Good.

Sorry.

Good morning.

Good morning, everyone in chambers.

Good morning, and welcome to the rules and legislation committee meeting on this Thursday, May twenty first.

The time is now ten thirty-eight, and this meeting shall come to order.

I'd like to give instructions on how to submit a speaker card.

If you are here with us in chambers and would like to submit a speaker card on items on this agenda, we ask you to please fill out a speaker card on the table in front of you and hand it to the clerk representative either before the item is called or ten minutes after this meeting began.

The meeting began at ten thirty-eight.

And so that would make that cut off time to submit your speaker cards either at ten forty-eight or before the item is called.

Chair Jenkins.

Yes, because of the immense amount of speakers, we're going to limit public speaking time to a minute and thirty seconds.

Moving to the first item, item number one is approval of the draft minutes for the committee meeting on May seventh, twenty twenty six.

Council Member Fife.

Council Member Ramachandran.

Aye.

Councilmember uh Chair Jenkins.

Item number one is approval for eyes.

Thank you for that.

We now are moving to item number two, which is determination of scheduling outstanding committee items, which is your pending list.

I have no speakers.

I have a motion by Councilmember Brown, seconded by Council Member Five to approve item two, determination of scheduling and outstanding committee items on roll for this.

Council member Brown.

Aye.

Council Member Fife.

Aye.

Council Member Ramachandra.

Aye.

And Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

Item number two is approved with four ayes.

As is.

No changes.

This now takes us to item three, new scheduling.

One moment.

We have quite a few items.

Item three starts with item 3.1, which is an ordinance amending the uh reenacting OMC Charter 3.08 to remove ballot title and summary of measure to clarify and remove unnecessary requirements for the city sponsored ballot measure and amend section 3.08.040 to update language regarding nomination petitions.

Three amend section 3.08.080 to clarify declaration of candidacy forms and four at section 3.08.085 to clarify requirements for ballot designations.

And this item is being requested to be scheduled for the May 28th rules of legislation committee meeting agenda.

And I will now read the urgency finding for this item, which is the ordinance needs to be adopted in order to update election materials.

Election materials needed to be update prior to the state of nomination period.

Now moving to item 3.2.

I do see um a hand at this time.

So we'll adjourn into a special meeting as there's a couple of council members here that are going to participate.

I'll understand the motion.

I'll second.

And we have a motion by council present uh council chair Jenkins, seconded by council member Brown to adjourn in a special meeting, council meeting at the presence of additional council members on roll.

Councilmember Brown.

Aye.

Councilmember Fife.

I made the second, but aye.

My apologies.

Okay.

And Councilmember Ramachandran.

Aye.

And Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

Thank you.

And that motion passes with Council Member Jenkins moving and council member five seconding to adjourn in a special meeting at the presence of other council members at 1042.

Thank you for that.

We are now moving to item 3.2.

And I book 242 is a resolution to commemoratively rename the intersection of 99th Avenue and International Boulevard as Arthur E.

Thomas Way in honor of Mr.

Arthur E.

Thomas' tremendous impact serving the Oakland families for nearly 60 years through his professional career as a founder and operation of Thomas Funeral Homes.

And this item is being requested to be scheduled for the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent.

And I believe staff may meet need to come and read in the rule 24 for this item.

Yes.

Good morning.

From the Office of the Senate of Oakland Ken Houston District 7.

Council member, we are requesting a rule 24 for this item because these items typically bypass committee and go straight to council.

Okay.

So we're correcting the three point, the rule 24 saying that this is ceremonial, but typically these bypass committee goes straight to council.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

My apologies one moment.

And just noting my apologies.

Um to through the chair to the council member who presented this item, um, 3.2.

We would also need a um uh legislation and uh report for this item since it's not a ceremonial item, you still would need to provide a report for this as well.

Yes, thank you.

Moving on to item 3.3, it's uh adopt a resolution confirming the appointment of Aluna de la Riva.

As a member of the cannabis regulatory commission.

This item is being requested to be scheduled for the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent.

I will now read in the rule 24, and it is due to the recent quorum challenges experienced by the cannabis cannabis uh regulatory commission.

Um, and now moving to item 3.4, which is a resolution confirming the mayor's appointment of Susan Flores to the budget advisory commission, and this also is being requested to be scheduled for the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent, and the rule 24 is due to the recent quorum challenges and experienced by the budget advisor um commission during the last meeting.

Moving to item 3.5, item 3.5, a resolution confirming the mayor's appointment of um will bow to the budget advisory commission.

This is also being requested to be scheduled for the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent.

The rule 24 is due to the recent quorum challenges experienced by the budget advisory commission during its last meeting.

Item 3.6 is a resolution confirming the mayor's appointment of DeShiny and Rosalind to the library commission.

This item is being requested to be scheduled for June 2nd, City Council agenda on consent.

Um the rule 24 is to fill the two special vacancies that have recently occurred.

Item 3.7 is a resolution confirming the mayor's appointment of Supe Ray to Privacy Advisory Commission.

This is also being requested to be scheduled for the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent.

And it's rule 24 is due to the recent quorum challenges experienced by the Privacy Advisory Commission.

Item 3.8 item 3.8 is a resolution in support of the California Senate Bill 1415, legislation to expand the welfare property tax exemption for qualifying mixed income affordable housing developments.

And this is being requested to be scheduled for the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent.

And I believe if this item is moving to June 2nd, they will need a rule 24.

For item 3.8, this item, if it is being approved to go to June 2nd, it will need a rule 24.

Thank you.

We are uh withdrawing this item.

So noted, item 3.8 is to be withdrawn.

We will now move to item 3.9.

3.9 is a resolution authorizing the city administrator to amend the advertising sign relocation agreement dated December 29, 2023, with the Becker Boards and California Limited Liability, such that the annual payments would be converted from a fixed fee structure to a payment structure where 20% of the backward advertising revenue collected from the new advertising signs would be um appropriated to the city and certain community nonprofits with 50% of the revenue paid to the city and the remaining 50% split equal among the Native American Health Center, Asian Health Center, La Clinica de la Rasa, and Baywell Health, with the city receiving a minimum of 250,000 per year, regardless of Becker's reviews revenue, which amount may be more depending on the Becker's revenue and adopting CEQA findings.

This item is being requested to be scheduled for the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent.

Is there a rule 24?

If staff can approach the podium on this item and state the rule 24 for the record, thank you.

Thank you, members of the council.

And I was one of the leaders that brought the Becker Billboard to the city of Oakland to not only support the city but also support some of the community organizations in the neighborhood.

But considering right now we're we're we are, and I think we have had some great discussions with the city attorney, and they provided the the information and the and the support for this.

So clearly, when you look at the reasons under rule 24, uh this is to conclude, it should be concluded before the end of the fiscal year, so that round two can be built and deliver 2.39 million.

The city has already countered on the with the budget.

There are just some small financial adjustments that guarantee the city's share in the shorter term and increase in the long term.

There is no substitute policy discussion needed.

If these adjustments don't happen, the current bill boards will not will not be market viable, which means the second round round won't be built.

If the first round goes down, all the community advertising and the community in the city benefits would end.

So we're asking to place this on uh consent or non-consent uh on the next meeting.

City attorney.

Uh through the chair to the committee, uh given that this is uh this resolution is for an amendment to a relocation agreement authorized under Oakland Municipal Code uh section 17.104.060.

Um it's our position that this needs 17-day newspaper notice, and so we would recommend that this is pushed um scheduled out further enough to allow us to to allow the city staff to complete that notice.

Council member, are you admittable to that?

I I also we have representatives here from the the billboard company.

If I can have them respond, uh we need to get this done, and certainly it's the support for the community.

Many of us that were here at the council spend a great deal of time uh trying to get this done to benefit the city, and uh so we does that mean that we can schedule the item rule 24.

Scheduling to June 2nd would not allow enough time for that newspaper notice.

So I defer to the committee.

Colleagues, you have any.

So on this item through the chair to the city attorney, um, for that 17 day notice, would scheduling it in committee be the recommendation, or should we just select a council meeting that meets that 17-day window?

Yes, my understanding is the notice um is for the hearing at council, so that would be the timeline that you're working against.

It's up to this body whether it goes to committee or not, but the newspaper notice is for the council meeting.

Through the chair to our parliamentarian, what is the urgency and what are the legal requirements for the newspaper notice?

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question.

You're saying that it needs to be noticed in our newspapers, correct?

Yes, through the chair, yes.

Where is that where's the authority that states that's a necessity?

Um that's um under Oakland Municipal Code Title 17.

Okay.

Well, we can I mean we can give you additional details offline.

Um, or if the committee wants to um move on with scheduling under item three, we can get some more information and circle back.

If it's a requirement that it needs to be noticed for an item like this, I think we should follow what the legal protocols are.

That's my position.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Thank you.

I agree.

Um, would and to this parliamentarian through the chair, would June 16th council meeting be enough time for the newspaper notice?

So my understanding is that the newspapers publish on Friday and do have um uh at least uh like I think it's about a week um deadline uh before that publication date.

So I don't have the calendar in front of me, but you need to make sure that there was enough time for the 17 days starting on a Friday when the newspaper publishes and meeting those newspaper deadlines.

