[1:38] Good morning. Good morning and welcome to the rules and legislation committee meeting on this Thursday, June 25th. The time is now 1031 and this meeting shall come to order.

[1:56] Before I call Roe, I would like to give instructions on how to submit a speaker card for items on this agenda.

[2:03] If you are hearing chambers and participating in person and would like to submit a speaker card,

[2:09] please go to the card and hand it into the clerk representative.

[2:13] Before the item is called in a record, or 10 minutes after this meeting begin, this meeting begin at 1031, so that time will be 1041.

[2:23] Online speaking of cards were due 24 hours before this meeting began, so we will no longer be accepting online speaking of cards.

[2:29] But again, if you would like to submit a speaker card and you're here in person, please fill out a card, turn it into a clerk representative.

[2:35] 10 minutes after the meeting began, which is 1041, or before the item is called into record, whichever it comes first.

[2:41] With that, I will now begin with roll, on roll, council member, brell.

[2:45] President council member five president council member Rama Chandra

[2:51] Rama Chandra President chair Janket President good morning. Thank you. We have four members present chair Janket before I go to our first item. Do you have any announcements?

[3:15] This is unusual that I want the port people to get out of here. We're going to call

[3:21] item five first, then six, then we'll go to the regular items.

[3:33] No, two first.

[3:35] Okay, thank you for that. The announcement was prior to the chair, we will go in this

[3:40] order. We will take item two first and then we will take items five and six and then the

[3:46] consent calendar following that. Thank you for that. So we will now move to item our

[3:51] First item we don't have minutes to approve our second item is the termination of schedule and outstanding committee items, which is your pending list.

[3:59] I have no speakers for this item. I just need a motion anything for the miniseries.

[4:02] No changes.

[4:04] Seeing that. Now let's head a motion.

[4:08] So moved.

[4:10] Second.

[4:12] My apologies. And that was a motion by Councilman for Brown.

[4:15] Seconded by Councilmember Ramachandron to approve item 2 as is on roll Councilmember Brown.

[4:23] Council number five.

[4:25] All right.

[4:26] Rama Chandra.

[4:27] Aye.

[4:27] And chair Jenkins.

[4:29] Aye.

[4:29] Item number two was approved with four eyes as is.

[4:33] Now taking the agenda out of order as requested by chair Jenkins.

[4:37] Going to item number five.

[4:42] Item number five is a resolution confirming the mayor's re-appointment of

[4:47] Alvinna Wong as a member to the Board of Port and Commission.

[4:51] and I have no speakers for this side of.

[4:57] All right, can we hear from Port?

[5:00] Mayors Office and the Board Commissioner.

[5:04] Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair Jenkins, council members. Press the billboard, W. Chief Staffs and Mayor Barrelie. So I'm here to present on the re-appointment of Alvina Wong to the Board Commission for re-appointment.

[5:15] Alvina brings nearly two decades of experience in advancing social, environmental and economic justice with a strong trackwriter, track record of building

[5:23] multiracial coalitions and advocating for equitable development and environmental justice housing

[5:27] and communities that are policy solutions. During Albina's service on the court mission,

[5:33] she has brought thoughtful leadership, a collaborative approach and deep commitment to balancing

[5:37] economic opportunity with community and environmental priorities. The mayor continues to be confident

[5:43] that Albina's experience, perspective, and dedication to Oakland will continue to be a

[5:48] valuable asset to the commission. We respectfully request your support for her reapplyment.

[5:58] Commissioner, did you want to say anything?

[6:06] Good morning committee members.

[6:07] Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all.

[6:10] And share more about my reappointment.

[6:12] As I was able to introduce myself,

[6:14] more last year as the base building director of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network,

[6:19] a proud district, six resident and a member of these six

[6:23] community action for resilience and equity, D6 care,

[6:26] living a mile away from Coliseum of the A80 corridor.

[6:30] When I spoke last year, I really wanted to express to you all my values, my experience and

[6:35] my commitments in my environmental justice and community work thus far to gain your confidence

[6:41] in confirming my appointment to the board.

[6:44] I appreciate you all for advancing that confirmation in order to fulfill the last final year

[6:50] of former Commissioner U.H. Lee's term.

[6:53] So today I'm back to ask for your confidence again for a full-term on the Port of Oakland Board of Commissioners.

[7:01] In this past year I have been dedicated collaborative and inquisitive member of the Commission focused on really the prosperity

[7:07] and responsibilities of the Port, as well as participating in continuing its commitment and excellence in being a good community partner and economic driver for Oakland and the region.

[7:18] Over the past year, I have engaged in many critical, real estate, airport,

[7:23] sea port related decisions, and that really center the possibilities of sustainable growth,

[7:28] both in the economic and environmental sense.

[7:31] I've joined the audit committee as well as airport and environmental ad hoc committees

[7:36] and have dove into this work what I'd like to say heart first.

[7:40] It's been quite a lot to pick up a year within a year.

[7:44] And while I think my colleagues would agree that I've been able to keep up,

[7:48] a full term would really allow me to continue supporting the Ports efforts in zero admission transition,

[7:54] maintaining and growing our airport and sea port opportunities,

[7:57] while also meaningfully choosing real estate and contracting decisions

[8:01] that are exponentially beneficial for and rooted in Oakland and beyond.

[8:08] So I'm excited to continue my partnership with you all in the city.

[8:11] I've had really great conversations and want to continue to make sure that what's happening

[8:16] on the port is coordinated and thoughtful to what is happening in the city and making

[8:21] sure that your concerns are also reflected in the port's conversations.

[8:25] And so I'm open and available for any other questions if you may have.

[8:30] And really want to continue looking forward to thought partnership and collaborative problem

[8:35] solving with you all.

[8:36] So I'd be honored to have your continued support.

[8:39] Thank you council member Brown. Excellent. Well, thank you so much. It's good to see you and it's been a pleasure for the last year

[8:46] Really getting so that I know you more and learn more about your leadership style and just the work that you're doing with the port

[8:52] And so I'm happy to make a motion to go ahead and advance the appointment

[8:57] Thank you council member five

[9:00] Yes, just my my knowledge through the chair to

[9:03] to Elvina Wong with your acumen around environment,

[9:09] our work around creamatoriums and East Oakland,

[9:12] truck traffic through West Oakland and Chinatown,

[9:15] and just your broad depth of knowledge

[9:17] around environmental issues is so critical to bring

[9:20] to the port of Oakland.

[9:22] And as I work through amortization of polluters

[9:24] in my district and working on continuing to green

[9:29] and clean the port, it's essential that you remain

[9:32] in this space to bring your unique experience, your youth, and just your expertise in very specific

[9:39] issues to this body. So I've been happy to recommend your position and I second this motion

[9:48] to make sure that you stay in the place that you're at and continue to grow and learn

[9:52] for the Port of Oakland and for the city.

[9:58] Thank you, simply like we.

[10:00] I support you. We have a motion in the second.

[10:03] Thank you for that, and there was a motion by Councilmember Brown, second and by Councilmember Fife.

[10:08] To approve item 5 to be approved item 5, which is the re-appointment to the Board of Board and Commissioners

[10:18] to the July 7 City Council agenda on consent on roll councilmember Brown.

[10:24] Aye. Councilmember Fife.

[10:26] Aye. Councilmember Romachandring. Aye. And chair Jenkins. Aye.

[10:29] Item number five was approved with for us to be forwarded to the july 7 city council agenda on consent

[10:38] noting that the agenda has been taken out of order, so we are now moving there were no public speakers

[10:44] For no not for this item that so many people last

[10:47] Yeah, no I do not have

[10:51] But we do have speakers for the next item which is item S6 S state at my council

[10:56] President Jenkins, we are taking the agenda out of order, so we're now on item S6.

[11:02] And I will read that into record, but before I read the item into record,

[11:06] there is an urgency finding that we need to be stated before we hear this item.

[11:12] So is staff present to state the urgency finding?

[11:18] Yes, of course, through the chair.

[11:19] just the urgency is that the upcoming deadline to appear on the November ballot is coming up.

[11:26] And so, hearing now and then scheduling for July 7th is recommended in order to make that deadline.

[11:36] Is there a presentation?

[11:38] We do need a motion for the urgency finding before we call the item interest.

[11:43] Wait,

[11:46] someone

[11:52] second it.

[11:54] And there was a motion by council member, five seconded by council member Brown to approve

[11:58] the urgency finding on roll council number five, a Brown.

[12:01] I, council number five, I,

[12:04] Roman Chandra, I.

[12:05] Chair Jenkins, the urgency of finding was approved

[12:09] with four eyes.

[12:11] I will now read the item into record.

[12:14] A doctor resolution submitting to the voters

[12:16] at the November 3rd, 2026 General Municipal Election,

[12:19] a measure to amend OMC charter real property tax,

[12:24] transfer tax to amend the exemption of four closures,

[12:27] transactions and advisory measure of whether the increase revenue from the

[12:33] amending the city real property transfer tax to include certain for closure

[12:37] transactions should be spent for the purposes of providing interim shelter,

[12:43] transitional housing, encampment, closure operations, addiction, treatment, job readiness

[12:48] and other related homelessness services, and directing the city clerk to take

[12:53] and I'll actually necessary under the law to submit these measures to the voters at the General

[12:58] Municipal Election and making appropriate see what findings I have to speak for this item.

[13:06] Yes. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn into a special meeting of the Council upon the

[13:13] presence of, yes, Councilmember Wong and Houston. Second.

[13:20] There was a motion by Councilmember Fife, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adjourn in a special meeting at the presence of Councilmember Wong and Houston on roll Councilmember Brown.

[13:36] Hi.

[13:38] I run a challenge ring.

[13:40] And chair Jenkins.

[13:42] And at 1043, this meeting is adjourned into a special meeting at the presence of council

[13:48] members.

[13:50] And I am complete.

[13:53] Council more.

[14:20] Okay.

[14:21] All right.

[14:24] First of all, I want to thank before we get into it.

[14:27] I just want to thank the finance team, specifically, Nicole Bradley.

[14:32] Carmen Jose and Huie in terms of developing out the materials that you're seeing today.

[14:41] I also want to thank Melia at the City Attorney's office with who worked with us to craft this

[14:47] measure through quite a few iterations.

[14:52] And I also want to recognize since I provided a larger

[14:56] Our length, your presentation last time, to my colleagues, really explaining something.

[15:00] So, the impetus around this. There are a number of questions last time that were really around the revenue. The potential for revenue from this measure. So, this is what really what today's presentation is aimed to answer. I also want to know that today's measure is narrower than what I last presented. I'm requesting a motion to also for this resolution to the full council as amended, which includes the removal of the supplementary advisory measure, which I heard my colleagues feedback.

[15:29] That means that no additional cost would be incurred from a second measure, and that means there's no endorsement of some of what I discussed around shelters or in camp and closures.

[15:41] So this is now purely before you a revenue measure. It closes a loophole on these four closure transactions, it does not raise any tax rates and it simply closes an exception.

[15:53] And an exception that is really for primarily corporate capital, that exception says that for closure transfers,

[16:09] that for closure transfers is particularly deep in lieu transfers are exempt from paying the real estate transfer tax that any other, you know, transfer would pay.

[16:21] So, your person that's just buying a home and they purchase a home, they are paying this real estate transfer tax that these entities are not.

[16:31] I would also argue that there's a case for urgency for closures are currently surging.

[16:36] There are signs of a recessionary environment.

[16:39] And we know that this will accelerate for closures in the coming years, but that is anticipated to tail off.

[16:44] And the reason I do present it this before this body now is if we do wait until 2022 we risk

[16:52] missing a window for this cycle.

[16:58] I also want to note that San Francisco is actually moving to act before this window closes.

