney.

Correct. If the motion passes its final action, and that version will be adopted. If the motion fails, someone else could make an alternative motion or some other motion to dispense with the item.

Is your motion? Thank

you.

On the main motion moved by council member five seconded by council member Wong. Council member Brown.

No.

Council member Fife. Aye. Council member Gaio is absent. Council member Houston?

Council member Houston? I'm staying last time. I'm staying in again.

Council member Unger?

No.

Council member Wong? Aye. Council member Ramachandran? No.

Motion fails with a vote of two ayes, three no's, one absent, one abstention, one excused. And now I will make a motion to go back to the originally noticed proposal with the only change being any council member can going back to the status quo with pulling an item off consent. No changes to that.

I'll second that.

Motion by council member Ramachandra to go back to the main motion with the removal of a majority vote for the I mean keeping the current language in the current rules of procedure as a proceed to removing from consent. Council member Brown? Aye. Council member Fife? No. Council member Gaio is absent. Council member Houston?

Aye.

Council member Unger?

Aye.

Council member Wong?

As I stated before I'm fine with most of the revisions but I continue to have concerns around the non consent piece so no.

Council member Ramachandran. Aye. Motion fails with a vote of three ayes, two no's, one absent, one excused.

Four ayes.

Four ayes. Still fails, four ayes, one no, one excused.

We've contacted the mayor's office for tie breaking however and we're gonna see if they're available.

I'm sorry about the abstention. Yes.

K. Through the chair to the body. So your council rules of procedure, rule 29, provide for a tie breaking vote by the mayor. In the event the council members are evenly divided in their vote on an item, the item will automatically be continued to the next regular meeting solely for the purpose of allowing the mayor to cast a vote provided that if the mayor so chooses, the mayor may cast a vote at the meeting at which the tie vote occurs, this meeting.

Thank you. And to the parliamentarian, what happens if the mayor opts not to? Will there be a reconsidered vote or what happens then?

If the mayor does not break the tie, the item will fail.

Moving to item 10, adopt a resolution authorizing the council president to submit a response on behalf of the city council to the twenty four twenty five Alameda County civil grand jury report. You have five speakers on this item.

Good afternoon madam chair and members of the city council. My name is Rose Rubel and I'm an assistant to the city administrator in the city administrator's office. Before you today is the city's proposed response to the twenty twenty four twenty five Alameda County civil grand jury final report, which is included with this item as attachment a, which was issued 06/20/2025. Each year the civil grand jury conducts investigations based on citizen complaints regarding local government and presents opportunities and recommendations for agencies to function more efficiently. This year's grand jury report included five sections which detail investigations concerning the city of Oakland and those are bad roads and no building.

Oakland's budget problems mean no bonds for the city's needs and I'll just note that this section did not include any findings or recommendations from the grand jury so did not require a response from the city. The next is Oakland's potholes, a bumpy road and inadequate oversight. Oakland's poor stewardship of measure q funds jeopardizes its effectiveness. Adding insult to injury, Oakland issues parking tickets to stolen vehicles. And lastly, Oakland's wildfire preparedness, good vegetation management, but emergency access needs improvement.

Responses to each of these investigations were requested from multiple city departments and agencies including Oakland Public Works, finance and management, the Oakland Department of Transportation, Oakland Fire Department, the office of the city auditor, and the city council. Attachment b to this item contains proposed responses to each report section prepared by city staff. By default, formal responses to the grand jury report are due 90 after the ports reports public release. However, the city requested and received an extension of the time to respond from the grand jury's representative. In accordance with the extension, the city's responses are due by Friday, 11/07/2025.

Adoption of the proposed resolution will authorize the council president to submit the responses on behalf of the city council to the Alameda County civil grand jury. And I'll just note lastly, there were two of the grand jury report sections, the one regarding potholes and the the other regarding stewardship of measure q, which contained findings and recommendations that were directed specifically to the city auditor. And so in response, office of the city auditor issued a separate response to the grand jury report on August 7, and we have included that separately as attachment c to this item. And with that, concludes my presentation, and myself and department representatives are available to answer your questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions from council members on the grand jury report? If not I have a list. Council member Houston.

I wanna move it. I don't have no questions.