I don't know if department staff is here and can provide um further information.

I'll defer to them.

I mean, just counting calendar days, it's exactly 17 business days.

Um, I don't know if that's inclusive for today.

It's published or not.

Um, yeah, open to through the chair if I could for best practices for newspaper publications, as city attorney stated, all the papers as council is selected at this time are weeklies, they only publish on Fridays, and your best deadline, you have to have all the materials in by Wednesday.

Okay.

To cut through the chair to Councilmember Guy, are there other dates that you suggest?

You know, again, we're following the direction of the meeting with the city attorney, and so for us, we'd like to get this done in time uh before we go on break.

And that's what these are the committee uh still requesting.

The information you have, you know the company, they've done extremely uh good great job supporting the neighborhood, the city, and uh we it's a business opportunity.

We need to show support and continue to do business.

Sorry, through the chair to the parliamentary, does it have to be a regular council meeting, or would it could it be a special council meeting per OMC?

I'm not aware that it needs a regular meeting, um, but I can check on that now.

Let's come back to this item.

So we will return back to item 3.9.

So we're moving on to item 310.

It's an ordinance, amending ordinance number one three eight four eight, um, which adopted the fiscal year 25-26 masterpiece schedule as amended to establish modify and delete fees for penalties assessed by the city of Oakland for fiscal year 26 through 27, and this is being requested to be scheduled for June 2nd City Council agenda as a public hearing.

I believe we will need staff to come and state the rule 24 for this item.

Good morning through the chair, Jose Segura with the finance department.

So I will read the rule 24 as provided and expand uh a bit.

So the requirement necessitates two separate readings at full council meetings, an initial initial introduction and a subsequent adoption at a later later meeting.

Um I will expand that if this item is not adopted by July 1st, the city will not be able to charge the updated fees between July 1st and the date of adoption, and we have publicly noticed um in the newspaper for uh for June 2nd.

Yeah, I guess for private secretary.

If if the question is whether the reason um the rule 24 reason was sufficient, um can you please restate it?

But it is up to the body.

Your council rules say that an item can bypass committee if a reason is stated on the record, so it is up to the committee.

Do the chair.

If our council member Noel Gaia wants this done, let's do a special meeting, I'll be there for them.

Let's just do it.

You guys got to we're coming back to that item, council member you say.

Okay.

So I'll I'll repeat the um rule 24.

This requirement necessitates two separate readings at full council meetings, an initial introduction and a subsequent adoption at a later meeting.

Um this needs to happen before July 1st.

Um, otherwise the city would not be able to charge the up the updated fees between July 1 and the date of adoption.

And we have already publicly noticed um for the public hearing for June 2nd in the newspaper.

Thank you.

That's good.

Thank you for that.

Um, so the rule 24 310 is noted.

Item 311 is a resolution confirming the city of Oakland's landscaping and lighting assessment district, physical year 26 27, engineers report and levying the assessments and being requested to be scheduled for the June 2nd.

City Council agenda as a public hearing.

I will now read the rule 24, which states as part of the required annual three report process, the LAD um second report, the resolution of intention presented to the May 12th Finance Committee, and the May 19th Council presented the proposed assessment and set June 2nd as the public hearing date for the third report.

Moving to item 3.12.

Item 3.212 is an ordinance one authorizing the fiscal year 2627 increase in the rate of property tax imposed by the voter approved measure and fixing the rate of property tax and levying the tax on real and personal property in the city of Oakland for fiscal year 2627, the Emergency Medical Services Retention Act, the Paramedic Service Act, the Library Service Retention and Enhancement Act, the Oakland Community Violence Reduction and Emergency Response Act, the 2018 Oakland Library, Public Library Prevention Act, the 2020 Oakland Park and Recreation Prevention, Preservation and Litter Reduction and Homelessness Support Act, the Children's Initiative of 2018, the 2022 Oakland Zoo Annual Care Education and Improvement Ordnance, and the Wildfire Prevention Finding Act of 2024.

This is to be heard on the June 2nd, 2026 City Council agenda as a non-consent item.

I will now read in the rule 24 for this item as well.

The requirements necessitate two separate readings at a full city council meeting in an initial introduction and a subsequent adoption at a later meeting.

Now moving to item 3.13, which is a resolution recognizing May 2026 as Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Heritage Month in the City of Oakland in honoring Asian Americans who contribute to the culture and vibrancy of Oakland.

This item is being requested to be scheduled for the June 2nd 20 uh 26 26th city council agenda as a ceremonial I do meet a 20 rule 24.

We need a rule 24.

For council member Wang, uh, this is a ceremonial ceremonial item and they uh typically bypass committee and go straight to council.

So we'll put this item on consent as opposed to a ceremonial.

Yeah.

Councilmember Ram Chandran, are you added as a co-sponsor?

I would like to, yes.

Okay, okay.

So please add the council member Ramachandran as a co-sponsor, and we're placing this item on consent.

So noted.

Thank you for that.

And if I may through the chair to um the committee uh as well as uh council and department staff, if I can just uh take a moment to remind everyone that all items that are being requested to be scheduled for the June 2nd committee uh council, those report packets will be due to the clerk's office by four o'clock today.

So if you are submitting new items for June 2nd, make sure that you meet that deadline.

We appreciate you all.

Thank you so much.

Moving on to item 314, which is a resolution providing for borrowing of funds for fiscal year 26 to 27, and the sale of the city of Oakland 26 through 27 tax and revenue anticipation notes in the amount not to exceed 200 million dollars, approving an official statement, official statement approving the execution of one or more note purchase agreements relating to such notes and authorizing the city other actions in connection therewith.

And this item is being requested to be scheduled for June 9th Finance and Management Committee, but I do see staff.

Good morning, Johanna.

David Jones, uh Treasury Administrator.

We are requesting to have this item go to the June 23rd Finance and Management Committee.

So noted.

Thank you so much.

Dave.

Moving on to item 315 is a resolution awarding a construction contract to McGuire and Hester for the MLK Junior Wade Streetscape Improvement Project, the lower the lowest and responsible and responsible bidder in accordance with the project plan specifications, state requirements with construction bid in the amount of 26,499,339.50 cents and adopting appropriate CEQA findings.

This item is being requested to be scheduled for the June 9th Public Works and Transportation Committee Agenda.

Item 316 is adopted resolution one authorizing the city administrator to negotiate and execute the following a lease and management agreement between the city of as landlord and sharks ICE LLC as tenant to operate the Oakland Ice Center for an initial five-year term with four five-year extension options at a rate of three hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars in the base rent per year less than annual capital contribution by the city of 100,000 with an annual tenant capital contribution of 100,000 and a percentage rent of seven percent of the annual gross revenue above 4.3 million dollars, B an advertising revenue um advertising revenue sharing agreement with tenant retaining the first hundred thousand dollars in the city receiving fifty percent of the remaining net advertising revenue for a term of five years with four five-year extension options.

See the use and of an one, excuse me, one million three hundred forty-four thousand nine hundred ten dollars in the capital reserve funds and up to five hundred thousand dollars in anticipation net revenue in fiscal year 2526 to reimburse Shark Ice LLC for losses realized under the current management agreement and D disbursement agreement with the Sharks ICE LLC in a total amount not to exceed 10 million dollars of measure U bond funds for the new refrigeration system and related capital improvements to making findings that the lease for below fair market rent value rental value is the best interest of the city, and adopting CEQA findings.

This item is being requested to be scheduled for the June 9th Community and Economic Development Committee agenda.

Item 317, item 317 is a resolution accepting and appropriating a total award of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Grant Funds and the amount not to exceed 14,674, 799.07 cents for community development block grants, home improvement um investment partnerships, emergency solutions grants and housing opportunities for persons with AIDS programs for the fiscal year 2627, authorizing the city administrator to prepare and submit to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and Annual Action Plan for Physical Year 2627, appropriating any available revolving loan program income for housing rehabilitation activities, authorizing the city administrator to award agreements for activities as set forth in the exhibit A and the list of eligible backup activities to be to be funded with the funds that became available as a result of the project being completed under budget delayed or canceled attached here to exclusive of prior year funding availability, subject to compliance with any applicable competitive bidding requirements and authorizing the city administrator or to designate certifying officials or designee of the certifying official for a purpose of title 24, part 58 of the code of the federal regulations and submit to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

And this is being requested to be scheduled for the June 9th Community and Economic Development Committee agenda and on the June 16th City Council agenda as a public hearing.

Through the chair Winnie Move from the City Administrator's Office, staff is requesting that this item be moved to the June 23rd CED and to the July 7th council as a public hearing.

So noted, thank you for that administration.

Moving to item 318.

Item 318 is adopting ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission amending Title 17 of the OMC, updating the accessory dwelling unit regulations for consistencies with the state law and providing written findings pursuant to the government code, revising discontinuance standards for the non-conforming activities, removing accessibility applicability of scenic route combining zone discretionary standards to ministerial design review, permitting recreational assembly activities in the Wood Street, revising minimum front setback, removing a review deadline from the development agreement procedure, revising utility screening standards and incorporating conforming and clerical revisions and making appropriate sequel findings.