[17:04] They're moving forward with a November ballot measure and they're estimate and this was done by their

[17:10] Troules office is actually estimated to generate over $200 million in revenue over next three years.

[17:16] And, you know, in Oakland, we do not have exactly the same real estate market, of course.

[17:21] We don't have as much commercial real estate in particular,

[17:25] but this shows that there is real and significant money behind this concept.

[17:34] I also want to speak directly to the informational packet that you provide in the supplemental report.

[17:41] It's really important to flag right off of that, that this was what you see here and if you

[17:48] guys got some of the materials, there's a spreadsheet, an amendment as well as a spreadsheet.

[18:00] So one of the staff reports included, included a, basically, a projection that was based off

[18:06] of limited, a limited sample through 2024, just February through July.

[18:12] So it's a very limited data set.

[18:15] There's an important gap that did not account for something called

[18:18] deed in lieu of transfer.

[18:21] These are really actually the highest revenue generating transfers available.

[18:26] And so my team throughout the last week actually worked to identify a set

[18:31] of these types of deed in lieu for closure transfers.

[18:36] These are basically just to be clear because we do not have the kind of

[18:42] data scraper that are available by the real estate industry.

[18:48] So this is based off of essentially what is in just the headlines.

[18:52] So what is in post it in news articles, things like that.

[18:57] So I want to just note in front of you, these are unedited Excel sheets provided straight from finance.

[19:03] We pulled out some of the top line numbers just to display above here on the screen.

[19:08] You can see, for example, in 2024, there were, again, four headline, four headline generating transfers.

[19:19] What you see on the right side of screen is essentially the tax revenue that could have been generated, the low end to the high end.

[19:25] So, just taking 180 grand an example in the low end, and finance is happy to discuss their methodology

[19:33] 750,000 dollars generated from that revenue, but on the high end, 4.3 million dollars.

[19:40] So, this is again just over the last two and a half years.

[19:43] We identified 16 different transactions happening over the last two and a half years.

[19:51] And I think one thing that is really noteworthy, is that if you look at...

[20:00] In 2006, in particular, you can see that revenue is accelerating. This speaks to the increases happening in foreclosures in this current year. This is just half a year alone. This only reflects foreclosures that are happening through June of this year. What is not actually included is the clorox building that is currently that made a recent headline that is also going into foreclosure.

[20:31] And using just, this is the low end of the sample of these properties.

[20:37] You can see that this goes in 2024, 5 million, 2,026 million.

[20:45] But in just half a year alone, January through June,

[20:50] it could have been something as high as 16.49 million.

[20:55] I actually had another slide, but it's not included in this particular presentation, so but anyways, this matches up what we're seeing in terms of the headlines that we are seeing for closures at a six year high, this was noted by the Wall Street Journal, other headlines that are more local that notes this rise in foreclosures and fire sales.

[21:18] there was just what happened at an East Oakland,

[21:22] a another office, just went to foreclosure.

[21:28] I also want to just discuss some of the amendments very quickly.

[21:35] So here are the amendments you guys have that before you.

[21:40] So as I stated, we're removing the advisory measure.

[21:43] So it's just simplifying what was presented last time

[21:45] and I want to thank colleagues for the feedback.

[21:48] Second, I do want to add affordable housing conversion and the exemption.

[21:53] I had noted last time that because we're seeing all these, especially in the downtown

[21:58] corner, right?

[21:59] People are not returning to the office, and so we're seeing a lot of these major commercial

[22:05] buildings going to foreclosure.

[22:08] So part of what we're doing with this tax policy is to try to incentivize conversion into

[22:13] other uses that would actually be beneficial to Oakland.

[22:16] So there was interim shelter, permanent support of housing, health care, as well as we're just adding affordable housing as an exemption based off some feedback from some discussions with stakeholders.

[22:30] And so if you get a foreclosure transfer just explain it and you turn it to affordable housing, this would not apply to that specific transfer.

[22:37] The third thing is we're giving City Council the authority to establish future exemptions by ordinance.

[22:44] That way if there are other types of exemptions that we identify as a body, we don't have to restart the ballot.

[22:50] No, you're process. We can do this just by ordinance.

[22:54] Fourth, this was just an advice from the City Attorney's Office.

[22:58] We are going to be moving to exempt all community banks, not just California-based ones.

[23:03] this was based off of some law that's on the books that Melia, thank you for identifying

[23:08] that.

[23:09] And the fifth thing is that the measure is going to, it just adds a line that the measure

[23:14] determines the value of consideration at fair market value.

[23:18] And this is wrong directly from San Francisco's structure and their own measure that they

[23:22] adopted, which I do want to note that the measure adopted by San Francisco was broadly supported

[23:28] by both moderate and progressive supervisors in San Francisco.

[23:34] Okay, and with that, I'll turn it over to any questions you have for myself or to the staff

[23:40] numbers who help develop this proposal.

[23:42] Thank you, partner.

[23:43] Let's go to the public speakers.

[23:46] Thank you for that.

[23:47] As I call your name, if you're here in chambers, please approach the podium.

[23:51] If you're a participant in online, please raise your hand if you signed up for item S6.

[23:55] I have a Robert Apataka and Dan Cobb.

[24:02] We will take those who are participating in person first,

[24:04] and then following that, we will take those who are online.

[24:07] So again, if you can sign up for item S6.

[24:10] Thank you.

[24:11] Good morning, committee members.

[24:13] My name is Robert Joe Apataka.

[24:15] I've been a resident of Oakland for last 40 years,

[24:19] and I started speaking here in 1975

[24:22] when the community development block grant was the big issue and there was no room in the

[24:30] council to address those issues. At that time I was chairman of the ProofBell Community

[24:34] Development District Council. I have quite a bit of experience in housing and housing related issues,

[24:43] both as an operator and it's a builder and also as a providing finance. Just briefly I started my first

[24:51] student housing program in Berkeley in 1970, and that operation is for ethnic minorities

[24:56] and still in operation after 56 years, and it's a non-profit organization.

[25:00] Organization now owned by the Green Line Institute. Subsequent to that, I was part of a, I found it

[25:06] of non-profit and wanted to prove a concept that poor people can be homeowners. So in Fresno County,

[25:13] we built 10 town homes and sold them to families who were earning less than 30% of AMI. Nobody

[25:20] had to fault it during that time. One home has been sold and all those families have a lot of equity.

[25:28] Lastly, I was part of McLean Boston, MCIC, an architect here in town that did it first

[25:35] project, Durant Square, signature properties, or was it owner, is the owner, subsequent

[25:41] to that, we designed a fruitville transit village, and then across the street from there

[25:45] a couple of blocks from here, the firm did uptown apartments.

[25:50] So, I know something about housing and financing,

[25:56] homelessness is the number one priority

[26:01] in the state.

[26:02] I know it changes from time to time, it's a high priority here in Oakland, and what I do

[26:07] know is that over the past 10, 15 years, the state has spent over 37.

[26:14] I apologize Robert. Your time is up. Thank you so much for your comments.

[26:28] Thank you.

[26:28] Thank you so much. I will now call those who are participating online Zoom speakers.

[26:34] I have Dan Cobb. One moment.

[26:39] If the clerk can unmute Dan Cobb,

[26:47] there we go.

[26:48] Dan you are a meeting may begin.

[26:52] Thank you so much.

[26:53] Good to see you all.

[26:55] Good to see you all.

[26:58] I just wanted to express my thanks to Council Member Wong for putting this forward.

[27:04] We passed Measure X back in 2018 to create a progressive

[27:09] where the state transfer tax and this kind of summary spec closes a loophole in that and within the limits of state law this provides more opportunity to bring some more revenue in and make sure the transfer tax that already exists in in local law applies to these these additional transactions within the confines of state law.

[27:33] So I urge support for this, and I would look forward to voting in favor of this when it's on the ballot in November, and I urge the council that rules committee on the council to put this on the ballots, so the voters can decide, and I think this is a smart measure and I ask for your support. Thank you.

[27:50] Thank you so much for your comments. That concludes our speech.

[27:52] by the S6.

[28:02] Oh, excellent.

[28:03] I can go ahead and get started.

[28:05] Thank you so much to Council Member O'awng for your work on this item.

[28:10] And also calling attention to what San Francisco was doing as well.

[28:14] I was reading the article really quickly.

[28:16] So thanks for highlighting that as well.

[28:18] I'm one of the questions that I did have the opportunity to ask you during our one-on-one

[28:25] where you were explaining this a little bit further.

[28:27] and I was kind of continuing to do a little bit more research on this and just hoping you can answer

[28:33] this question. Because I guess I'm thinking about larger apartment buildings and really wanting

[28:42] to ensure that we're protecting renters from any undue costs and even just building maintenance.

[28:47] And so I guess this larger question that I have is have you been able to identify or call out

[28:55] need like domino impacts of this kind of foreclosure tax that would go to a new owner of a larger

[29:06] apartment building, whether it be since they're going to be kind of eating up those debt

[29:11] costs, will that trickle to the renter in some way what will happen to maybe if the building needs

[29:18] maintenance and I just wanted to see if you were able to get any feedback on and I think

[29:25] I even asked this question to you when we met.

[29:28] Just curious if you had any more additional insights on that.

[29:32] Yeah, absolutely.

[29:33] And I just in the development of this policy did consult individuals in both the housing

[29:40] action coalition with group, as well as the Turner Center, as well as that excuse me,

[29:50] the YMB, various YMB groups that we all know about including East Bay for everyone.

[29:56] and essentially when it comes to the question, which is...

[30:00] A really great question. I want to flag that in terms of whether those costs could be passed down to renters because essentially this cost in terms of the transfer tax would ultimately be born on the acquiring entity, right not the entity that's going into foreclosure.

[30:20] This is how this will actually protect people from that are the tenants from going into

[30:27] foreclosure.

[30:28] And I would argue this too because what is happening with foreclosures is that right now

[30:34] since this is a loophole, there's actually and there is no disincentive for the banks to pursue

[30:39] a short sale or to prevent a foreclosure from happening in the first place.

[30:45] There's no tax friction.

[30:46] So when that happens actually people are more likely the tenants are more likely to get evicted if that makes sense in the case of a foreclosure.

[30:57] And so one could argue that actually by applying this policy we're actually creating some friction that can hopefully create.

[31:04] It's not going to solve. I don't want to pretend like it's only going to prevent efficient evictions.

[31:08] But that it will create some disincentives from pursuing the foreclosure in the first place from the banks perspective.

[31:19] excellent. Thank you so much for that. And I also know that the report states that the

[31:24] Council may be made by ordinance establish other exemptions to the tax imposed by this

[31:29] chapter on what other exemptions with council want to establish. I'll give an example one thing

[31:37] that we've heard feedback from is that there are for example of like nonprofits that want to

[31:44] for example, like a foreclosed home or a small foreclosed, you know, multi-family unit property

[31:51] and actually turn it into affordable housing. And so it's these things that I think I've added

[31:58] that amendment that way we can consider as a body, other examples, where we actually, this is an

[32:03] opportunity to create tax equity and actually ensure that some of the entities we want to actually

[32:10] have a tax benefit compared to say, maybe a corporate, you know, entity that we can add those in as a body.

[32:19] Okay. Thank you.

[32:21] And just sorry, just to close off my comment, I've heard about, you know, for example, creating community land trust, things like that, so all of that.

[32:29] I think our items or things that we should consider to add in as exceptions.

[32:34] Can

[32:39] some of them around the country?

[32:40] Thank you.

[32:43] I think the intention is good and something that obviously I would want to support in theory

[32:53] when it comes to getting more revenue for the city and closing the polls.

