Public Comment — San Ramon City Council, June 30, 2026

From: Brian Swanson
To: City Clerk (Public)
Cc: City Council; planningcommission; Planning Services (public); Finance; Parks (Public) Subject: Public Comment: Agenda Item 2.1 - Discussion and Direction Regarding Public Hearing Procedures - City Council Special Meeting - June 30, 2026
Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 4:43:38 PM
***| EXTERNAL EMAIL: Think before you click and do not open attachments unless you know they are safe. |***
City Council Members:

I submit this written public comment regarding Agenda Item 2.1, Discussion and Direction Regarding Public Hearing Procedures, for the June 30, 2026 Special City Council meeting.

I respectfully request that the Council give clear direction to the City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Manager to return with a written, Council-adopted update to the City's meeting rules and procedures. That update should not be limited to meeting start times, adjournment times, speaker order, decorum, and disruption management. It should also memorialize a durable procedure for written public comments, latedistributed writings, supplemental materials, presentation decks, CivicClerk posting, red-binder inspection, accessible formats, correction of agenda-management-system artifacts, and preservation of the public decision record.

The staff report is too narrow for the subject matter. It states that the City Attorney will review public meeting laws, regulations, and rules, and seek Council input on desired changes to meeting conduct. Still, it then states that the presentation will focus primarily on Paragraphs 11 through 14 of Resolution No. 2026-084: addressing the Council, manner of addressing the Council, voting, and order/decorum. It also states that the "primary goal" is to improve efficiency by managing communications and limiting or minimizing disruptions. That is only part of the issue. A rules-andprocedures update should also improve public access, transparency, administrativerecord integrity, and the City's implementation of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act).

The June 30 agenda itself shows the City has already moved in the right direction. It now states that comments received up to two hours before the meeting will be emailed to the City Council, placed in the red binder at the back of the meeting room, posted online in CivicClerk under the meeting date within Public Comment, and made available for public inspection at City Hall. That is materially clearer than the May 26 agenda language, which directed the public to an outdated public-comment webpage.

That improvement should be memorialized by Council action. It should not remain an ad hoc staff practice or a one-meeting agenda instruction.

This comment raises eight core issues:

1. The Council should direct staff and the City Attorney to return with a written amendment to Resolution No. 2026-084 or a companion City Council Rules and Procedures document.

2. The revised rules should distinguish issues of meeting efficiency and decorum from those of transparency, Brown Act compliance, public access, and administrative record obligations.

3. The City should codify the improved CivicClerk Public Comment posting procedure now reflected in the June 30 agenda.

4. The City should reconcile the two-hour written-comment cutoff in the current agenda language with the 5:00 p.m. written-communications deadline in Resolution No. 2026-084.

5. The City should define the red-binder procedure, including location, timing, indexing, public notice, remote-access equivalency, and relationship to online posting.

6. The City should adopt a procedure for presentation decks, supplemental materials, and writings distributed before or during meetings.

7. The City should create a durable, searchable, accessible public decision record for major policy and capital project matters.

8. The Council should confirm that public hearing procedures are not only about managing the public; they are also about ensuring the City's own record, materials, comments, and procedures are transparent, dependable, and accessible.

1.Transparency, Brown Act Compliance, Public Access, and the Administrative Record

1.1 The City Should Distinguish Legal Minimums from Better Local Procedure
The Brown Act establishes minimum requirements. It does not prevent the Council from adopting stricter local rules that improve public access, agenda clarity, and record integrity.

Government Code section 54950 sets forth the Brown Act's policy foundation: local public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business, and their actions and deliberations must be conducted openly. Government Code section 54954.3 requires an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body before or during consideration of agenda items, including special-meeting items described in the notice. Government Code section 54957.5 requires qualifying agenda-related writings distributed to all or a majority of a legislative body to be publicly available according to the timing and inspection rules in that section.

Those provisions should be translated into a clear City procedure. The public should not have to infer the City's practice from a mix of CivicClerk tabs, red binders, older webpages, agenda footers, email acknowledgments, staff habits, and later City Attorney explanations.