And this is being requested to be scheduled for the June 9th community and economic development committee agenda and on the June 16th City Council agenda as a public hearing.

Item 319 is a resolution authorizing the city administrator to negotiate and execute a rental agreement with the campus in common inc, a nonprofit in the amount not to exceed 197,432 for a RNETS nature and OPYR, excuse me, OPRYD town experience summer session for 300 youth and 88 adults from July 29th to August 7th, 2026.

And this is being requested to be scheduled for June 9th life enrichment committee agenda.

Item 320 is a resolution confirming the mayor's appointment of the Felicia Favoroth to the landmark preservation advisory board.

And this is being requested to be scheduled for June 11th rules and legislation committee agenda.

Item 3.21, adopt an ordinance amending ordinance number 13104, which authorized the sale of the city owned parcel at 319 Chester Street to alliance to the Alliance for the West Oakland Development for a purchase price of $94,000, authorizing seller financing for the purchase price, authorizing $400,000 construction loan and authorizing disposition and development agreement with the developer to develop the parcel with a two-family home to authorize converting the project into an affordable rental project, change the city loan into a long-term affordable rental loan, and increase the amount of the city construction loan by one million dollars for a total construction loan of 1,494,000 494,000 to be heard on the June 23rd CED committee agenda.

Item 3.23 is a resolution authorizing the city administrator to temporarily restrict the ability to make right turns from International Boulevard on 9th, 10th, and 11th streets for a period of six months, pursuant to the California Vehicle Code Section 21101.4 to uh disrupt uh persistent activities associated with sex trafficking, and this is being requested to be scheduled for the June 23rd Public Safety Committee agenda.

Item 3.23 is receive a biannual informational report from the Department of Violence Prevention to include the activities and fidelity to cease fire model, and this is being requested to be scheduled for the July 14th public safety committee agenda.

Through the chair.

Good morning.

Uh Bridget from Council Member Wong's office.

Uh we are requesting this to be at the July 28th.

Public safety committee meeting.

So item 323, you were requesting it go to July 28th Public Safety Committee.

Yes, please.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

So note it.

Wait, wait, hold on.

Oh, there's not gonna be a July 28th.

Oh, okay.

Well we'll leave it there for now and we'll figure it out.

Okay, thank you.

So noting items 3.23 will be stating staying on July 14th public safety.

Item 3.24 receive a biannual information report from OPD regarding part two crime data, and this is being requested to be scheduled for July 14th public safety committee agenda.

Uh Winnie move from the city administrator's office um through the chair to Councilmember Wong's office.

This item is already on the public safety pending list.

So I'm so staff is requesting that this item be scheduled through that.

Um and we are this is specific to part two crimes, which is not something that typically has come before public safety.

But it's a similar item, so staff is requesting that they would combine it.

They would come they would combine it.

Yes.

Okay, that's fine.

So we can withdraw this item.

So item is a 3.24 will be withdrawn.

Yes.

So note it.

Moving to item 3.25, receive a biannual information report from OPD to include enforcement matrix staffing levels, um, arrest date and proactive operations to be scheduled for July 28th public safety committee agenda.

Which is it okay we put that on the pending list?

Okay, so 3.25 will be on the pending list.

Noting we're putting this on the public safety pending list or the rules pending list, no.

Public safety pending list.

Public safety no date specific.

Thank you for that.

Um moving to item 3.26 is a resolution awarding grants to 21 community-based organizations for community violence intervention services set forth in table one and two for the period of October 1st, 2026 to December th September 30th, 2029, in a total amount not to exceed 38, 100,000 dollars and authorizing the city administrator to negotiate and enter into a grant agreement with the named grantees with authority to extend the term of the grant and mobility modify, excuse me, the grant amount as set forth herein without returning to council, and this is being requested to be scheduled to the June 9th, 2026 Public Safety Committee agenda, and that concludes your new scheduling items and six speakers.

Can we go back to 3.9, please?

City attorney, but we've had a chance to look at the calendar.

So it looks like if um staff can get this uh notice to the newspaper next week for publication uh Friday, May 29th.

Then it um there will be time to schedule to the June 16th council meeting, defer to the committee.

Thank you.

Councilmember Guile, then Councilmember Houston, I know you had a comment on this item.

Schedule as we're requesting, yeah.

She says that you could be on schedule for the June what 16th.

The June date that you're requesting.

Yeah, okay.

So we're thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

As I call you, as I call your name, please approach the podium in any order.

And if I call your name and you're participating in Zoom, please raise your hand.

And please, when you um approach the podium, state your name for the record.

I have Christopher Powell, Kevin Daly, Blair Beekman, Jason Overman, Isaac, um Cos Reed, and Nima Link in any order if I called your name.

Kevin Dally, this is sort of a minor issue suggesting a change in title for 3.22.

Temporarily temporarily restricted street closure from International Boulevard.

If it's possible to change the title in a way that suggests that it's only turns that are restricted and not the closure.4 talks about closure of a road, so it might be necessary to say closure, but it would be more clear to someone scanning through that no, we're not going to shut down international boulevard and we're not going to be shutting down the tempo line.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi everybody, Nima Link with Becker Boards.

Thank you for scheduling the item as soon as possible.

We understand the city attorney's rules.

Those are immutable, and we will follow them or we're happy to do so.

Thank you for this lifeline that will allow us to continue supporting the community.

It's a little dip in the short term and a lot more money for the community groups in the city in the long run.

Thank you for giving us that breathing room or considering to schedule, giving us that breathing room.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

If I called your name and your hearing chambers.

Since 2020, we have been challenging the big two billboard monopoly, and they have fought us every step of the way.

Um today is no different.

Even when we brought them to the table to agree to historic community benefits, they continue to fight us.

Uh now that my client is seeking some reasonable adjustments to the agreements that will allow them to weather the current challenging market and ensure more money long term for the city and community while guaranteeing the short-term payments to the city.

Uh we'll also increase uh ensure competition in the market and ensure that we can continue providing these community benefits.

Because if this does not work out and these billboards are not built or the current ones go under, then all that is lost for the community.

So thank you in advance for your consideration and I appreciate your I vote.

Thank you for your comments.

We will now move to the Zoom speakers.

Um I have Blair Beaconman, you are unmuted.

You may unmute yourself and begin.

Alright, Blair Beekman.

Um I wanted to speak on items 2.8, three point nine, three point one three, and three point one four.

Three minute times.

Uh with my card I sent uh submitted yesterday.

Uh to first go with three point eight uh supportive SB 1415.

Um that's airgwen and wiener at the state level.

Um interesting, they're working together.

And um I used to always mention to when uh Jesse Air Green was mayor of Berkeley, the importance of mixed income ideas, and she is following through with hopefully some interesting ideas, and working with Scott Wiener.

Um on the concepts of mixed income affordable housing uh to expand welfare property tax exemptions or uh qualifying uh mixed income affordable housing development.

Uh good luck with this.

Good luck that um housing costs in San Diego are really low.

Uh in how to build homes.

Not so in the Bay Area, they're really high.

So we need all the help we can get in the Bay Area, so good luck in in this in these efforts for items uh nine point uh one three.

Uh that's working on uh Hawaii issues that's noting uh uh A N H PI Heritage Month.

Um I spend uh like I've been spending my winters in uh Lahaina uh Maui and uh to watch the whales and to swim underwater with them and hear them sing and talk and stuff.

Uh it's really interesting.

And um in Lahaina, because of their fire issues a few years a few years ago, they're having to rebuild a lot, and um they're real questions on how to rebuild.

Do they rebuild with uh indigenous traditions in mind, or they do they just build as as you know, the big tourist development that Maui and Hawaii can be?

So those are the questions, and they're they're they're battling that.

Good luck in that uh deliberation and how I think in uh to build an indigenous feature for the area is more important.

I hope we can work on that.

To quickly mention three point one four uh tax revenue anticipation notes.

I've been learning, you know, in the as I live in San Diego now and I just moved down there from the Bay Area.

Um San Diego, they don't like taxes.

They don't like they have no ways to get revenue for their things.

So I've learned that.

Good luck how you can work with uh uh San Diego serious budget austerity issues they have right now and how they can work through that.

Oh Oakland has a love life philosophy that that fosters uh you know uh social services.

Uh good luck in those good efforts.

And with um three point uh uh nine uh the billboard issue.

I heard good conversation, good public comments.

Thank you.

Um there's there's a lot of tech involved.

Good luck how we can be accountable with that tech, and that we hold these billboard companies accountable and good luck how city council persons learn to do that and don't get greedy.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, Christopher Powell, your unmuted unmute yourself and begin.

Good morning.

My name is Christopher Powell.

I'm an attorney at the Hanson Bridget LLP, representing Outfront Foster Interstate.

I urge this committee to reject the proposed amendment to the Becker Board's relocation agreement.

Why does Becker need this better deal taking money back from the city and the community?

Not because it is going bankrupt, it has hundreds of signs across the US.

Becker simply wants to make these signs more profitable so it can sell them to a completely different operator and walk away.

Then what are its promises worth to the city?

Becker made these promises to the city and community.

Is now asking for permission to break those promises while still reaping the benefits for making false promises.

This proposal cuts guaranteed payments from 750,000 to 250,000 a year, a two-thirds reduction, replacing fixed payments with a speculative revenue share.