[32:59] But I think this presents to many of the polls the way it's presented right now.

[33:03] that I don't really have confidence that the banks that were able to get this exemption in the first place

[33:10] and other predatory lenders would not be able to use one of these exemptions. So can you explain

[33:18] the history of why the foreclosure exemption has the RITTs? The foreclosure situation has an RITT exemption

[33:27] in the first place and when that happened.

[33:30] Yeah.

[33:30] That's a good question.

[33:31] Does anyone from finance have that history?

[33:34] I actually don't have that history.

[33:40] Go ahead, Malia.

[33:45] Malia McPherson with the City Attorney's Office.

[33:47] I think your question is on the legislative history of the cities, RETT, is that correct?

[33:54] And the foreclosure exemption that's here.

[33:58] This exemption that currently exists has been there for as long as I can tell it wasn't

[34:04] recently added, it wasn't addressed with the measure X.

[34:07] Amendments, it mirrors the exemption under the state

[34:11] documentary transfer tax, but is not identical

[34:14] in the same way that other local jurisdictions

[34:18] have an identical exemption for foreclosures

[34:21] that mirrors state law.

[34:23] As you'll see with San Francisco's proposal

[34:26] and it has been clarified with recent case law

[34:28] on charter cities ability to have different transfer

[34:34] We are not bound to follow state law when it comes to foreclosure assumptions.

[34:41] Thank you.

[34:41] I mean, I'm really wondering from the author who wrote this.

[34:46] How are you know, why did this first come into effect in Oakland not the state?

[34:53] And why are you, why do you think that this is going to be any different?

[34:57] I mean, anyone can call themselves a community bank.

[35:00] Unlesser, specifically listing a public bank, which is different, affordable housing, any bank can come in and say that they want to build affordable housing and then switch it up.

[35:11] What are the guarantees that this won't happen again? And that's why I'm asking about the history.

[35:16] Okay.

[35:16] Which, as we all know, is a good question, anticipate you'd know.

[35:18] On the banks, there's actually a specific definition set at federal law that caps like to be defined as a community bank.

[35:27] you need to actually have assets under a certain dollar amount.

[35:29] You can't, you can't, like, for example, chase or Goldman Sachs

[35:34] or any of these kind of large institutions could not just decide

[35:38] to define themselves as a community bank.

[35:40] There's an actual definition, I don't know,

[35:44] if Melede, you're able to comment on that.

[35:46] But I think, I would need to double check my notes,

[35:49] but I think this was established under Dot Frank,

[35:51] that there was a specific definition of community bank that must be used.

[35:55] You can't just say I'm a community bank, but about affordable housing.

[36:01] The second part of my question through the chair.

[36:04] Any of those same cases, think of America's et cetera, could say they're building affordable housing,

[36:09] and they're not actually fall through to get this exemption.

[36:12] So once again, you're creating more loopholes in the banks, you're never going to pay.

[36:16] So what are the protections for that?

[36:18] So, the way that the transfer tax is currently structured is actually the, you get a refund

[36:25] act of the fact and you would need to provide evidence and, I mean, there are strict

[36:29] AMI rules right in terms of affordable housing, you can't just say, you know, I'm building

[36:35] affordable housing, you have to provide evidence that you're meeting the AMI requirements

[36:39] that define, you know, like means tested affordable housing and if I would actually invite

[36:47] my colleague because we're adding this language around exemptions if this is something important

[36:53] to you which I agree with that we need to close these loop holes that I'm happy to work with

[36:59] you to really put in language. This is the reason actually I wanted that ordinance to add

[37:05] to make it broadly speaking because I recognize that some of this is happening. We came across

[37:11] this loophole later in this year that I'd like that I'd like to have and so I wanted to ensure

[37:17] this language would be added that way we as a body could really figure out as a collective

[37:24] in removing as many loopholes as possible since I agree that is a risk I also think it's

[37:29] not a reason not to pursue the closing what we know to be in place right when we can just

[37:35] continue to refine and add even more language to truly seal off new polls and ways that corporate entities seek and are able to escape our taxes.

[37:48] Thank you through the chair that the answer my question.

[37:51] I appreciate the invitation to work on this, but we are at the 11th hour before the meetings in July, which if this was to go through this would need to pass.

[38:00] So can you explain to me what's currently here in the legislation that would prevent a bank

[38:08] from stating they're going to build affordable housing and not build it.

[38:13] And again, I would also like the definition of a community bank.

[38:17] Sure.

[38:20] Malia, are you able to comment on the definition of a community bank?

[38:23] And then perhaps someone from the finance team since we have existing exemptions for

[38:30] You know, low-income households, different things like that in our existing tax structure.

[38:34] How is finance able to validate those things as it currently stands?

[38:54] Malay McPerson with the City of Terties Office.

[38:58] I'm happy to comment on the definition as it's been provided in the legislation.

[39:02] I do want to note that the policy directors in terms of the scope of this legislation has been set by the council members office.

[39:11] So it is not, you know, our office that has been recommending certain exemptions here.

[39:17] The community banking organization is as defined by the Federal Reserve and as the Council

[39:22] Member noted, that current definition has an organization that has a total consolidated

[39:28] assets of less than $10 billion.

[39:32] And under the draft legislation, the transfer read to qualify for this exemption would have

[39:38] to provide us warm certification for that qualification.

[39:45] Similarly for the Affordable Housing exemption,

[39:48] as drafted, the transferry would have 36 months

[39:52] from the date of recordation of the transfer

[39:55] to submit a refund supported by documentation.

[39:59] Thank you.

[40:03] Thank you. Thank you. So to clarify, you would submit a refund for you pay the RATT and then you'd get a refund if you actually

[40:15] build affordable housing in three years? Yeah. That was, we did that on advisement from finance. They said that this

[40:22] would be most administratively simple for them to do. That is the reason that we've built it in that

[40:30] particular structure.

[40:33] Thank you.

[40:33] I have reservations on this community bank.

[40:36] I mean, at $10 billion company is pretty big.

[40:40] And even if it excludes our conventional big banks,

[40:43] that leaves a lot of room for predatory lenders,

[40:48] foreign entities, et cetera,

[40:50] to come in and not pay the tax again.

[40:53] I imagine there are quite a few subsidiaries

[40:55] of some of these big banks that would qualify under that as well.

[40:58] So I'm deeply uncomfortable with that, and if I were to support, consider supporting this, that would definitely be something that I would need redefined in this legislation.

[41:14] Sure, absolutely. I do want to comment just.

[41:17] I'm not, I'm not completed.

[41:18] Okay, sure.

[41:19] And so the next issue that I have here is the numbers.

[41:26] Again, I know that 2026 saw more for closures, but in the city administrator's report, the estimate for the amount of money that the city would bring in is notably less in the review of 30 transactions.

[41:41] The annual revenue is estimated to range from 400,000 to a million depending on the transfer

[41:49] type of timing.

[41:50] But what you showed was a much higher numbers.

[41:55] Again, obviously, I'd welcome any money coming to the city, but 400,000 to a million is very

[42:01] different from the multi-million dollar proposals you said.

[42:05] So why the difference?

[42:06] Yeah, I'm happy to answer those questions and their

[42:09] excellent. So first of all, on the bank size, I know 10 billion

[42:13] sounds like a lot, just so everyone is aware in terms of how

[42:18] the federal reserve actually defines different bank

[42:21] size. There's 10 billion dollars is a community bank, 10 billion to

[42:27] 500 billion is actually regional and mid size banks, and above 500

[42:30] billion dollars are large and global financial institutions. So to give

[42:35] sense of the total asset size of some of the largest banks, JP Morgan Chase has $3.64 trillion

[42:41] in assets.

[42:43] Okay, this is why $10 billion is actually a community bank.

[42:47] Bank of America has $2.6 trillion, City Bank, $1.7 trillion, Wells Fargo, $1.7 trillion.

[42:53] So that's the scale that we're looking out when it comes to large banks and why it's

[42:58] important, especially because community banks are actually those that are most likely to

[43:02] provide loan opportunities to those who have maybe lower credit scores, things like this.

[43:07] This is why I thought it was important to have that carve out.

[43:11] But we're happy to, you know, we can also, I'm open to removing that exemption and having

[43:17] a longer discussion around that, if that is important.

[43:21] There are everything just to note on the revenue side of things.

[43:25] And if anyone from finance wants to come up, but what we had discussed from what we've clarified

[43:31] is that those finance estimates excluded something called deed and lieu of foreclosure.

[43:38] So it is the deed and lieu of foreclosure transactions that actually stand to generate

[43:44] the most revenue.

[43:46] And so we had clarified that with finance.

[43:49] That's why you see that those low projections, those are merely just the foreclosures,

[43:55] like pure foreclosures, a deed and lieu of foreclosure just to explain what that means

[44:00] is somebody is transferring the note sale

[44:03] without technically going to foreclosures.

[44:06] That was not understood by finance at the time

[44:08] that they provided that $4600,000 annual revenue estimate.

[44:14] And so then we provided finance those 16 examples,

[44:18] again, that we just saw through headlines.

[44:21] So if anything in under states, in my opinion,

[44:24] anyways, I don't want to, again,

[44:26] I would prefer to have a more conservative estimate.

[44:28] So what we identified is 16 different transactions that occurred over the last two and a half years and that's where you see the the larger amounts and

[44:39] Yeah, thank you. So it did that again

[44:44] I am very concerned I specifically in my comments through the chair mentioned that I know this 10 billion dollars would exclude the big big banks obviously

[44:54] but that doesn't mean that those medium-sized ones aren't any less predatory.

[45:00] That would be a major issue for me wanting that exemption. Again, if, since your legislation is proposing that council can give additional exemptions, you know, if there's situations that come up at the time, so be it, but that is something I'm definitely concerned about.

[45:20] I'll reserve the rest of my questions for the next council meeting. Thank you.

[45:34] If there's no other further comment, I think at this time, I would make a motion to move this to the full body so that the full body can weigh in.

[45:47] Is there a second?

[45:53] Second.

[45:58] Right. There was a motion by council member Brown, second and by council presidency.

[46:04] Yes, one more clarifier and question.

[46:06] I have one more thing.

[46:08] So now that this complementary advisory resolution isn't there anymore, the money would go

[46:14] to the general fund to clarify with that?

[46:19] My intention with that is we could then as a body again decided through a budget resolution

[46:24] and how the general funds would get spent.

[46:28] I heard the feedback from everybody, which last time, which there was clearly

[46:32] concern with adding a second advisory measure, took that into consideration, I thought that

[46:37] actually made sense that would be an expensive measure to put on that would be ultimately

[46:42] non-binding, so it would go into the general fund as a relief you want to add to that.

[46:51] Through the chair, nothing to add on that because the amendments were not read into the floor,

[46:57] I do want to make sure that there's clarity on what's going to be amended and what, if

[47:03] The motion could just include direction from this body for the city attorney's office to incorporate these edits when it goes to the full council.

[47:13] So my understanding is the amendments are to add affordable housing to subsection F1 to delete the headquartered requirement in subsection F2.

[47:24] To modify the exemption in subsection F4 such that that exemption is replaced by city council authority to add other exemptions and then to add catch all language that would amend the

[47:44] The value of consideration for these four closure-related transactions to be based on the

[47:50] fair market value for administrative clarity and off of SS.

[47:56] Finally, given that the scope of this legislation has changed significantly since it was

[48:00] introduced, my recommendation is that the body allow our office to reformat and revise

[48:07] the legislation so that whatever goes to the full council is just clean.

[48:11] We're going to have one day to get a final ballot measure if this goes to 7th.

[48:18] And right now it has two measures on it.

[48:21] We need to have clean legislation on the 7th.