Okay. Okay. If there's not questions, I will ask a few. Is the city auditor available as well? Thank you. So this is really I have two I have questions on two items, the pothole one and the measure q item. Starting with measure q, do we I'm not sure if this is for the Otter administration. Do we have a clear definition of extreme fiscal necessity at the moment? Because I know that was a hotly debated topic and I know it came to the finance committee last year, but there was not a final vote.

It's for the administration. Okay.

Sorry, there was a different question for the auditor.

Council members Brad Johnson with the finance department. We have via your adopted budget resolution a definition that you adopted for extreme fiscal necessity. It was in your budget resolution. However, we have not formally adopted a we have not formally adopted and that was resolution nine zero three two seven CMS. We have not done through our consolidate fiscal policy adopted a definition for that outside of the context of your budget cycle.

Thank you. Were meetings with measure q stakeholders conducted to define this item? And is the resolution just to come at the next budget or will there be others in in between?

There are ongoing conversations with the stakeholders of measure q and our other ballot measures. I'm not gonna prejudge the outcome of those conversations. But there's ongoing conversations around the different elements related to compliance with the local measures and it's a component part of your fiscal roadmap that we have those conversations and that we engage in a plan to come into compliance with them.

Okay. Thank you. And then next question is to the auditor on both potholes and Measure Q being part of the work plan for next year. There was discussion back and forth of whether or not KK or U even had an audit done. So some kind of clarity on whether an audit actually happened and whether or whether it will be done in the future for both the potholes and, sorry, Measure KK and U and also Measure Q.

Michael C. Houston, the city auditor. In my response, I clarified that I had, you know, I was unaware of any audits of Measure KK and Measure U ever being conducted. And it was not, that's not necessarily on our work plan either. Measure Q, it is one of those recurring audits that should be done on a predictable cadence. We've done one. It is in our 2526 audit work plan.

Sorry, to clarify measure KK and U was not done.

And I will say that that is not an audit that is it doesn't require the city auditor's office to Right. It's it's vague as far as who should conduct it, but it is clear to me that it is to be conducted.

Thank you. And I guess to the administration, is it under the plan to conduct an audit of KK? Are you now after this report?

Through the chair, to members of the council. So yes, certainly we want to consider you know the auditing of Measure KK and we can certainly you know convey that with not just our finance team but also our external auditors that do our broad citywide audits of our financials.

Okay. Thank you. And last question. What is the administration back to the potholes item? What is the holdup with the I Bond meetings? There was a note of, you know, there's issues with staff and vacancies. Is the issue finding quorum because there's too many vacancies that need to be approved? Is it that there's not staff ability get the meetings organized? What's the biggest issue with not having those meetings be thorough and attended?

Again, Brad Johnson with the finance department. We are actively working to schedule the next I Bond Committee meeting. We were trying to hold the meeting at their regular scheduled time which is in the second or third Monday of the quarter which would have been October. At that time, the we found that we were not able to make quorum of the commission members. We've conducted a poll of all the commission members for dates through the remainder of this calendar year and into the in in and around their what would be their January meeting to try to find a date where we can get quorum for the Ivon commission to meet, and we are actively trying to pursue that with the commissioners to ensure that we have a date where that can happen.

Okay. Thank you. And just a comment on the wildfire item. I know the grand jury noted a number of issues with public education, and you need to inform the public more about evacuation routes and red flag days and all of that. I I do just wanna recognize that our fire department and administration has been doing quite a bit, but there's always more to do. So those aspects of the report are noted, I think that goes for all emergency preparedness that there's a lot more to do. But I do wanna acknowledge how much has been done over the last, specifically thirty years since the ninety one fires on that regard of community education. Other and last question for administration. Sorry. I'm jumping around.

Back to the potholes. 25 dash seven recommendation talks about or the issue talks about prioritizing hiring for DOT. I did look at the website this morning and there's only one DOT position currently there. What is being done specifically to help with hiring for DOT? The only one I see is transportation engineer, which I know there's a lot more positions needed to actually prioritize paving because our city we we we repeatedly state lots of priorities, but there's only there's very few positions that are actually end up being prioritized on our website. So I just want to get clarity on what the action plan is for hiring.

Through the chair and I apologize, there may be someone from human resources stepping to the mic, but I do know that the human resources department did move forward with hiring existing recruitment staff to backfill some of those positions so that we can move forward with expediting hiring as this body has certainly directed and what we would like to do. And so I'll need to get you know further clarity with respect to the timing of when the priority hires will be coming forward and we can certainly report back to this body.

That would be great. Council members comments, questions or?