It retroactively claws back payments already made to the city and the community, and it reduces billboard removal obligations from 25 faces to 14.

Therefore, we ask the committee to reject this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

That concludes our public comment speakers for item three.

Council members, any comments?

Seeing none.

Item 3.2.

There's an updated rule 24.

Item 3.8 will be withdrawn.

Item 3.9 will go to June 16th.

Item 3.10 updated rule 24, item 3.12, updated rule 24, item 3.3 will go to consent.

Um rule 24 and adding Council Member Ramachandran as a co-sponsor.

Item 3.14 will go to FMC 623.

Item 3.17 CED, it'll go to the CED on 623.

Item 3.12 3.24 withdrawn.

Item 3.25 move to public safety pending list.

Without I will take an uh motion.

I had a question about item 3.9.

Is there a reason since now it's going to June 16th that it can't go to the June 9th?

Uh CED.

I will, yeah.

I wanted to know from the chair if it's so through the chair, if that committee is impacted.

Yes, on that specific date it is.

Um, but if there was an interest from the body for it to go through CED, it would have to be on a layer CED, which I believe was the 23rd.

Oh.

Okay, I'm good.

All right.

I'll understand a motion.

So moved.

Second.

And that was a motion by council member five, seconded by council member Brown to approve item three as amended on roll council member Brown.

Aye.

Council member five.

Aye.

Councilmember Ramachandran.

Aye.

And Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

Item three is approved as amended with four ayes.

That now takes us to item number four.

Item number four is review of the draft agendas, pending lists in the council and committee meetings.

And this is your um count uh committee meetings on June May 26th and your pending list and your council draft agenda on June 2nd and June 4th rules.

Thank you.

Tracy Jones, OPD police services manager.

I have a couple items through the chair.

Um for May 26th public safety.

Item number five that's on the agenda, the MOU between OPD and USC.

And that was item 7.

Sorry, apologize.

Item 7.

Yep.

Thank you.

The second item is the crime data report, which is listed under the biannual reports.

We are scheduling that for October 28th.

As mentioned earlier, um, that report normally includes part one data, crime data, and we would plan to include part two data.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

I believe that's uh October 27th, not October 28th.

27th, public safety.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Hello through the chair.

My name is Misha McLaughlin.

I represent council president Kevin Jenkins.

Um, I am here to withdraw uh well actually the item number four on the financing management committee for May 26th.

I would like to remove that and place it on the pending list for rules pending list.

We'll put it on FMC pending list.

FMC pending list, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And through the chair, um, anyone from the city administrator's office.

I'd like to draw your attention to the CED pending list.

Item number eight, it's to receive an informational report on the city of Oakland's general plan and housing element annual progress report for calendar year 2025.

We're requesting that to go to June 9th, CED.

This is the general plan study.

Uh no, it's not the study session.

Okay.

It's an info report.

Okay.

Okay, and then the June 2nd, 4.2 General Plan update.

We're gonna move that to the world's pending list while we work with the department.

Ms.

Present.

Yeah, go ahead.

The thing we would really um ask is that we get this done before recess in order to be able to keep our schedule moving.

Absolutely.

We want it to be a good working session, but if we can then follow up and see what the best date would be for us to be able to do that, that would be much appreciated.

Okay, can you follow up with Council Member Unger?

Absolutely.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

And Chair Brown.

Chair to the chair of CED.

Yes, we shall.

We'll be with you.

It was a Demster.

Anything else?

If not, we'll go to public comment.

As I call your name, if you're here in Chambers, please approach the podium.

If you're participating online, please raise your hand so I can easily identify you.

I will take as usual those who are in chambers first.

But again, in any order, please approach the podium and state your name for the record.

I have a Oakland Berkeley BWOPA for item four, Kevin Daly and Blair Beekman.

Kevin Dally is passing.

I don't know who the Oakland Berkeley BWOPA is.

All right.

If they're not here in chambers, I will go to the one person on Zoom.

Blair Beekman, please.

Okay, Claire Beekman.

Um hopefully my Zoom's not gonna cut out.

I'm on the trolley and Diego Trolley right now.

Um I wanted to quickly offer uh you have a coming public safety committee meeting and on your agenda is the uh uh scholarship uh program on I don't know if that's exactly what it's called.

Uh but the the program to uh social work students uh graduate level social work students uh to go into uh policing uh create an internship with uh OPT, and uh you working with USD on this, and it was at a committee meeting, I think a week, month ago.

And um it was interesting to have uh, you know, we question where our recruit police recruits are coming from and coming from a university uh is a very positive uh idea.

Uh it's from that.

Uh it it helped me just think of more positive ideas that perhaps instead of uh these local young interns going or not local, but the young interns going through the police department.

Is there a social services city department they could go through first and then check in with OPD?

And I know you guys were asking those sort of questions.

The program needed to be started by uh August.

Can that date be pushed back to say November?

Uh and can those questions be answered at the upcoming meeting?

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

That concludes our speakers for item four.

BWOPA didn't show up.

When approached the podium and no one was in the queue in Zoom, so I bet so item number four, FMC, um item four place on the pending list for FMC, public safety committee item number seven, place on pending list, um, public safety committee crime day the uh report will go to October 27th, and C D item eight will be placed on the pending list.

Um, move to six nine C D.

And then June second, four point two, four point two general plan update move to rules pending lists entertain a motion, anyway.

So moved.

Second, and that was a motion by council member five, seconded by council member Ramachandran to approve item four as amended on roll.

Councilmember Brown.

Aye, five, aye.

Ramachandran.

Aye.

Chair Jenkins, aye.

Item number four is approved as amended with four ayes.

That now takes us to item five.

Item five is adopt a resolution submitting to the voters at the November 3rd, 2026 general election, a measure that would amend the city, the Oakland City Charter to, among other things, make the mayor, the city chief executive officer responsible for managing city affairs.

Two empower the council to confirm the appointment of directors of finance, human resources, and public works and transportation.

Three, empower the council to create an independent budget and legislative analysis office to provide the council fiscal and policy analysis that is objective and nonpartisan.

Four firm council members' right to request information and rely on relay constituent concerns and city officials' duties to respond promptly.

Five, empower the council to hold legislative hearings and issue subpoenas.

Six, create a mayoral veto with the line item budget veto and council power to override any veto.

Seven, require council members to work full time and not engage in outside employment.

Eight, empower the public ethics commission to align the mayor and council members' salaries with those of comparable full-time public officials, and nine require the publication of ordinances within 15 days of passage and directing the city clerk to take all actions necessary under the law to submit this measure to the voters at the election and making appropriate California Environmental Quality Act findings.

I have 30 speakers for this item.

Madam Mayor, welcome to day three.

What is it?

366.

All right.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Members of the council, members of our community.

Let me just say thank you so much for giving me a chance to be with you.

I'm here to present on item five, the proposed ballot measure to reform Oakland City Charter.

Now Oakland is at a turning point, and the status quo needs to change.

Our residents expect clear leadership, clear accountability, timely decisions, and delivery of city services in an efficient manner.

They do not have patience for a government that cannot figure out where the buck stops and why the delivery of core services is lacking.

And so that's why I announced charter reform in my first 100 days.

Now, charter reform, let me be clear, it's not about personalities.

This is a structural change.

It's not written for any one mayor or any council member or any one administrator.

It's a structural change that would apply to any mayor and any future administration.

It's about how the system works, how who is accountable when things go wrong, who has the tools to fix them, and how we build a government that is truly responsible to deliver the services our constituents, our residents need.

Now, current charter blends elements of a strong mayor system and a council manager system in a way that diffuses authority and obscures responsibility.

Too often, this hybrid structure creates confusion, weakens accountability, and contributes to a vicious cycle where residents struggle to get the core services that they deserve.

Replacing one hybrid with another would only continue those same problems.

Residents already expect the mayor to have the authority to act and the council to legislate and provide oversight and to deliver services to their constituents.

Too often our structure does not match those expectations.

Before I discuss the proposal itself, I want to thank everyone who helped shape this process.

The charter reform working group, the League of Women Voters of Oakland Spurs, City Workers, Council members, and the more than 750 residents who participated in community meetings across every council district, and of course, my staff and our leadership and our residents and our activists.

This was a very transparent, community-driven process grounded in public engagement and expertise.

Now, when I became mayor, I already knew, mind you, I already knew there was confusion around roles and authority inside Oakland's government, because I had experienced this firsthand as your member of Congress and California legislature.

Even while serving in Congress, after securing federal resources, there was uncertainty inside City Hall what to do.

Oftentimes I had to communicate with six or seven people before I track down the appropriate contact for follow-up.

Now, as mayor, I see clearly how this structural ambiguity affects our ability to deliver for residents.

Too often it's unclear where the buck stops, who is responsible for operational decisions, and who voters should ultimately hold accountable for results.

Over time, that confusion has eroded trust in government, and it's made it harder for council members to effectively do their jobs representing their constituents.

That's why I convened this working group with three goals and a very narrow framework to clarify roles and responsibilities of elected officials, strengthening financial management systems, and improving accountability and transparency.

So let me briefly explain what's actually in the measure before you today.