[48:24] Councilmember More on the Chandra.

[48:25] Thank you.

[48:27] I don't feel comfortable.

[48:29] I've been trying to sift through all of the attachments and I apart from the power point

[48:33] I don't see the amendments in writing.

[48:36] And I would prefer to hold this in committee the next week so we can see the amendments

[48:40] in writing and then vote on it in the actual language.

[48:50] To the maker of the motion, are you amenable to that?

[48:54] I'm just a couple of points of clarification.

[48:57] I feel like there's a lot going on, and I was willing to accept with the amendments.

[49:02] But I also hear what Councilmember Ramachandra and his articulating.

[49:06] And so I just want to, I guess, through the chair to the city attorney,

[49:15] do we have enough,

[49:16] do we have enough time to make these need of changes and if holding in committee is what would

[49:22] be recommended?

[49:25] So, through the chair, what I heard there was a proposal to hold this in committee until

[49:31] next rules committee, which would be July 2nd. So, whether this is forwarded today or on

[49:37] July 2nd, it could go to the July 7th Council meeting either way. There is no council meeting

[49:43] before July 7th. So, in either case, it could be forwarded to the July 7th Council meeting.

[49:49] Okay, excellent. And so, through the charity council member, I'm a John Drainiz at your preference.

[49:54] Yes. Okay. So, I'll, I'm in my, my motion.

[49:58] So, no, it's your inspirancy. I don't necessarily.

[50:00] I want to hear this again. I tell Councilmember Wong that I would support it coming out of roles, but most likely I'm not going to support it when it comes to full council. So, if we hear this in this body again, and our people going to support it coming out of roles, if not, we should just put it on the pending list and move forward.

[50:19] I support it. My original motion was to move it to the full body, so I just want to, I think that's clear.

[50:27] So, but I'm also just trying to also honor what my colleague wants as well.

[50:32] Thank you.

[50:32] And through the just to explain, I hear you come so President.

[50:37] I've been looking through each of the attachments, and I don't see the amendments.

[50:43] I know we just chart it verbally, but I'm a visual person.

[50:46] So, I need, if we're putting, this is a complicated issue, and if voters need to be clear about what's going forward,

[50:54] I need to be clear what we're passing.

[50:57] So I cannot, I don't know how I would vote next week,

[51:01] seeing everything clearly laid out and writing rather

[51:03] than the verbal presentation and then the quick PowerPoint.

[51:08] So I don't, I can't say how I would vote next week,

[51:12] but once I see it all in writing,

[51:14] but I'm a visual person and I think voters are as well.

[51:17] If I'm doing my due diligence to really vet proposals,

[51:20] I wouldn't need to see it in writing if that is an option to move it to next week and if not I respect that my colleagues is

[51:29] Which is that's fine. And so Council member Brown accepts

[51:36] Not a limit, but you're going to change your motion to forward this to next week. Soils. Yep

[51:42] All right

[51:44] How second

[51:46] So the motion as it stands is moved by Council member Brown

[51:51] Seconded by Councilmember Jenkins as amended as the amendment stated on the record by the city attorney

[51:57] To be forwarded to continue to continue to be July

[52:01] Second rules and legislation committee is that the amendment

[52:05] Is that okay with that motion on roll council member Brown

[52:10] Council member five

[52:12] No

[52:14] Council member Ramachandron I and share Jenkins I

[52:19] Item number S6 is approved to be continued to the July second rules and legislation committee meeting with three eyes and one no council number five.

[52:30] That now takes us back to the original order of the agenda as the agenda was taken out of order at the beginning.

[52:37] We have already dispensed with item number two.

[52:40] We will now move on to the new scheduling items item number 3.1 is a doctor resolution confirming the mayor's reappointment of Anne Griffith in the net

[52:51] John Glee to the Oakland Housing Authority to be scheduled on July 7th City Council of Genta

[52:59] On consent

[53:01] Item 3.2 is a resolution confirmed up. Excuse me apologies back to item 3.1. There is a rule 24

[53:09] To be read and that is to fill the vacancies of the OHA to ensure a continuous

[53:16] I don't 3.2 is a resolution confirming the mayors reappointment of Helen Bollick to the wildfire prevention commission, and this also has been requested to be scheduled for the July 7 City Council agenda on consent in the rule 24 reasoning for this is to fill the current vacancy for the WPC to ensure continuous quorum.

[53:38] Item 3.3 is receive a presentation from the AC Transit on current agency deficit projections

[53:49] and associated financial outlook, including potential service adjustments and workforce

[53:55] reduction scenarios and impacts.

[53:58] And this item is being requested to be scheduled for the July 7th City Council agenda on

[54:04] consent.

[54:05] there is a rule 24 that needs to be stated on the way.

[54:08] Yes. As an update to that, I want this awful consent so that we can

[54:12] representation, full 24 there. We need to buy perhaps committees so that this is

[54:18] heard by the full council so that the full impacts of AC transit service cuts

[54:23] and potential cuts is heard by the entire community.

[54:27] Thank you, Father, and I just confirm this item is now going to not

[54:30] consent. Correct. Thank you for that. Moving on to item 3.4.

[54:37] A doctor resolution authorizing the city minister to accept and appropriate grant funds.

[54:44] In the amount of 35,559 dollars in 68 cents. We're going to state of California Tech

[54:51] for fully reimbursed the city's cost of implementing the connected scenarios.

[55:00] Seeing your live stream project, which is designated to reduce barriers to participation in senior

[55:06] center programming by bringing real-time classes, wellness activities and community events directly

[55:12] into the homes of older adults, especially those from marginalized and historically underserved

[55:19] communities for the period of July 8, 2026 to June 30, 2027, and this is to be heard on

[55:26] July 7th, 2020 Council agenda on consent, there will be a rule 24 needed to be stated on

[55:33] record for this item.

[55:34] I don't move forward to staff.

[55:35] President.

[55:43] Hello.

[55:44] I'm Jason Wayne with IT Department.

[55:46] The city of Oakland was notified on June 16th that the Oakland Connect Senior Life Stream

[55:54] Project, a program designed to break down longstanding barriers to participation in senior

[56:01] center programming by bringing real-time classes, wellness activities, and community events

[56:09] has been selected for an award.

[56:12] Once grant acceptance paperwork is received from the State of California, the city will

[56:18] have a 14-day window to formally accept the grant.

[56:23] The media action is required to ensure that the city is able to accept this grant and proceed

[56:29] to project implementation without losing the funding opportunity.

[56:36] Thank you for that.

[56:39] Now we'll be on to item 3.5.

[56:41] Dr. Resolution 1, 2, 1, commemoratively rename the telegraph

[56:46] Avenue between 18th Street and William Street as OSA way in honor of the Oakland

[56:51] School for the Arts and authorized the installation of a plaque honoring Oakland

[56:56] School for Arts on the 18th Street and Telegraph Avenue, 19th Street and Telegraph Avenue,

[57:01] and William Street and Telegraph Avenue pursuant to the policy and criteria established

[57:07] by the resolution.

[57:08] And this has been requested to be heard on the July 7th City Council agenda on consent.

[57:13] We will need a rule 24 state on the record for this item.

[57:16] Thank you.

[57:17] The rule 24 needed for this item is that ceremonials go straight to council.

[57:26] So, no need.

[57:26] Thank you so much for that.

[57:27] We are now moving to item 3.6, adopt a resolution authorized in the City Administrator to accept an appropriate grant funds, any amount, up to $750,000 from the Bay Area host committee and to execute a grant agreement for such funds to pay for the Oakland Police Department's security support operations for the 2026 feeful world cup.

[57:54] and this item is being requested to be scheduled for the July 7th city council agenda on

[57:58] consent. I will now read in the rule 24 for this item. OPD received the award letter at the end

[58:05] of May 2026, or the NMA, for the grant to obtain reimbursement the city administrator needs to sign the agreement

[58:13] with the Bay Area Host community committee. OPD needs to submit an honest and serious documents,

[58:19] including the sign agreement by July 17th to receive a full reimbursement.

[58:26] July 7, Council is the only meeting OPD could schedule this item to in order to meet the

[58:31] deadline.

[58:34] Now reading item 3.7 is a result of ordinance calling and giving notice to the

[58:41] holding of a general municipal election on November 3, 2026 for the purpose of submitting to the

[58:47] electors of the city of Oakland proposed ballot measure and requesting consolidation of the city of

[58:54] Oakland's general municipal election with the state while election to be held in the city of

[58:59] Oakland on November 3rd, 2026, and authorizing the city clerk to take all actions necessary to

[59:06] hold the municipal election. And this is being requested to be scheduled on July 7th, city council agenda

[59:12] on non-consent and I will read the rule 24, which is the consolidation ordinance typically

[59:19] go straight to council. Item 3.8 is a resolution confirming the mayor's appointment of a

[59:27] Elizabeth Lake as interim city administrator and to authorize the mayor to execute an employment

[59:32] agreement with Elizabeth Lake on behalf of the city of Oakland and this has been requested

[59:40] be scheduled for July 7th City Council agenda on non-consent. I will read the rule 24. The

[59:47] Mayor's office request that this item be heard directly by the City Council person with

[59:51] a rule 24 due to the time sensitive need to ensure continuity of administration authority before

[59:58] the expiration of the...

[1:00:00] Current City Administrator, administrative leave on July 15, 2026, confirm of the interim City Administrator

[1:00:07] at the July 7, City Council agenda meeting, is necessary to avoid any gaps in executive leadership

[1:00:15] and operational authority.

[1:00:17] Councillor member, I'm a child.

[1:00:19] Thank you.

[1:00:19] I would like to hold this in committee for one more week on the scheduling list.

[1:00:27] any objections, and be held in committee.

[1:00:31] Council number five.

[1:00:34] I would like to hear what the time considerations are for our bond market considerations.

[1:00:41] That was what was presented to me as the need to expedite this item.

[1:00:44] So if that could be articulated, so I would better understand it.

[1:00:48] That would be helpful.

[1:00:53] Thank you, Council President.

[1:00:54] The cuts present to Council Member Fife in order to interact with the bond market.

[1:01:00] We are in the market for a transaction for your temporary revenue and anticipation notes to

[1:01:05] pre-fund our CalPERS liability and provide ongoing cash flow needs with the CalPERS

[1:01:09] line.

[1:01:10] I am looking for gross savings about $5 and a half million dollars over the course of the

[1:01:14] coming fiscal year.

[1:01:15] We need to have an interim or permanent city administrator appointed to sign documents, including

[1:01:21] that your preliminary official statement on the 8th of July your official statement documents

[1:01:28] on the 15th and 16th and you're closing documents roughly around the 28th of July.

[1:01:34] So all those documents will require a interim or permanent administrator confirmed by this

[1:01:39] body in order for us to sign off on those otherwise we cannot access the market in that process.

[1:01:46] So if we move forward with this action today for an interim, what is the

[1:01:51] proposed time? Well, maybe through the chair. I don't know if this is a conversation for the mayor's office.

[1:01:59] What is the proposed timeline for the interim status? Because it's my understanding that we're doing a nationwide search for a permanent.

[1:02:09] I will defer to the mayor's office answer that question.

[1:02:18] Is it afternoon? Good morning. Council, Council, Council more five to your question.

[1:02:22] The intent is to appoint Betsy Lake to interim for a six month window.

[1:02:31] Does that align with the search for permanent? What is that current? Is that happening concurrently?

[1:02:40] Yeah, the mayor is in touch with the HR to explore looking at search firms.

[1:02:46] One of the things that's in the resolution and a little bit of city-trainer rich in way and on this is it is an integral point for six months.

[1:02:55] However, that's not preclude the mayor for appointing someone in that window.