Strong mayor's strong council framework lays out the fact that the mayor serves as the chief executive of our city, accountable for managing the city operations and service delivery.

The council retains full authority, legislative authority, budget approval power, and meaningful oversight while also being empowered to be much more effective advocates for their districts and to ensure that services are actually delivered to their constituents and communities.

Regarding mayoral veto and budget line item vetoes, the mayor would have a general veto and a targeted budget line item veto.

The council retains the ability to override by two thirds.

Independent budget and legislative analysis, which is really needed.

It's a permanent independent office to strengthen the council's fiscal analysis policy research and oversight capacity.

Department head confirmation process, a targeted confirmation process for senior department heads that preserves meaningful council oversight while avoiding prolonged vacancies.

The Department of Transportation, the Department of Public Works, Human Resources Finances, and the City Administrator would require council confirmation.

We have a full-time council and compensation alignment.

The charter would formally recognize council service as full-time and align compensation through the public ethics commission so public service is accessible to working people from all backgrounds.

Let me mention Section 218 reform.

The former Section 218 impeded council members with the delivery of constituent services and included a misdemeanor, mind you, a misdemeanor provision that many residents weren't even aware of.

This new section, and we took that out, we eliminated that.

The new section is designed to strengthen constituent service functions and improve responsiveness for residents seeking help from their elected representative.

Council members would have clear communication channels with city departments while preserving prohibitions against directing staff in administrative manners.

Let me re clear it.

These reforms are designed to create clear accountability, stronger oversight, and a government structure better equipped to deliver results for Oakland residents.

And let me address a couple of concerns you may hear about this process.

Now I have to tell you, this process was not rushed.

It was informed by over six months, mind you, of public outreach, which included also 60 interviews, 14 public meetings, and meeting notes from the public meetings, frequently asked questions have been put up online, and how the working group came to the decisions that they came to.

Also, let me say something very clearly about the tone of parts of this public conversation.

Now, reasonable people can disagree about governance structure.

This is healthy and part of democracy.

But some of the rhetoric, I must say, and you know me, I'm going to be very direct about this.

We have seen in recent days, has really crossed a line.

There's a long history in this country of describing black leaders, especially black women leaders seeking executive authority or structural reform as dangerous or unqualified.

We should be honest enough to recognize that when rhetoric begins to echo those patterns, we have to say no.

Oakland can have a serious and substantive debate about governance reform without resorting to language that demonizes leadership or undermines the legitimacy of a black woman on such a personal basis.

And I've spent my entire career fighting for democratic accountability, transparency, civil rights, and checks and balances.

This proposal is not about concentrating power in the hands of one elected official.

It is not about structure, it is about structural change and clarifying, clarifying responsibility so that the public knows who is accountable and when action is needed and ensures the delivery of constituent services.

This is not a power grab.

Ultimately, this decision, of course, will be made by the mayor, excuse me, by it won't be made by one mayor, it won't be made by the city council, it'll be made by the voters of Oakland.

And let me address directly the concern that this proposal weakens the council.

It does not.

This measure strengthens the council's institutional road through role through thorough independent oversight tools, legislative authority, budget authority, and clearly constituent services functions will change.

Through this proposal, council members are empowered to serve as strong advocates for their district while retaining full power and meaningful oversight authority.

A strong executive, which is a mayor's role, and a strong legislature, legislative body, they're not competing ideas.

They are complementary parts of a balanced and accountable government.

I want to close where I began.

The people of Oakland.

Hundreds of Oaklanders participated in this process because they want a government where responsibility is understandable, where oversight is meaningful and accountability is visible to the public.

They want a government that is responsible to the constituents in a structured way that allows both the mayor and council members and council members to effectively deliver results for the council districts and the communities that they represent.

And at the end of the day, yes, residents want to know three things.

Who is responsible when something goes wrong?

Who has the authority to act?

Who should voters hold accountable accountable at the ballot box?

This proposal is designed to answer those questions more clearly.

And so I respectfully ask that this body move this measure forward so Oakland voters can make the final decision.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

So, in the interest of time, we're gonna go to public speakers first, and I have to really apologize to you guys.

I have to cut the time to one minute.

We are going to run into quorum issues, and we're not going to have a body for you guys to be able to speak to.

I know you guys came down here for two minutes.

My apologies, but we will not have quorum shortly.

So speaker time will be one minute, and then we'll open it up after that.

As I call your name, please approach the podium in any order and state your name for the record.

I will take all those who are in chamber first and then those who are participating in Zoom after.

Please raise your hand if you're participating in Zoom so I can easily recognize you.

Um starting with the names, um, Contrina Burton, Brooke Levin, Kevin Daly, Nancy Folk, Blair Beekman, Derek Barnes, Clifford Ham, Elsa Stevenson, Stevens, Mimi Roe, Mindy Pachecoy, my apologies, and Gerald and Naomi Shift, Charles Long, Arlington Tugwell, Lenore Gondendez, Nicole Nidic, Richard Puentes, Helen Hutchinson, David Franklin, Ben Gold, Barbara Ann, LaFette, Linda Grant, Valeria Ocea, Sheree Woods, Isaac Tony, Mark Swanky, Fred Blackwell, Cynthia O'Miley, Zach Goldman, and Keith Brown.

In any order, please state your name for the record.

Thank you.

Elsa Stevens with Faith in Action East Bay.

First, we thank you for listening to hundreds of residents.

Their direct input.

On behalf of Faith in Action East Bay, of which I am secretary to the board of directors, we say put it before the voters.

Again, we thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Clifford Ham, I'm a uh 46-year resident of Glenview.

I urge you to approve the resolution to bring the charter reform measure to the voters.

We need to clarify the responsibility of the city council, the mayor, and the city administrators.

We have a current confused system that no one likes, especially not the voters, and this amendment will finally empower this city council to be a true legislative body, give you powers and resources you do not have today.

The amendment will also hold a mayor, any future mayor, to be responsible for the administrative excellence, administrative leadership, and as a member of the city council, to be the advocate for citywide issues, clearly, an advocate for citywide issues elected by the people.

Thank you.

Your time is up.

I apologize.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Mindy Pechnook, and I am candidate for mayor in 2026.

And I urge every member to absolutely oppose the strong mayor and go with another option, the third option, which it actually put the mayor in a position to work and be on the city council and actually have deliberation, which is what the city needs, and the city administrator.

Don't succumb to any pressure from Mayor Barber Lee or your own careers.

We need to give a quality of life to the people of Oakland.

They deserve it.

They've suffered for many generations.

And if that quality of life is going to be brought back, it needs, yes, responsibility, but it needs the third option.

And I've written to all of you about supporting the third option.

So this is not the first time you're hearing it from me.

So this is an important decision for Oakland.

Absolutely oppose putting on the agenda the strong mayor.

Yeah, my name is Gerald Petchenuk, the other Petchenok.

You can raise the mic up, sir.

You can raise the mic up.

So you don't.

Yes.

Okay.

Well, I learned in Hebrew school when I was a kid was when faced two bad choices, always do like King Solomon take the third.

And in this case, the third option has a strong mayor, a strong city council, and a city manager, which is used in almost many, many cities, that coordinates that effort.

So there is unity in the community, and that there is a discussion and deliberative process that doesn't tilt the cease.

You know, when your kid go on the seesaw, city council goes up, mayor goes down, mayor goes down, city council goes up.

Don't work.

Have that city manager, the third option to be the deliberative voice for everybody.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Kevin Dowley.

Thanks to Mayor Lee for bringing charter reform before the council.

Strong mayor is definitely an improvement over the current charter.

I think it'd be even better to have a council manager form of government with the council able to pass resolutions that direct the actions of the staff.

The past few years we've seen problems that council has passed resolutions and city administrator has often chosen not to follow those.

I don't see how this charter be creates a strong council.

Couple other issues.

Can that be done with the noticing standards that's 801-3?

Other overrides have longer.

Intro claims that director will be approved, but if you read the text, thank you for your comments.

Hello, I'm Cynthia O'Malley, and I've been an Oakland resident for 46 years.

I support the City Council putting the charter reform proposal on the ballot for voters to decide.

The charter reform working group did a thorough and inclusive job of analyzing the charter.

It was fair and unbiased in their work, and I um agree with its recommendations.

Please move this forward.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Sheree Woods.

I am here today as a woman of faith, a community leader with faith in action ESPE, and a caregiver who works with seniors and disabled people so they can remain remain safely in their homes with dignity.

I want to be very clear today.

I am not asking this council to endorse every recommendation from the charter reform working group.

I am asking you to let the voters decide.

For the past six months, the people of Oakland showed up and participated in one of the largest public engagement efforts the city has seen in years.

More than 750 residents attended town halls, completed surveys, joined community conversations, and share their voices district by district across the city.

The people did the work, the people gave their time.

The people deserve the right to vote on the outcome of that process.

Whether people agree or disagree with those recommendations, that decision should belong to the voters of Oakland.

I'm sorry, Miss Woods, your time is up.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Leonardo Gordines.

I am proud to say I'm Oakland born and raised, and I love my city.

Um here as a member of Faith in Action, but mostly just this community.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, next speaker.

David Franklin, a pastor and nonprofit leader here in Oakland.

Um, and I rise to speak in strong support of the mayor's charter reform working group's recommendations.

Uh, it's time to let Oakland move forward.

And we need a structure that does that.

And after 750 residents uh have spoken, uh the group has not come back with a radical solution.

They've come back with a sensible solution.

Uh, and it is the same governance model that is used by every major California city we would reasonably compare ourselves to Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Fresno.

Uh, and it's not only a strong mayor model, it's a strong council model.

So let's advance this sensible solution and respectfully I request that we put it before the uh residents in the November ballot and let Oaklanders decide.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Linda Grant, and I'm a proud member of Faith in Action East Bay and a community resident and a long-term Oakland resident.

I'm here today because the people of Oakland deserve to be heard.

Over the last few months, six or seven months, neighbors, people have showed up to these meetings, showed up and showed how much they care about Oakland.

Accountability matters, transparency matters in Oakland, and trust between the community and leadership matters also.

Oakland has always had strong community voices, and we should honor that, not ignore it.

So today, respectfully, I ask you to trust the people, respect the community process, and let the voters decide.

Thank you.

Fred Blackwell, lifelong Oakland resident, uh former city employee, uh member of the working group, fan of Oakland.

Um, first of all, what the mayor said, um, I'm in full support of moving this to the voters.

Just wanted to make a couple of points, uh, reiterate.

Um, one is on the working group, um, you know, we were unanimous at a few things.

One is that if it when it comes to council manager form of government, strong mayor form of government, we felt that both could actually work, but we really felt strongly that the strong mayor form of government was the right tool for the job in Oakland.

The city count uh manager form of government um is good, it can work, but the strong mayor will work better for Oakland.

I want to reiterate the point that the mayor made.

This is not about taking power away from the council.

It recognizes the important legislation, legislative and fiduciary role that the council plays, and it clarifies the uh important role, executive role that the um mayor plays.

Last thing the worst possible thing that could happen is being stuck with what we have.

Good morning, everybody.

My name is Nicole Medic, and I'm here representing Spur today, and we had the great honor of co-facilitating this working group alongside the League of Women Voters.

We're here today to respectfully urge you to move this um measure forward and let voters decide on the outcome of this.

Um, Oakland residents deserve the chance to vote on a governance structure that would make their government more clear and more accountable.

You've already heard about all of the people who showed up and participated in this process.

Every model, every governance model carries trade-offs and benefits.

We tried to outline those really clearly in this report.

This model does not concentrate power, it shares power between the council and the mayor to create a balanced balanced system.

Three independent polls all came to the same conclusion that people want a strong mayor in Oakland.

Over 60% of people who responded to these voters said yes to that.

Um, and there's no surprise there because the working group listened really deeply and recommended a model that most aligns with what people want in their governance structure.

So thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Charles Long.

Uh I've been a city manager four places.

Uh and then um about five years ago, I or 10 years ago, I decided to go to the dark side and become a real estate developer.

Uh and I know how organizations work, and everything that the mayor said about the dysfunction of this the city of Oakland's organization is true.

But the having a strong mayor basically puts the public in the position of having to recall the mayor if things are not going right.

And so I strongly urge the council put on the ballot option three of the working group, which is the council manager form of government.

It's the overwhelming choice of cities in California.

And I have one suggestion to the mayor, and that is the more power you share, the more power you have.

And so thank you.

Good morning.

I'm Keith Brown.

I'm a resident of District 5.

And today I am speaking on behalf of the Alameda Labor Council representing 45,000 Oakland Union households.

And we are in strong support of advancing a charter amendment for a strong mayor governance system.

Working people deserve an accountable, transparent government capable of delivering results.

We urge the council to place this proposal on the November of 26th ballot, and it is time that we have a governance model that works for all of us, all of us here in the city of Oakland.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Zach Goldman.

Uh I'm here today to urge you to adopt the recommendations of the working group.

These were put together after extend an extensive public process.

More than 750 Oakland residents in every council district participated in these discussions.

There was interviews with over 60 city leaders, good government experts and community members.

And the recommendations were grounded that from our group were grounded in public feedback, research, and the best practices from other cities.

We strongly support placing a charter reform proposal before voters that has two key components.

First, a mayor with clear operational authority and real accountability to voters.

And that is must be paired with a strong independent city council that retains hearing authority, subpoena power, veto override ability, and a dedicated legislative and budget analyst office.

The last point I'm gonna make is that this isn't about concentrating power, it's about making power visible, making power visible.

So that when something isn't working, residents know who to hold accountable.

Uh uh working for cities and as a consultant to cities.

I also have a master's in public policy.

Um, and I worked for five years with the city of Oakland as a director of economic development.

Um, no question Oakland needs charter reform, and that either the council manager or strong mayor system is a considerable improvement.

I don't agree with the working group and I don't agree with the proposal to have a strong mayor.

I don't think that is the better option.

Um according to the working group's own materials on the city on the on the website, and I think attached to your report, um, council manager would also address Oakland's structural problems.

The strong mayor option was preferred due to Oakland's specific context and challenges.

I'm not sure exactly what that means.

I don't think Oakland is like the four big cities in California that have a strong mayor.

I think we are more like the ninety-seven percent of cities that have a council manager form of government.

Um in particular, one of the key differences a strong mayor does concentrate.

Thank you, your time has ended.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Ben Gould.

I'm here today speaking as an individual and as a member of the Oakland Charter Reform Project.

First, I want to say I'm really glad to see that something is moving forward.

It's clear that Oakland's current charter does not work, and I want to thank the mayor for her engagement and leadership on this issue and attention to the problem.

I think she accurately identifies the issues with uh how Oakland's government works today, and I appreciate that this proposal follows best practices for strong mayor forms of government.

We should not be afraid of trying to fix a broken system.

If this is the best we can do, let's give it a shot.

But I do think we could do better.

I think a council manager form of government is the proven model for delivering effective, efficient, and transparent government.

Under a proposed strong mayor system, the city's chief executive does not appear at regular public meetings.

It is more difficult to hold them accountable or to replace them if their performance is lacking if a future mayors.

It puts the mayor and council at odds with each other, which doesn't help our existing political differences.

And at the mayor's discretion, council may be shut out of day-to-day decision making around service delivery and largely relegated to passing laws, ended up being a budget.

I urge you to consider a council manager from a government.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Hugh Mock, and um I volunteer with uh Charlene Chan to clean up the city.

So I like the um the strong mayor.

I'm sorry, did you fill out a speaker card?

Oh uh, this is a surprise anyway.

Um you would have to fill out a speaker card in order to speak, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

You have to fill out a speaker card.

Thank you for the surprise.

We appreciate it.

Next speaker.

Good.

So I'm Helen Hutchison, and I'm here today speaking for the League of Women Voters of Oakland.

We co-facilitated the working group with Spur.

Um, we strongly urge that this measure be moved forward to allow the voters to weigh in.

This process was strong, comprehensive, inclusive, and and reasoned, and it brings clarity and coherent accountability to Oakland governance.

So thank you all for moving this forward.

Thanks.

Buenas tardes, good afternoon.

I am Valeria Ochoa, community organizer with Faith in Action East Bay.

It's good to see you all.

Um so we continue to pass ordinances and measures, and honestly, all we continue to hear is also, well, I can't do that because of the way the city charter is, and well, I can't do that because I'm not responsible for that.

Um, through the work that we continue to do, we consistently see and hear, pointing fingers to different people, and to different apartments, and sincerely with yaw to each other.

Um what we as Faith in Action East Bay ask of you today is to just simply allow Oakland voters to decide.

Reforming the structure would create checks and balances.

Let's actually give you all council some power and also the mayor some power and us as community to actually hold some of you guys accountable as well.

Thank you.

Thank you for the comments.

Next speaker, please.

Naomi Schiff speaking for myself.

I've been here since John Redding was the mayor.

Lionel Wilson showed up in 1977.

Uh I really agree with a lot of the criticisms of the charter.

I was on the patch committee with Helen, uh when Jerry Brown's version completely failed.

And I respect and support mayor Lee in many things, but I oppose the strong mayor's system.

I think we really should be looking at the council manager system along with many of the suggestions that were made by this committee of the uh review committee.

And I think that having a professional manager to assist the mayor and council in executing uh the day-to-day is pretty critical.

I'm not sure that we actually want to go backwards while we're going forwards.

Please put a council manager option.

Good morning.

My name is Arlington Togwell.

I am a faith in action East Bay, community leader.

I come to you with a simple question.

Before you is a question that says give it to the people.

Stand for the people, is for the people, and it's supposed to be by the people.

Anytime you find that there's a discomfort or scale unbalanced, that means the power has left, or you create confusion.

Here we're talking about structure, order, and discipline.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Everything else until this point has not worked.

This here is in your hands, but give it to the people because we work together.

That's how you build a team.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Isaiah Tony is ceding his time to me.

Is Isaiah Tony in the room?

And your name.

My name is Barbara Lafitte Olawole, and I am a Faith in Action East Bay community leader and longtime resident of West Oakland.

And I'm here today asking you to honor the work, the voices, and the participation of the people of Oakland by advancing the mayor's charter reform working group recommendations to the ballot.

The working group for six months listened to residents, studied best practices, consulted experts, and came to a clear conclusion.