[1:03:00] If someone is identified.

[1:03:03] I understand. Thank you.

[1:03:04] Thank you.

[1:03:05] So I just want to say publicly about these two things should have nothing to do with one another.

[1:03:11] Council's ability to confirm a city of administration should have nothing to do with the

[1:03:16] bond market. Just want to state that publicly and I'm going to agree with Council Member

[1:03:19] Romachandra in holding this until next week if Bradley's timeline is right we have another

[1:03:25] rules before the July 7th Council meeting.

[1:03:34] So through the chair just to note that this is being proposed for July 7th you could hold it

[1:03:40] in committee but then at that point to make it to the July 7th meeting would require

[1:03:45] I'm an urgency finding to place it on the supplemental agenda.

[1:03:49] Council member Fife.

[1:03:51] Any special meetings that might be necessary?

[1:03:56] I hope not.

[1:03:57] Because I will not be there.

[1:03:58] Me neither.

[1:04:01] I do want to state that it sounded like what we heard from our finance director is that these two things are connected.

[1:04:10] And so just to get ultimate clarity from Director Johnson, we need, is it, is it staturely

[1:04:19] required that we have this position in place?

[1:04:23] Is there a legal requirement in order to address the bond needs of the city?

[1:04:31] So my understanding and conversation with our bond council is per the charter in order to

[1:04:36] actually authorize signing these documents which commit the city to debt arrangements, per

[1:04:41] charter and how it interacts with our bond market we need an authorized official in a permanent

[1:04:47] or interim capacity approved by this body or to sign them and that my understanding is and I

[1:04:52] have the city attorney here if he wants to win further is that there aren't there is no other

[1:04:58] It's a short aside from a commitment.

[1:05:00] A firm city administrator who would have the authority to sign those documents, inclusive of myself and the mayor that neither of us could substitute in that space.

[1:05:10] I would like to hear from the city attorney.

[1:05:13] Ryan Richardson City Attorney, so yes, what Director Johnson just said is correct, the closing for these bonds is currently scheduled for the week of July 14th or 13th.

[1:05:29] During that week is when Administrator Johnson's resignation become effective and we would not have a city administrator that was can had been confirmed by the council.

[1:05:40] and in consultation with fine counsel under our charter there would be a lack of clarity

[1:05:45] that we had somebody who was duly authorized to sign these documents.

[1:05:49] We looked at whether other city officials could sign but in the charter the person that's

[1:05:55] designated as the Chief Financial Officer with explicit authority to manage the city's financial

[1:06:01] affairs and with explicit authority to bind the city by contract is the city administrator.

[1:06:06] That is the person that is always signed the bond documents that will need to be signed on the 16th and the 15th and 16th.

[1:06:14] So I need to understand from the rules committee what is the problem?

[1:06:19] Because this sounds very straightforward from what I'm understanding from our city attorney and our finance director that this is absolutely critical.

[1:06:30] So, according to the Constitution of the City of Oakland, what I'm hearing, the council that I'm understanding is that we're in a situation that we need to move this item forward.

[1:06:45] So, to council member five, I still say these two things have nothing to do with one another.

[1:06:56] By charter, we have the ability to confirm a city administrator.

[1:07:00] that's by charter, right?

[1:07:02] We do not have to confirm the individual that is presented to us.

[1:07:08] So we're talking about bonds, you could put another name on there.

[1:07:11] You could put another name for a city administrator on there, right?

[1:07:13] So you don't have to say yes because we are going to the Obama market.

[1:07:18] There are other options.

[1:07:20] Councilmember.

[1:07:20] What are the other options?

[1:07:21] Councilmember Brown.

[1:07:23] Oh, other options?

[1:07:24] There's other people.

[1:07:30] Okay.

[1:07:30] Thank you so much for the dialogue, I kind of had the same question of like what is the purpose of holding it in committee for one week versus versus presenting it to the entire body.

[1:07:43] Because this is a scheduling item.

[1:07:47] More time to do research to see what other applicants are available.

[1:07:56] I'll say I think this needs to move forward.

[1:07:58] I don't understand who we could put in place in a week that would satisfy the requirements

[1:08:06] that are needed.

[1:08:07] I understand there may be concerns with the individual, but that is the individual in

[1:08:13] position at this particular time.

[1:08:15] And from what I'm understanding from the mayor's office, that there will be a process to

[1:08:19] go through to confirm a permanent individual, but at this time, and I swear in Oakland,

[1:08:25] And there's no short of crises or emergencies that push us up against deadlines.

[1:08:30] This feels like one of those times.

[1:08:33] And so I do not want to play with a bond market.

[1:08:37] It should not have to be related, but in this particular moment, what I'm hearing from the

[1:08:43] people who do this work every single day that it is.

[1:08:46] So in the best interest of the city, in this time sensitive moment, I want to move this forward

[1:08:52] to the full city council.

[1:08:53] I have a lot of personal opinions, lots of them, but in what's in the best interest of the city of Oakland,

[1:09:01] in order to sign these documents that I'm hearing from our finance director need to be signed,

[1:09:06] I would like to move this forward.

[1:09:11] Councilmember Brown?

[1:09:15] Awesome.

[1:09:16] Likewise.

[1:09:16] I would like to move that item forward.

[1:09:18] And I remain, I will restate my preference for this item, staying in a committee.

[1:09:28] So it just seems to get a lot.

[1:09:33] Can the mayor break it out?

[1:09:34] No.

[1:09:36] I'm kidding.

[1:09:36] So this item will stay in committee.

[1:09:41] So to clarify item 3.8 will we need a motion to move this item.

[1:09:50] Keep this item committee or do we need to move forward with not scheduling that?

[1:09:54] Any clarity on what we are?

[1:09:56] If there isn't a vote by a majority.

[1:10:00] The committee members present to do anything, then it will, then nothing will happen. So it won't be automatically scheduled to the next rules committee and it won't be afforded, just for clarity.

[1:10:13] Council member, here's what I have to bring it back for another first schedule.

[1:10:16] Let me share this to you. Excuse me. Thank you to the chair. This is what happens when you rush to judgment on Justin.

[1:10:26] We wouldn't even be here.

[1:10:29] We wouldn't even.

[1:10:30] Yes, sir.

[1:10:30] Is this related to schedule?

[1:10:32] I had to say what I had to say.

[1:10:34] Thank you.

[1:10:36] And so for clarity, with their being a tie, this item, there would be no action taken on item 3.8.

[1:10:45] I would like to request through the chair for the director finance to answer what happens if we don't sign these documents.

[1:10:51] And then I would also like to understand from this body what we are looking forward to getting a week from now that would satisfy the concerns that are being listed today.

[1:11:06] Through the Council President of the Council member five, if we do not have a interim or a permanent city administrator in position to sign documents on the three dates of motion related to the POS, the OS and the closing documents for this transaction, we have to terminate the transaction.

[1:11:23] The estimated growth savings from the transaction is about five and a half million dollars in terms of our purse costs

[1:11:30] Which we would not be able to pre fund and we might have other impacts in terms of our cash flow management

[1:11:35] So this is something that we've been counting on in order to

[1:11:39] Realize some savings in an address among going budgetary issue. That's been that's sort of the rationale for this transaction

[1:11:45] Which you guys have approved and there's a final approval of a document coming to you also scheduled separately on the 7th related to your

[1:11:53] official statement release, but if you do not have a person sitting as interim or permanent

[1:12:00] at the times of the signature we can't move forward with the transaction.

[1:12:05] So what does this communicate to our bond committee?

[1:12:10] So to be, to be, and I'm, because I'm sure they're watching.

[1:12:14] Yeah, so I'll be clear about, I've heard the council president about separating what

[1:12:19] the item is financial concern is not about the person, but it is about having a person in the

[1:12:27] interim or permanent space that is confirmed by this body and therefore authorized under the

[1:12:33] charter to sign the documents. It is, I am not candidly super worried about this to address

[1:12:41] your concern about the fact that this body is doing its due diligence or going through its process

[1:12:46] for appointment, it is a legal matter that on those dates, we need to have a signature, a

[1:12:53] signatory that's authorized to sign. That is the context of our city attorney as mentioned

[1:12:58] as well. That is our concern. Your process, the fact that we're having conversation, I don't

[1:13:04] see this particular thing. This would be a normal legislative process that you might go through.

[1:13:08] I don't think it's problem we're talking about. That we're talking about this is where having a

[1:13:12] your discussion and you guys are doing your due diligence in that space.

[1:13:15] Well, let's just get spirited away through the chair to our city attorney, what is the

[1:13:22] what are the options that we have within the next seven days to have an alternative individual in this space?

[1:13:30] What can we do of our charter already outlies what the process is? What are our options?

[1:13:37] So, through the chair,

[1:13:43] the appointment process for a city administrator, including an interim

[1:13:48] one, is that the mayor puts forward their appointment and the council has to confirm it.

[1:13:54] So, in order to, as Director Johnson said, in order to close these bond documents and have a city administrator

[1:14:03] who is duly appointed, where we've dotted all our eyes and crossed all our teas under the charter,

[1:14:08] and to do that on the 15th and 16th of July, the process that I just described, we have had to take in place.

[1:14:15] Somebody would have been put forward to the council by the mayor for appointment, and confirmed by the council for an interim appointment with the start date of July 15th,

[1:14:26] so that that person would be available to sign the bond documents.

[1:14:31] So, what I'm hearing is that the mayor would have to put forward and for this body to move forward.

[1:14:38] So, Council President, I'm asking, is your request that the mayor put forward an alternative proposal for an interim within the next seven days to bring forward to or potentially schedule to the full city council in order to move this forward or that we don't have anyone in place.

[1:14:58] I want to understand what that is.

[1:15:01] I don't think that's the actual choice, right? And so I just want another week to do due diligence, right? So the mayor does.

[1:15:08] Explain to me what due diligence may be talked with the mayor talk with the city administrator talk with city attorney.

[1:15:16] I would like to see do my due diligence and see what other options or are available.

[1:15:26] And so I want to wrap this up. So through the chair to the city attorney,

[1:15:35] we can do that in terms of other options to fit inside of this timeline.

[1:15:44] Through the chair, as Assistant City Attorney McColley explained, if this could be a new item could be scheduled.

[1:15:55] In theory, the mayor's office could put forward a different item for an appointment, next Wednesday, the schedule it, and then have that appear at rules on Thursday.

[1:16:08] If the council does, if this rules committee does want to make a decision next week to forward something to the July 7 council meeting, it would need to be there would need to be an urgency finding because it would be going on the supplemental agenda for that meeting.

[1:16:24] So, technically, those things could all happen.

[1:16:29] Okay.

[1:16:30] I just don't think that's good, but if that is the will of the body.

[1:16:37] Every week we come to rules and there's some type of rush on why we have to make a decision.

[1:16:44] So, this is a power that's vested in us by a deep charter.

[1:16:47] And it's something that we have to take seriously.

[1:16:50] This person is going to be running the city for maybe the next six months, right?

[1:16:56] So I'm just asking for another week and

[1:16:59] let's see if we will move forward, but I just want to do my due diligence.

[1:17:04] I'll be having my constituents city

[1:17:11] attorney, city administrator.

[1:17:16] Thank you for the discussions.

[1:17:18] So item 3.8 will have no action taken at this time.

[1:17:21] that now takes us to item 3.9 receiving information report from the City Attorney's Office regarding the cases the City Attorney's Office has brought pursuant to the Oakland Municipal Code chapter 1.0 and this item is being requested to be scheduled for the July 9 rules and legislation committee agenda.