Oakland's current system too often leaves residents confused about who is responsible when things are not getting done.

And our people deserve better than confusion.

They deserve accountability.

These recommendations create clearer lines of responsibility while preserving checks and balances.

The mayor would be responsible for managing city operations while the council would continue to hold strong legislative, budgetary, and oversight authority.

That is not about taking power away from anyone, but it is about making government work better for the people we serve.

At the end of the day, this is about trust.

It's about transparency, and it's about giving Oakland residents a government where they know who is responsible, who is accountable, and who they should expect results from.

On behalf of Faith in Action East Bay and myself, I respectfully urge you to move these recommendations forward so the voters of Oakland can decide the future of their city for themselves.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

All names have been called.

If you're here in chambers and you signed up to speak, please approach the podium or I will move on to the Zoom speakers.

Thank you so much.

Buenas tardes.

My name is Richard Fuentes.

I'm on the executive board of ASME Council 57, representing over 35,000 members.

We have members who worked at East Bay Regional Parks, East Bay Mud, Oakland Museum, as well as OUSD AC Transit, among many others.

And one of the things that I hear from my members who live here in Oakland when they call council offices is they want to know who's responsible for failing their pothole, who's responsible for trimming the trees on their on their streets.

We clearly don't have and visibly who is in charge.

As a member of the working group, we heard from residents.

We heard from residents who work and live in the city.

We didn't hear an opinion that they wanted to see in option three, but today we did hear from Mindy, who's the Republican mayor, who supports option three.

So we do know who supports option three.

It's the Republicans, not working people, not black people, not Latino people.

So I'm here to urge you to please place this on the ballot in November.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

If no one we will now move to Zoom speakers, starting with Brooke Levin.

Please unmute yourself and you may begin.

Thank you for the opportunity today to speak.

I have two items.

One is before taking any action on putting this charter amendment on the ballot.

I respectfully request that you do a complete fiscal analysis of the charter amendment.

The cost of the Office of Independent Budget and Legislative Analysts, the cost of the at large seat, which was in the working group's recommendation to be removed, but then was taken out in this proposal, and I believe it should move forward with respect to the current person in the seat.

They would serve out their term and their next two terms if they choose to increase the council and mayor's salaries is also in there.

How much is that going to cost?

Secondly, the working group recommended that the CAO go oversee administrative functions, and they that was finance and HR and IT procurement and citywide permitting, but this proposal ends up adding the public works director, the DOT director, and admits the IT director and the permitting.

I hope that that will be corrected.

Apologies, Brooke, your time has ended.

We are now moving to our next speaker.

Burton, please unmute yourself and you may begin.

Hi, the council, my name is Paterina Burton, nearly a 20-year resident who has now just an asking to reject the strong air proposal and instead from the ballot, the council council manager system or the open federal reform project alternative.

I want to let you know that I've worked across three jurisdictions on their local budget processes as a budget analyst in San Francisco City Administrator's Office, as a senior budget analyst and open budget bureau, and now as the budget manager for the city of Alameda.

For my work experience, I see a council manager system as the most effective form of local government because it leaves the collaboration needed between our elected officials and department staff to want to city effectively and equitably for its residents.

Also, no matter what a proposal you approve, I really ask you to reject specifically the recommendation that would have an independent budget office, which is a model San Francisco has, because it doesn't work, it creates an adversarial process and frankly waste staff time.

I can tell you this as someone who has literally created the budget for these three jurisdictions.

Apologies, your time has ended.

We will now go to Blair Beekman.

Please unmute yourself and you may begin.

Hi, thank you.

Blair Beekman.

And being from San Diego, we're going through some of the same exact issues.

Uh to be clear, I'm definitely I and I'm from San Jose also.

Uh, and you know, we made a decision uh a few years ago, uh, strong mayor versus city council city manager that the city manager system was a better form of working.

It it it serves the public, it doesn't serve special interests like a strong mayor does.

Um, good governance is also really important to myself, and I think to everybody what we need to work out here at this time.

And what I keep trying to say in San Diego, it's following some of the same steps that San Diego is trying to learn right now.

San Diego has the same issues with management and governance.

Uh it's disorganized, is anything.

Lynn McElhaney, uh, you know, the council person before our great uh current councilperson Fife, she was for an organizational process as well.

Um, and I think that's what the city manager role does, and um we can't be afraid of that and and make the steps to move towards that.

Thank you for your comments, and I'm now calling the last Zoom speaker.

I have Nancy Folk.

Um, I do see Stephen Folk with his hand raised, but I don't have a card for Stephen.

Nancy, you've been unmuted, you may begin.

Hello, thanks for considering the issue.

Yes, it's essential to improve the organizing governance for the city of Oakland.

Oaklanders deserve efficient, effective, responsive city services.

We all deserve that.

So an improvement is essential.

However, it strikes me that we are missing an opportunity if we settle for moving to the strong mayor system.

And with all due respect to the current mayor who is doing a fabulous job, the charter and the governance has to survive to the to all future mayors.

And I personally believe that professional managers and people trained to deliver complex city services would be a better solution for the Oaklanders than those who can win citywide elections.

So I urge you to consider the voters allowing them to consider a council manager form.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

I do see another hand.

There was one speaker when I unmute you for as Davis and Baldwin.

If you signed up to speak under another name, yes, I did.

Under what name did you sign up to speak for?

Dorcas Davis.

Well, because okay, unfortunately, we don't have a speaker card for you, so that concludes our um speakers for this item.

Thank you to everyone who came out to speak on this item.

I believe we have our public ethics commission executive director here.

Hi, good afternoon.

I'm Suzanne Doran, Director of the Public Ethics Commission.

As many of you know, under the city charter, the Public Ethics Commission has to review and have the opportunity to comment on any amendments to laws that the commission has the power to enforce or administer before these amendments become law.

So pursuant to that duty, the commission met last night at its regular meeting to review and provide comment on the amendments proposed by Mayor Lee to city charter sections 202, 218, 300, and 603, which we administer.

So this proposed legislation would transfer the duty of setting the mayor's salary from city council to the PEC.

It would replace the method for setting the salaries for the Office of Mayor and City Council to align with the salary adjustments that we currently perform for the city attorney and city auditor.

And it would replace section 218, non-interference in administrative affairs with a section titled Right of Inquiry and Access for Constituent Services that's intended to protect council members' ability to serve as accessible points of contact for residents while still preserving the prohibition on council members directing, ordering, or coercing city staff.

So we had a robust discussion at our meeting last night, and the commission voted unanimously to take the following positions.

The commission voted to support the proposed charter amendments with the following amendments.

The commission asked that the salary setting be aligned for all elected officials so they would occur in the same year.

And that that means that the PEC's duty of setting the mayor's salary and the revised method for setting the salary for council members would take effect in 2028, the same year we would next be performing salary setting for city attorney and city auditor.

The commission also voted to recommend that you revise the new language in section 603C.

That's the section that identifies salary setting as a commission duty to clarify that the PEC has the option to seek assistance of the city administrator or outside consultants at its discretion, but it's not obligated to do so.

This comes from an earlier study by the commission when they were asked to weigh in on whether they should take over the duty of setting the mayor's salary.

At that time, the commission found that they thought a four-year cycle would more depoliticize that process and it would also conserve staff resources in performing this duty.

Finally, on the amendments to section 218, non-interference in administrative affairs.

The commission recommends revising the proposed amendments to section 218 D and 603B to limit the PEC's duty of enforcement to the new section 218D only, which maintains the prohibition on council member interference in administrative affairs, but exclude the new sections 218A, B and C, which are more instructive from the laws the PEC has a duty to enforce.

The Commission has directed PEC staff to work with the author and council on amendments as needed and asked that any significant changes be brought back to the commission for review prior to final adoption.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Any questions from the council members?

Council member Houston, then five.

Well, this is blinking.

Okay.

No, no, no, no.

We're gonna go to five first.

No, no, no.

We're gonna go to five first.

I just had one clarifying question through the chair to um Ms.

Dorn.

Do you have those amendments in writing or those suggestions in writing that can be shared with the committee?

We met last night.

Um I had to come and do this verbally, but um I'm happy to provide suggested uh edits.

That would be helpful.

Thank you.

I'm complete at this moment.

Thank you.

Councilmember Houston.

Through the chair.

Um Ms.

Susan, I have a question.

It said replace the 218 to some other numbers you said 18D or 202.

And it said replace it for inquiring, and so through the chair um to the city attorney, we can acquire now.

Can't is that correct?

We can inquire.

We don't have to direct staff, but we can we inquire right now if there's an issue that our constituents um are concerned about instead of directing, and this is through the chair to the city attorney.

Um correct through the chair to council member Houston under um current version of Charter 218.

Yes, council members can seek information.

Okay, so why would we have to um replace it if we can already inquire through the chair?

Ms.

Susan.

Um well I think that the mayor could speak more to the intention here.

Our understanding is that um there's three new elements added to that section, which before was simply the prohibition on um interference in administrative affairs, so so these more instructive items are added that have to do with your the council members' right to request information and a right to a timely response.

So the way that the charter is currently written, that entire section would be is listed as being under our enforcement jurisdiction, and we didn't feel that the those first three more instructive items belong as something that we would enforce.

So, so let me just make one comment on that.

Uh section two eighteen uh when we looked at that, it's about it's written in a way where it lays out what the council cannot do.

For example, it's a misdemeanor if a council member uh does the following, and so that section was rewritten to uh affirm what the council can do instead of what a council member can't do based on whatever penalties that would be uh that are currently there.

Okay, so so through the chair to to the city attorney.

So when we inquire if we want to do direction, we go straight to the city administrator, correct?

Um, this is to the city attorney.

To the city administrator, we cannot go to the directors.

We have to go to him or her if we want to uh push somebody to um do something for our committee.

Not push, but tell them that we want this done right through the through the chair to the city attorney.

Um to council member Houston.

I just want to to point out that there's a new proposal for 218.

So what the mayor's office has introduced is in your packet, um, and you can see the changes that they are proposing to section 218, which um reword that section and and uh make some significant amendments to that section, and I think that's what the PEC was commenting on.

Okay, so proposals, not the current version.

So again, so my thing is this that that everyone here, everyone that's watching knows that I've been 10 toes down for the mayor.

This has nothing to do with my opinion about what's happening.

Um, I'm worried about the next mayor.

I know my mayor right now, and I'm gonna say my mayor, because she is my mayor, is competent to make this things happen.

But I want to be able to, as council, when I say I, we want to be able to hire and fire the city administrator.

That's what so we can make those decisions.

Um, and I do feel that a strong um manager, strong counsel is is the way.

I don't I'm not worried about now.

I'm worried about later, whoever takes our places or whoever, if we decide to run again, because I ran with it being in place the way it is right now, right?

That's what I ran for.

So um I want to move this to full council, so I want to hear what all my other council members want to say.

I want to move it to full council.

I'm not saying I'll move it here.

Is that a motion?

No, no, I can't make it.

Uh I I know we can't.

So, but I do want to hear it.

I want to hear what my other colleagues have to say.

Um I do want to hear what my other colleagues have to say, and I believe that the public should um make a decision, but I am on the side of keeping the power that we have right now with the strong manager.

That's where I'm at.

Thank you, Councilmember Houston, Councilmember Brown.

Excellent.

Um, thank you so much.

So, first off, thank you to all the public speakers that um came to speak in support of these um changes.

Um I guess if I was to start first with the item that council member Houston was talking about the the changes to 218.

Um I actually really like how those changes are proposed.

Um, so please have a look in the packet, Councilmember Houston, so you can see the change in wording on that.

Um, and then um as was mentioned, I believe that at this time I think that the best thing that we can do is just move this item to the full council.

Um so I'll make that motion.

Full council on the second.

Yes.

All righty.

So we got a motion to move to full council.

Councilmember Ramchandra.

Thank you.

I want to appreciate the mayor and the working group for a lot of painstaking efforts that you're all doing as volunteers to help serve our city.

I'm a huge poly sci nerd.

I spent four years in college studying democratic systems of governance since my first year in office three and a half years ago.

Um, I've been looking at the issue of charter reform, thinking of other cities, and I'm glad that a study has happened.

Um, but as the mayor said, reasonable minds can disagree without resorting to character attacks, and that's what I'm doing today.

I'm respectfully disagreeing and would rather we move towards the council manager system.

That being said, here today at rules, I do believe this should be voted on by the full council.

Um I would not support it at that at the full council nor at the ballot box if it moves forward, but I want my full all of my colleagues the opportunity to be able to weigh in on this.

And again, thank you for this work.

We all certainly do agree on one thing that the current system isn't working.

Thank you.

Council member Fife.

I have to agree with my colleagues and all the public speakers who are very clear that the system that we currently have is not working.

Um, one of my concerns about what I don't see is the accountability and how that would work under uh either of the change systems, and I want to articulate what I understand to be three potential options, two of which are not um up for debate because this is a strong mayor model that we're discussing, but there's also a council uh city administrator version and the hybrid version which we have right now, it's trash, and I think we all know that.

Um but I I want to highlight some things that have come to light with our recent uh with the recent resignation of um Justin Johnson, which came as a shock to everyone, and the text that were published.

I saw an affirmation from the Oakland police department that they were aware that the police were spreading misinformation about crime in the city of Oakland.

I want to know how in any in a strong mayor model that will be addressed.

I want to know how 218 like violations will be held accountable if that occurs.

I also want to know how department heads will be held accountable.

I have experienced in my years in office where department heads have worked with the city administrator to stop my legislation.

I've heard staff say, yeah, folks are trying to kill what you're trying to bring to council.

I've seen people who are staff who've come and go who've expressed racial animus for elected officials.

How are any of those going to be addressed under the strong mayor model or a council manager?

Those are answers that will help me understand the direction to take.

But above all, what I believe is that any options need to go before the voters.

We need a change and we need it yesterday.

I'm just ambivalent about the changes being suggested suggested because I don't see the accountability that would actually turn the tide for what we need as a legislative body and for what the Oakland residents deserve.

Thank you, Count.

Is there someone here from the mayor's office?

That can address the pieces around accountability.

I think the questions were the 218, the department head interference, and did I miss something?

Who would hold OPD accountable as well?

The Oakland Police Department.

Who would hold okay?

Currently, and as well as in the charter revision, the mayor appoints the police chief.

The police commission has oversight responsibility and the select committee, and they're currently uh mechanisms in place.

Also, uh 218 violations.

Uh again, you heard from the ethics committee commission.

We're working on the amendments to make sure that uh violations under 218 are very clear in terms of who's accountable for what.

And in this system, department heads uh are directly responsible uh to the mayor.

It's an executive function, and the the public, the voters, the residents, uh, want to know who's responsible for the delivery of what the residents deserve.

And so you need an elect, and in this charter revision, it's the elected officials that are responsible.

The only issue uh that we need to recognize will stay is the non-interference because non-interference under when a council uh is engaged in administrative functions, executive functions, chaos could occur every other day.

Uh a city administrator could be fired for whatever, and you have to have a line of authority for a city administrator to be able to uh be responsible to an elected person, and that's the mayor.

And the mayor has to ensure that uh council members uh are treated fairly and have access to what they need to be able to deliver the services to their constituents.

It's not uh the executive function ensures that what council members and what residents deserve are conducted, and the city administrator also in terms of hiring and firing requires confirmation by the city council, do that.

Yes, and my my final question is is there any tally on the financial implications that come with the change, and particularly around the new uh support positions that will that are being suggested.

Um I wish my staff so someone helped you.

I don't have a tally at council member.

We uh are looking at any the budget analysis and the fiscal analysis will be determined based on the fiscal condition.

But what there are two, there are two the for the budget analysts, yes, yeah, and the council will be able to make the decision based on how many and who they want.

There's one I believe required under the charter, but the council can elect to have two or three based on the budget condition.

It's suggested for a budget analyst and a legislative analyst, yeah.

And so it would be up to the council to put that into the budget to put it into the budget, hire staff, yes, uh-huh, and to determine the responsibilities and what the council thought would be necessary.

Understood for its function.

Thank you.

I'm complete, Council president.

Thank you.

Any more questions from the council members?

If not, we'll forward this to full council June 2nd.

I apologize to the chair.

I have a motion by Councilmember Brown, who's the second?

That's me.

Oh, five.

Thank you for that.

So we have a motion by Councilmember Brown, seconded by Council Member Fife to approve item five as is to be forwarded to the June 2nd City Council agenda on consent on roll.

Council member Brown.

Aye.

Five.

Aye.

Ramachandra.

Aye.

And Chair Jenkins.

Hi.

Item number five is approved to be forwarded to June a second city council agenda on consent.

Non-consent.

Thank you.

And with that, we will now go all to open forum.

I have two speakers, Kevin Daly and Blair Beekman.

And any or Kevin Dally, if you can please approach the podium.

Thank you.

Just want to thank all the council members for their thoughtful comments on the charter.

I am concerned that the intro says that there are separate approvals by council of Oak Dot director and public works director, but when you read the text of the amendment, those are merged into a single paragraph, which suggests just as a former city administrator wanted to merge transportation DPW together.

It looks like this charter amendment has been written, assuming that they can be merged together.

Anyway, thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

Blair Beekman, you're unmuted.

You may begin.

Hi, Blair Beekman.

I had to quickly run across the street here.

Um yeah, to quickly offer, I didn't quite quite fully make clear.

I'm for the city manager third option.

Um I'm really hopeful that uh you know, we can we can respect that sort of decision, and if we eventually be are working towards a city manager role, that can be okay.

The strong mayor thing doesn't have to be forever.

It was voted for in Oakland, it was voted for in San Diego.

That doesn't mean it has to last forever.

We can make choices and and compromises, and that could be okay.

And I hope that's someone mentioned earlier the power of accepting that uh builds power for everyone.

So good luck in the efforts uh in those terms.

Uh in being from San Diego, we've had a really difficult week uh with some shootings by young people.

It's sad that these mass killings are happening, and hoping I'm hoping they actually can be left in.

Because they realize that uh it's a lot of pain that's caused, and it doesn't really solve anything.

Um, that concludes our open forum speakers.

Thank you.

This meeting's adjourned.