[1:17:44] Item 3.10 is a resolution to accept and appropriate grant funds from the Oakland Fund in

[1:17:52] amount not to exceed $200, $2,500, or a comprehensive independent audit of the City of

[1:18:00] Oakland's technology systems. This item is viewing requests to be scheduled for July 14, Finance

[1:18:05] and Management Committee agenda. Item 3, 11 is receiving information report on the one year update

[1:18:14] to the fiscal year 2630 Oakland Road Map to fiscal health,

[1:18:20] a plan to address mid and long-term city financial challenges.

[1:18:24] This item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th,

[1:18:27] finance and management committee agenda.

[1:18:32] Item 3, item 312, receive an information report

[1:18:37] from the city administrator on the 2025 through 28 city-wise

[1:18:44] strategic plan one year update. This item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th

[1:18:48] Finance and Management Committee agenda. Item 313 is a resolution authorizing this council

[1:18:53] president to submit a response on behalf of the city council to the 2025-2026 Alameda

[1:19:01] County civil grand jury report. And this item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th

[1:19:06] Public Works and Transportation Committee agenda. Item 314 is a resolution authorized

[1:19:13] in the City Administrator to finalize and execute a contract purchasing agreement with the

[1:19:19] Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Clipper and Support of the West Oakland Universal

[1:19:24] Basic Mobility Pilot Project Financial incentives in the form of 1,000 prepaid Clipper

[1:19:31] cars at a total cost of $400,000 providing the necessary spending authority for the agreement

[1:19:38] waving small small local business participation ship requirements and waving advertising

[1:19:45] bidding in request for qualification proposal, competitive selection requirements.

[1:19:51] This item is being requested to be scheduled on the July 14th, 2026 Public Works and Transportation

[1:19:56] Committee agenda. Item 315 is received.

[1:20:00] The 2020-25 safe Oakland Streets Annual Information Report from the Department of Transportation in coordination with the Oakland Police Department, the Department of Race and Equity, and the City Administrators Office, to be heard on the July 14th, 2020-6 Public Works and Transportation Committee, agenda.

[1:20:19] Item 316 is a doctor resolution authorized in the city administrator to accept an appropriated grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in the amounts of $750,000 to use grant funding from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for the installation of 15 to port electric vehicle charging stations to be located at the city maintenance service center.

[1:20:45] 71-01-H water drive, Oakland, and two adopt appropriate

[1:20:50] sequel findings, and this is being requested to be scheduled for July

[1:20:53] 14th, Public Works, and Transportation Committee, Agenda.

[1:20:58] Item 317 is adopt the following piece as a

[1:21:02] legislation. One, a resolution authorizing the forgiveness of a

[1:21:06] city loan to Athena MT LLC of the up to $2 million in outstanding

[1:21:14] principal plus all accrued and unpaid interest in fees and a city revolving line of credit

[1:21:21] to Savash Ashur with a final outstanding balance of 1,500, 1,500,500,000 dollars plus accrued

[1:21:32] and unpaid interest in fees for the foothills seminary point retail project each contingent upon.

[1:21:39] the sale of the transfer of the project to a qualified purchaser and making a appropriate

[1:21:46] sequel findings and two in ordinance authorizing the forgiveness of outstanding and future

[1:21:51] rent balances in the amount of up to $40,000 for seminary point LLC, pursuant to a ground

[1:21:59] lease with the city contingent on the sale or transfer of the property to a qualified purchaser

[1:22:05] and making a sequel findings this item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th,

[1:22:10] community and economic development committee agenda. Item 318 is received an information report

[1:22:15] on the inventory of the city owned properties and analyzed for the use as in-rooms shelter,

[1:22:23] safe parking and vehicle storage pursuant to the encampment embankment policy. This is being requested

[1:22:29] be scheduled for the July 14th, Life Enrichment Committee Agenda.

[1:22:37] Item 319, the HUD Continuum of Care Programs, I believe staff is here to read a title

[1:22:43] change.

[1:22:44] Thank you, Chrissy Love Human Services Department.

[1:22:48] Resolution 1, accepting appropriating and authorizing agreements for the receipt of Continuum

[1:22:54] of Care, COC, supportive housing program renewal funds from the U.S. Department of

[1:23:01] housing and urban development HUD, in an amount not to exceed 5,650,302, and to awarding

[1:23:12] and or amending the grant agreements to the nonprofit agencies for the terms, and in

[1:23:18] the amounts identified in table 1 using COC funds and other state and local funds.

[1:23:24] 3, authorizing the city administrator to identify back up funding from state and local sources

[1:23:32] that have been appropriated for homelessness programs and to reallocate or reallocate

[1:23:38] such funds to the programs identified in table 1 to continue operation through the grant

[1:23:44] terms in the event COC funding is delayed and 4, accepting and appropriating additional COC funds

[1:23:53] that become available for the same purposes within both FY 2627 and FY 2728 and authorizing

[1:24:03] the City Administrator to amend the agreements to adjust the grant terms and amount

[1:24:08] within the limits of the awards.

[1:24:12] Thank you so much in this item is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th,

[1:24:16] Library and Richmond Committee agenda.

[1:24:19] Thank you so much.

[1:24:20] And we've been to item 320,

[1:24:22] a doctor resolution authorized in the city

[1:24:24] administrator to enter into a professional services agreement

[1:24:27] with Bright Research Group,

[1:24:29] ink for training and capacity building services

[1:24:32] for the Department of Honours Prevention.

[1:24:34] From September 1st,

[1:24:36] 2026 through December 31st,

[1:24:38] 2028 for a total contract amount,

[1:24:41] not to exceed $513,000.

[1:24:43] to be scheduled for July 14th public safety committee agenda.

[1:24:48] Item 3.21 is a resolution authorizing the city administrator

[1:24:52] to apply for accept and appropriate Edward Bern Memorial Justice Assistance Grant.

[1:25:00] Funds up to $324,324,000 for the fiscal year 2025, 2025 grant award period of October 1st, 2025 through September 30,

[1:25:12] 2028 to support department-wide training, equipment, and technology, and operational enhancements.

[1:25:19] To be scheduled for the July 14 public safety committee agenda item 3.22 is a resolution

[1:25:26] and authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a professional services agreement with

[1:25:33] Rotocraft Support Inc. to provide helicopter maintenance services to the Oakland Police Department

[1:25:39] for a period of July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2028 for a contract total of $1,700,000 with an

[1:25:48] option to extend the contract for two additional years to June 30th, 2030 for a total contract

[1:25:55] to exceed $300,000 and waiving the local small business enterprise program requirements and this

[1:26:03] is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th, public safety committee agenda.

[1:26:08] I can't remember his name.

[1:26:09] Yes, I have a through the chair. I have a comment about 318. Why are we bringing it

[1:26:15] July 14th talking about properties that's owned by the city when that's the date that the

[1:26:25] her recommendation was to hold it back for three months when it was implemented or when

[1:26:30] it was approved on four or fourteen, which gave us enough time to look at things, right?

[1:26:36] And I was a blessed yesterday to go to attend the Commission of Homelessness with Amari and

[1:26:45] Mr. Cupid on the 24th which was yesterday. And I think this should go on the same day. I think

[1:26:52] that three 18 should go to full council to let them know what's going on

[1:26:56] on 7, 7, 7, 26, along with bringing this power point, this powerful

[1:27:05] power point that council member Brown, council member five, council member

[1:27:10] Janani, you guys need to see this power point. What was done before is

[1:27:14] implemented, because it's going to be implemented on the 14th. And now we're

[1:27:18] talking about properties.

[1:27:20] We talked about properties that needed to be brought up prior within those three months.

[1:27:24] So we can address these RVs that's going to be removed.

[1:27:28] Councilmember Janani, President Jenkins, Councilmember Brown.

[1:27:34] We're talking about this bringing this on the 14th of the day that the EAP, I was an

[1:27:38] author of the EAP.

[1:27:40] That is going to be brought on the 14th.

[1:27:43] Let's bring it to full council.

[1:27:44] Council knows what they can do and we can move this and find out these properties that need to be addressed when these RVs

[1:27:50] This will be removed because if you look at this 23

[1:27:54] Encapments was closed in council member five district

[1:28:01] You need to see this stuff council member five you need to see this needs to come to full council

[1:28:07] On as an emergency before because let me share this with you president if we bring this to

[1:28:14] the

[1:28:17] 21st, that would be seven days after the

[1:28:21] Academy of Maintenance Policy has passed.

[1:28:23] It's being implemented, right?

[1:28:25] And then if we wait from the 14th win,

[1:28:29] it's being implemented to the next council meeting,

[1:28:32] which is on 9th, 15th, that's 63 days before the,

[1:28:38] while it's being implemented, this needs to be addressed.

[1:28:42] And that need to be put on the 7th, the council president.

[1:28:45] We got to look at this. We're about to start closing down encampments. People are going to be on

[1:28:50] house. We ain't going to have no place to put them. We're talking about it on the 14th. The day

[1:28:53] it is going to be done. Okay. How's the city run? So rain. So council member Houston. Yes. I think you are saying

[1:29:00] two things. There's a presentation that you want to go to the next council meeting. Is that correct?

[1:29:06] 7, 7, 27. Okay. And then what you're also advocating for is the city owned properties. You're advocating

[1:29:13] for it to bypass committee and go straight to council.

[1:29:16] On seven seven so we understand what's happening because if you look here on three 18

[1:29:21] it says that on July 14th life enrichment, that's the data they gonna start implementing

[1:29:27] it.

[1:29:27] Council member five?

[1:29:29] Okay.

[1:29:30] So I'm gonna go to council member Brown, but council member five, you're gonna have to weigh in

[1:29:34] as the chair of LEC, are you okay with three 18 going straight to full council as opposed

[1:29:39] to going to committee.

[1:29:41] So council member Brown then five.

[1:29:43] Excellent. All I was going to say is that in alignment with the policy in the 90 days,

[1:29:49] I think the department was just kind of following what the policy outlined because we gave that

[1:29:55] timeline. But I'm if the chair of LEC is amenable.

[1:30:00] I'm okay with it going to full council.

[1:30:05] Council member 5.

[1:30:09] This is not my item.

[1:30:11] I did not schedule this. This is a city administrators item to identify what the inventory is of vacant parcels.

[1:30:22] It will have absolutely no bearing on what we do in terms of housing people, moving RVs, whatever.

[1:30:32] We've done this inventory in the past.

[1:30:34] I have two city-owned parcels in District 3, neither of which are large enough to do anything around homelessness.

[1:30:42] So I don't see this item as being impactful at all.

[1:30:45] And I've seen the PowerPoint presentation that you're talking about.

[1:30:49] This will offer, as most of what we do here, no real solutions to the crisis that my district is being impacted by.

[1:30:57] So, if we're talking about moving things off my agenda for a day that's already impacted,

[1:31:05] I have no problem with that, and at the same time, I do want to follow the protocols

[1:31:09] of going through committee before items are heard, but this is an informational report.

[1:31:14] They're going to just tell us what the vacant parcels are, which can be read in an info packet.

[1:31:20] Again, I don't see how this presentation is going to do anything substantial to move the needle

[1:31:26] on homelessness, but that is my perspective.

[1:31:28] Through the chair.

[1:31:30] Baked a different council member for five.

[1:31:31] But let me share with you why.

[1:31:33] In District 71173rd Avenue was a site that was shut down by the city

[1:31:39] because they ran out of funds.

[1:31:42] I have a relationship from the State County to the city.

[1:31:46] It's already been put in place that if that city property was up and ready to be

[1:31:54] take in individuals from their RVs, the county, the county would fund the person, the provider.

[1:32:05] So this could have been done, but in just in left and in it fell all apart, right.

[1:32:10] But let me share what happened with that council member fight, that same lot, 711.

[1:32:15] It's not in my district, it's in the president's district. We work together like two peas in a pot.

[1:32:20] So let me share this with you.

[1:32:21] The city put $500,000 in to that property when it was closed down council members in

[1:32:29] 1990.

[1:32:30] Guess what happened?

[1:32:31] No security.

[1:32:32] No nothing, right?

[1:32:33] It was damaged, it was vandalized, telephone poles were cut down, all the wires was pulled

[1:32:40] out.

[1:32:41] So, that $500,500,000, college council president is gone and wasted.

[1:32:48] And after we took that walk, and I was with Cupid Justin, I'm not sure if you came, Councilman President, but it's more damage now.

[1:32:58] So the city already spent $500,000.

[1:33:01] Not he got to spend another $300,000.

[1:33:03] So what I'm speaking is I beg to differ because let me tell you why.

[1:33:07] If it would have been adjusted and brought together, monitoring the lot that the city owns in that three months,

[1:33:15] we would add individuals on that property council member fight. So what I'm saying is is that

[1:33:21] somehow we got to come together and be organized because I didn't agree with what you did

[1:33:28] council member fight with the three months, but after I looked at it and I analyzed it, I appreciate

[1:33:34] that because it gave the city enough time to be able to make things happen, which it did.

[1:33:42] And your property and your district right there council president is a prime example why it didn't happen, right?

[1:33:51] And it's not your fault, it's not you.

[1:33:54] I'm not saying you.

[1:33:55] I'm saying that this county right now said that they would provide the provider if it was up

[1:34:01] and running.

[1:34:01] If we were to have it monitored, we would have people from your district council member

[1:34:06] from all across your district on that is 47 locate so 47 spaces in there that could be utilized.

[1:34:15] So what I'm saying is this, let me say this to you. I've got it now, President.

[1:34:21] Okay, okay. Can we just move on? Again, I said my schedule for life and rich is impacted.

[1:34:28] And I'm not, I'm not necessarily concerned with an item being moved off my agenda.

[1:34:38] In fact, it frees up more time and space for me to manage my agenda.

[1:34:42] But I have to ask if the materials are available, and because I assume that whatever would

[1:34:49] be presented for an info report would need to be ready for the seventh.

[1:34:54] So that is a question because we can't just say move something and make it happen the city moves slowly and

[1:35:00] I want to say that the city staff who do the cleanings and closures asked for a hundred and twenty days, not 90 days. This was not something that I just came up with. I was asked by our homelessness team to extend the time so they could put in standard operating procedures. This was not my case.

[1:35:22] Yeah, they wanted to create SOP so that the fire department, the police department, the homelessness team would all be on the same page about how to operationalize the EAP.

[1:35:32] So I want to be absolutely clear, this came from staff as a request.

[1:35:37] Not sure why they didn't say that to you, but that's what they asked me for because my district is the most impacted.

[1:35:43] And this is an info report where the information on the vacant properties are available and have been available for years.

[1:35:51] If y'all want me to move homeless interventions to other parts of the city outside of District 3,

[1:35:57] happy to do that.

[1:35:59] Right now, in my district, we don't have space.

[1:36:02] That is city owned and I want to make that absolutely clear.

[1:36:05] Anything that we're doing for real solutions, I want to move that forward and that's not what

[1:36:11] this is.

[1:36:12] Okay, so council member, we got to move forward.

[1:36:14] So 318 will do a world 24 as we're going to move this to full council with the EAP set

[1:36:23] to take place.

[1:36:25] It's important that we hear this report in here where there are spaces to put people that

[1:36:31] might be displaced.

[1:36:32] Thank you council member Houston for the other item that you're requesting you need to come

[1:36:36] back to for item 4 and request that to come back.

[1:36:40] Item 4.

[1:36:41] Trudity of be here.

[1:36:43] Okay.

[1:36:43] I'll go through the chair, we're moving from the city administrator's office.

[1:36:48] I'm not sure if staff is going to be prepared to finalize that report for tonight's

[1:36:54] print.

[1:36:55] So I need it.

[1:36:56] I'm waiting to hear back from staff if they can present and also have the report ready.

[1:37:00] Unless you want this to be...

[1:37:01] Let's leave it as is.

[1:37:03] If they are ready to present, we're a little 28.

[1:37:11] To Councilwoman Houston.

[1:37:12] So we're going to leave it as is until we find out if the department is ready

[1:37:20] So noted item 318 will be as is we're going back to item 3.23 with the next item in order and that is a resolution except in the Department of Violence Prevention 2026 apricot annual report and approving the amended apricot use policy as approved by the privacy advisory commission on the June 4th 2026 and this is requesting be scheduled for July 14th public safety committee.

[1:37:46] agenda. Item 3.24 is a resolution accepting the 2025 Annual Reports for the following city

[1:37:56] of Oakland Police Department Surveillance Technology, automated license plate readers, crime

[1:38:01] lab, biometrics DNA, analysis technology, forward-looking infrared, live streaming transmitter,

[1:38:10] on manned aerial systems, forensic logic, cop-like crime tracer, cop-links,

[1:38:20] excuse me, crime tracer, pin register, and so you bright and making

[1:38:26] department regarding whether the city should continue to use each of these

[1:38:31] technologies, and this is being requested to be scheduled for July 14, Public

[1:38:34] Safety Committee Agenda. Item 3.25 is a resolution authorized in the

[1:38:40] the Administrator or Designee to enter into an operational area agreement with Alameda County

[1:38:47] to participate in an intermediate level of the state emergency services organization that will

[1:38:56] comply with the state of California standardized emergency management systems for the period

[1:39:01] from ratification through December 31st, 2035. This item is being requested to be scheduled for

[1:39:08] July 14th Public Safety Committee agenda.

[1:39:12] Item 3.26 is a resolution authorized in reimbursement from the City, from the Council

[1:39:19] contingency fund for the Council Member Roeweena Brown, in Council Member Janani,

[1:39:24] Ramachandra's travel costs to Anaheim, California for attendance of the 2026, California

[1:39:31] League of Cities, Annual Conference, and Expo from September 23rd through 25th.

[1:39:37] 2026 to be heard on the July 21st, 2026 City Council agenda, and the rule 24 is that the reimbursement items traditionally go directly to the full council.

[1:39:54] Item 3.27 is a resolution.

[1:40:00] This support of assembly bill 1588 vehicles, side show enhancement. This item is being requested to be scheduled for July 21st, city council agenda on consent. And we will need a rule 24 from staff on this item.

[1:40:13] It's Council Member Longstaff here.

[1:40:24] Well, I'll go to the next week's rules.

[1:40:27] 318.

[1:40:29] I've been informed from the city of administration that this can,

[1:40:32] the report is pretty much done, and it can go straight to full council on the 7th.

[1:40:39] So noted, item 318, the report on inventory of citywide properties will be scheduled

[1:40:44] to the July 7th city council on consent or non-consent.

[1:40:52] So, noted, going back to a for a clear hearing item 3.27 council number ones item resolution is the port of AB 1588, we will continue this to next rules are we yes.

[1:41:09] Item 3.28 receive an information report on the Oakland storm drainage master plan finding and the

[1:41:17] assuring opportunity to explore storm drain fee, validing to help build a resilient storm drainage

[1:41:25] system drainage to reduce flooding, reverse impacts of deferred storm drainage maintenance and achieve

[1:41:32] clean waterways. This item is being requested to be scheduled for the September 22nd,

[1:41:37] public works and transportation committee agendas.

[1:41:40] This now takes us to the recommendations from the committees,

[1:41:45] June 23rd, Finance and Management Committee agenda.

[1:41:50] The first item 3.29, I will read in the short titles only,

[1:41:55] and this is in Finn Solutions LLC Professional Services contract.

[1:42:00] The committee approved the recommendations of staff to

[1:42:03] to afford this item to the July 7th City Council of Gendom,

[1:42:07] on consent.

[1:42:09] Item 3.30 from Finance on June 23rd,

[1:42:13] the Oakland Peavers Investment Portfolio

[1:42:15] as of March 31st, 2026.

[1:42:18] The committee received and filed this item in committee.

[1:42:21] Item 3.31 amendments to the ordinance number one to 187.

[1:42:26] CMS, the salary ordinance for various classification

[1:42:29] and exemptions, the committee approved the recommendations

[1:42:31] of staff to afford this item to the July 7th City Council agenda on consent.

[1:42:38] And that consists of both pieces of legislation of item 3.31 July 7th on consent.

[1:42:45] Excuse me, all three pieces of legislation, wait, five pieces of legislation for that item.

[1:42:52] Item 3.32, also from the Finance and Management Committee, amendment to the ordinance number

[1:42:58] 1, 2, 1, 8, 7, salary, ordinance for council member city attorney and city auditor, the committee approved the recommendations of staff, and for the item to the July 7 city council agenda on consent, this now takes us to recommendations from the June 23rd public works and transportation committee, starting with item 3.33, which consists of two pieces of legislation is contracts with the United Rotary Brush Corp and Owen's equipment sales, the committee approved the

[1:43:28] recommendations of staff and to for both items to the July 7th City Council agenda on consent.

[1:43:35] Item 3.34, the contract asphalt and concrete disposal service for in-house paving operations.

[1:43:45] The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the July 7th City Council agenda on consent.

[1:43:52] Item 3.35 is the construction contractor work for Highway Safety Improvement Program,

[1:43:59] Cycle 10, 14th Street Safety Project between Mandela Parkway and Brush Street.

[1:44:06] The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to July 7, City Council

[1:44:10] on Consent.

[1:44:12] Item 3.36, the Broadway Street Scrapes Street Skate Improvement Construction Contract Award.

[1:44:19] The committee approved to withdraw and reschedule this item to the July 14th public works

[1:44:26] in transportation committee and agenda.

[1:44:29] That now takes you to the recommendation from the July 23rd Community and Economic Development

[1:44:34] Committee agenda.

[1:44:39] The item 3.37 is the Classical School of Negotiating and Agreement.

[1:44:43] The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the July 7th City

[1:44:47] Council agenda on consent,

[1:44:51] item 3.38, the bid annual reports in approval of assessments

[1:44:57] payment, the committee approved the recommendation.

[1:45:30] The 319 Chester Street, the committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the July 7 City Council agenda on consent.

[1:45:38] We now move to the recommendations from the June 23rd Life Enrichment Committee.

[1:45:42] Item 3.41 is the OFC Y-UR round program service term for 2026 through 2028.

[1:45:51] The committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the July 7 City Council agenda on consent.

[1:45:58] This now takes us to the recommendations from June 23rd, public safety committee, starting with item 3.42 is a temporarily restricted street closure from International Boulevard, the committee approved the recommendations of staff and afforded the item to the July 7th City Council agenda as a public hearing.

[1:46:21] Item 3.43, the side show penalty ordinance.

[1:46:27] The committee approved to withdraw and reschedule this item to the public safety committee agenda pending list under no date specific.

[1:46:38] Item 3.44 ratifying the city of Oakland's sanctuary city policy.

[1:46:45] The committee approved as amended the recommendations of staff and to for this items to July 7th city council agenda on consent with the following amendments on pages six and seven of the legislation under.

[1:46:57] Civil and Immigrant Detainers in Notification Request, striking from Section 1, exempt

[1:47:05] as provided in Subsection 2, striking all of Section 2, and OPD employee may continue to

[1:47:14] deter the Tain and Individual in Response 2, A Civil Immigration Detainer for up to 48 hours

[1:47:21] after the individual becomes eligible for release.

[1:47:24] if the continued detention is consistent with the state and federal law.

[1:47:29] And the individual meets both of the following criteria,

[1:47:32] striking from section three,

[1:47:34] exempt as provided in subsection four,

[1:47:37] striking all of section four,

[1:47:40] and OPD employee may respond to the federal immigration

[1:47:43] officer's notification request if such response

[1:47:46] is consistent with the state and federal law,

[1:47:49] and if the individual meets both of the following criteria,

[1:47:51] The individual either has been convicted of a violent felony in seven years in medley prior to the date of the notification request or two has been convicted of a serious felony in the five years in medley prior to the date of the notification request or three has been convicted of three felonies identified in the penal code sections or

[1:48:17] government code sections, or the other than domestic violence arising out of three

[1:48:24] separate incidents in the five years immediate prior to the date of the notification

[1:48:29] request. And a magistrate has determined that there is a probable cause to believe that

[1:48:37] the individual is guilty of the felony identified in the penal code section, or government

[1:48:42] co-sections or other than domestic violence and has order the individual to answer the same

[1:48:48] pursuant to the penal co-sections. And determining whether the response to the notification

[1:48:55] request has permitted by this subsection D and OPD employee. She'll consider evidence of the

[1:49:04] individuals rehabilitation and evaluate whether the individual poses a public safety risk.

[1:49:09] evidence of rehabilitation or other mitigation factors to consider include, but is not limited

[1:49:16] to the individual's ties to the community, whether the individual has been a victim of

[1:49:20] any crime, the individual contribution to the community and the individual's participation

[1:49:25] in social services or rehabilitation program.

[1:49:30] And again, this item was requested to go to July 7th, City Council agenda on consent with the

[1:49:38] And the last item from public safety on June 23rd is item 3.44, 45, and it's a report of

[1:49:47] a recruitment process for a chief of police in this item was received and found in committee.

[1:49:53] And that concludes your new schedule.

[1:49:55] Thank you for all that reading.

[1:49:57] That was a lot.

[1:49:59] All right.

[1:50:02] Thank you, and we will now come up with both. We have two people who signed up for Item 3 at this time. I have Blair Beekman and Rajni Mandal. I will take those who are here in person first. Good morning, Rajni, or afternoon. Good afternoon, Rajni Mandal District 4. I have a few comments and upcoming agenda items that share a common theme. Implementation and long-term investment.

[1:50:28] Percent appreciate a status update on the flock community camera program last December Council

[1:50:33] approved continuing the flock contract and expanding it to support the community camera program.

[1:50:38] Yet six months later it appears the new contract still has not been executed.

[1:50:42] In the meantime, pack recently completed its review of the existing flock program and the annual

[1:50:47] report showed the technology as being used responsibly, with documented audits, mandatory training,

[1:50:53] strength and data restructuring restrictions and no reported policy violations.

[1:50:58] The updated policy also expands authorized investigations to include illegal dumping.

[1:51:04] So my question is simple, where does the community camera programs stand today?

[1:51:08] And if Council approved this expansion six months ago, what is the implementation timeline

[1:51:12] and where is the bottleneck?

[1:51:14] Public safety technology is only effective if projects move from approval to execution and

[1:51:19] a timely manner.

[1:51:20] Second, I support bringing forward the helicopter maintenance contract because OPD has to maintain

[1:51:25] the aircraft it has today, but that helicopter, I think, is more than 20 years old and we

[1:51:30] should be asking what comes next. Is there a long-term replacement strategy, are there

[1:51:34] newer or more cost-effective options such as fixed-wing aircraft that could provide similar

[1:51:38] capabilities at a lower life cycle cost? More and broadly, this isn't just about the helicopter,

[1:51:44] Oakland has aging police vehicles, fire apparatus, public works equipment, and technology systems

[1:51:49] across city government. I also support the Mayor's proposal for an independent technology

[1:51:54] audit, but I hope it leads to a city-wide technology modernization plan and not just simply

[1:51:59] another report. All the measure E did not pass. These infrastructure needs haven't disappeared,

[1:52:05] and I hope the city begins discussing a comprehensive capital replacement strategy,

[1:52:10] and explores whether existing capital funding sources, including unused bond proceeds,

[1:52:16] were legally permissible, can be used to modernize fleet and technology across city departments.

[1:52:22] These aren't glamorous investments, but they are essential to delivering reliable public services.

[1:52:27] Thank you. Thank you for your comments. We'll now take the next speaker.

[1:52:32] Our Zoom speaker, I have Blair Beekman, you may unmute yourself and begin your comments.

[1:52:39] Hi Blair Beekman, good afternoon. I wanted to speak on three quest items,

[1:52:46] 341, 3.4, 1, the 3.45, 3.24 and 3.37.

[1:52:53] Yeah, okay.

[1:52:54] So what's 246?

[1:52:56] Yeah, thank you.

[1:52:58] About to begin with item 3.4 for this open city sanctuary plan.

[1:53:03] Thank you that you proved it a couple of days ago.

[1:53:07] Thank you to Councillor Persons Houston, who he's got a lot to weigh and decided to go for our

[1:53:13] deals and work out practicality from our ideals. Good luck in that effort. It's from the

[1:53:20] sanctuary city policies. There's a lot of comment. What are we going to do about the future of

[1:53:24] flocks? Thank you a lot for the previous public comment. Who I think really spoke nicely,

[1:53:30] where is the program at at this time? Flocks has the ability to add a whole bunch of new

[1:53:36] technology without oversight without counsel with the oversight I think that's a question

[1:53:43] can we work on that and can we really start working on you know we're supposed to be working

[1:53:48] for the future of a new way of the urbanization clock in the next 18 months to start having

[1:53:54] those conversations now in public I think would help with morale I think it would be positive

[1:54:00] business and not fear and I think we should start doing that stuff now to get a community

[1:54:05] involvement in what is the future we're building. We're building a future without war

[1:54:10] basically. I think we should start doing those things now. So, good luck on those efforts. I also

[1:54:16] wanted to address Costco issue as much as we can't live there. It's been deemed way, but we

[1:54:25] can place food and products there and that's safe.

[1:54:29] I think that needs to be questioned.

[1:54:31] Good luck in having the conversation about it.

[1:54:33] Thank you, that counts the person five said,

[1:54:35] just as long as we can have a community conversation,

[1:54:37] that's what's key and thank you for her words on that.

[1:54:40] So important.

[1:54:42] Item 3.5, 3.45 is the recruitment process

[1:54:47] for Chief of Police.

[1:54:49] You guys keep complaining that we keep going through police

[1:54:53] It's because our public has a deep concern and our public has a great review system.

[1:55:00] To make sure our process is in place that we have best practices going on. And administrations angry about that. And you guys are creating new legal systems to take that away from the public. When we have a very, we have a very good system of checks and balances in place that administration needs to respect more. And understand that dynamic and relationship and learn how to work with that better.

[1:55:24] We go back and forth, I hope we come to a conclusion and the importance of the participation

[1:55:29] and that's how we hire a new police chief who will stay by believing in the public.

[1:55:34] A certain important part of the public.

[1:55:36] Thank you.

[1:55:38] Thank you for your comments that concludes our speakers for item three.

[1:55:44] Thank you.

[1:55:44] I can't remember five.

[1:55:47] I'm only speaking to this because I heard a woohoo from the gallery over there about

[1:55:52] to fix wing aircraft in 2023, Councilmember Kaplan at the time, and I brought forward an info report requesting information on the costing for that item, it is something I plan on bringing back the public safety committee, so I just wanted to state that for the record.

[1:56:07] Thank you, Councilmember Five.

[1:56:09] All right.

[1:56:11] 3.2.

[1:56:12] Those World 24 Red N 3.3.

[1:56:14] Those World 24 Red N 3.4.

[1:56:16] Those World 24 Red N 3.5.

[1:56:18] World 24 right there. 3.8, we'll go to next week's rules. No action. 3.8, no action. 3.8, no action. 3.27, we'll go to

[1:56:32] next week's rules. 3.18, we'll go to July 7th, 9th and 9th and 10th Council meeting with the World 24

[1:56:39] and 3.19 title change.

[1:56:44] Oh, I have a title motion.

[1:56:46] Some of the second.

[1:56:54] And that was a motion by council member,

[1:56:57] Rama Chandra, and second by council member Brown,

[1:57:01] to approve item three as amended on roll,

[1:57:05] council member Brown, council member five,

[1:57:08] council member Rama Chandra, chair Jenkins.

[1:57:11] Item number three is approved as amended

[1:57:14] what four eyes. That now takes us to item four, which is our last item since we did take this

[1:57:22] agenda out of order. Item four is review of the draft minutes, excuse me, of the draft agenda

[1:57:29] pending list in the City Council committee meetings. In your package, you have your committee

[1:57:35] the July Second Rules Committee, your pending list, and July Straft, July 7, Council, and

[1:57:43] Rules Committee.

[1:57:45] Anything from administration?

[1:57:47] No changes from the administration.

[1:57:50] Through the chair to the body, just regarding the July Second Rules and Legislation Committee,

[1:57:54] just wanted to note because this body earlier in this meeting continued item S6 to that agenda.

[1:58:00] That's technically going to appear on the what's the Supplemental Agenda for Rules

[1:58:05] So when you hear the item at rules that will require an urgency finding just stating that on the record so the clerk can make that notation on the agenda.

[1:58:13] Thank you.

[1:58:14] District 7.

[1:58:19] Good afternoon.

[1:58:20] The chair of Trinity Hall from the Office of Council Member Ken Houston.

[1:58:24] We are requesting to place the e-map presentation that was presented during the commission on homelessness on 624-2026 on the City Council meeting on 727-26.

[1:58:36] we're going to use a rule 24. The EAP did pass on 414-2026 and its implementation is set to

[1:58:45] be 714-2026. We're sticking to bypass committee so that the full council can hear the presentation.

[1:58:51] And if this presentation is heard any time after, it will be 7 days after the EAP implementation.

[1:58:59] And then we also run the risk of running into council recess and run the risk of not having a council meeting until

[1:59:05] 1915-2026. Thank you. Our world 28. Thank you.

[1:59:13] That's going to public speakers.

[1:59:16] Sorry apologies. We don't have any public speakers for this item. We just have one for open

[1:59:20] forum, which is next.

[1:59:24] So we need a motion. Second, that was a motion by council member

[1:59:30] Romachandrin, a policy second by council member Brown, to approve of item four as is on roll.

[1:59:37] Council Member Brown.

[1:59:39] Council Member Phi.

[1:59:40] Council Member Rama Chandra.

[1:59:42] Chair Jenkins.

[1:59:43] Item number four is approved as is with four eyes.

[1:59:48] That now takes us to open form.

[1:59:50] I have one speaker on this, which is Ms.

[1:59:52] Rajni Mandal.

[1:59:53] Good afternoon.

[1:59:54] Rajni Mandal District 4.

[1:59:55] I'd just like to make a brief comment about public participation.

[1:59:59] At the last part.

[2:00:00] Public safety committee meeting, several speakers, were heckled and intimidated while giving public comment.

[2:00:05] And yesterday, there was also shooting just a couple blocks from City Hall and broad daylight.

[2:00:09] Many Oakland residents are not activists or members of organized groups. They have jobs, families, other responsibilities.

[2:00:15] And they're less likely to come to City Hall if they don't feel welcome or don't feel safe.

[2:00:20] And that's why Hope Council continues to place real value on e-mails and e-commence.

[2:00:24] The recent election show that Oakland has an engaged electorate, but not everyone can attend meetings in person, but their voices are just as important and deserve to be heard.

[2:00:34] Thank you.

[2:00:36] Thank you.

[2:00:37] That concludes our call before.

[2:00:39] Thank you.

*Rules & Legislation Committee on 2026-06-25 10:30 AM

Agenda

Transcript