The June 30 agenda's improved written-comment instruction is a strong start. It identifies the intake email, the two-hour cutoff, distribution to Council, red-binder placement at the back of the meeting room, CivicClerk posting under Public Comment, City Hall public inspection, and treatment of after-cutoff comments. That language should become the baseline for a written Citywide protocol.

1.2 The Distribution Trigger and the Administrative Cutoff Are Different
For regular meetings, Government Code section 54957.5(b)(1) uses distribution to all or a majority of the legislative body as the key timing trigger. The City's twohour public-comment cutoff is an administrative procedure and a public promise. It does not replace the statutory distribution trigger.

That distinction should be reflected in the rules.

If a timely comment is received before the City's cutoff but not distributed to the body until later, the City should preserve records documenting the routing history. If the City distributes the comment to all or a majority of the public before the item is heard, the public should have access at the time required by law and by the City's own published procedure. If the City withholds after-cutoff comments until after the meeting, the agenda should make that clear. If the City distributes after-cutoff comments before or during the meeting, the City should identify how section 54957.5 will be satisfied.

The rule should also address special meetings. Even where a particular subdivision is written around regular meeting timing, the City can and should adopt a consistent local-access rule for special meetings as a matter of policy.

1.3 The City Should Codify the CivicClerk "Public Comment" Procedure
The City's recent use of a CivicClerk Public Comment tab is the clearest practical fix. My June 22 written comment for Agenda Items 6.2 and 9.3 was acknowledged by the Deputy City Clerk and then posted under a clearly visible Public Comment tab before the June 23 meeting. That procedure materially improved public access and showed that prompt posting is operationally feasible.

The June 30 agenda now carries that same concept forward by stating that timely written comments will be posted online in CivicClerk under the meeting date in the Public Comment section.

That procedure should be codified. The rule should state:
written comments will be posted under the applicable meeting date; the posting location will be labeled Public Comment or another equally clear label;
each comment will identify the meeting date and agenda item; a comment addressing multiple agenda items will be cross-linked or clearly labeled for each item;
large comments or comments with attachments will be posted in a way that preserves both accessibility and record integrity;
the posting timestamp will be preserved; and
the public-facing record will show when a supplemental or public-comment item was added.

1.4 The Red Binder Should Be Defined, Not Merely Mentioned The June 30 agenda states that timely comments will be placed in the red binder at the back of the meeting room. That is better than merely saying "red binder at the meeting."
However, the rule should define the red-binder procedure. The City should identify:
where the binder will be located;
when it will be available;
who is responsible for updating it;
whether it is organized by meeting date and agenda item; whether it includes an index or table of contents;
whether staff will announce when new materials are placed in it; whether remote viewers have equivalent online access; and whether the binder is the City's designated physical inspection location for purposes of Government Code section 54957.5.

A red binder can be useful. It should not be a substitute for clear, agenda-linked online access when the agenda states that written comments will be posted online.

1.5 A Written Rule Should Govern Supplemental Materials and Presentation Decks
The City should adopt a procedure for presentation decks, supplemental materials, and other agenda-related writings distributed before or during meetings.

The June 23 Item 6.2 presentation on the Iron Horse Trail double-tracking pilot project illustrates why this matters. The posted slide deck is not ceremonial. It is a 26-page presentation on the Iron Horse Regional Trail Dual-Tracking Pilot Project — from Bollinger Canyon Road to Crow Canyon Road. It states that the design is 65 percent complete, describes a 1.3-mile segment, estimates the construction cost at approximately $2 million, includes cross-sections and plan/detail graphics, discusses pipeline and utility constraints, references C3 permit issues, and identifies funding concepts, including a $1.5 million Congressionally Directed Spending Request.

I am not using that example to create a new accusation under Agenda Item 2.1. I am using it as a concrete example of why meeting rules should address substantive presentation materials. A public presentation can contain design, funding, environmental, safety, and implementation information, even if the agenda item is labeled "Special Presentation" or "informational."
The rules should require the City to preserve and, when requested, identify:
when a presentation deck was finalized;
when it was transmitted to City staff;
when it was distributed to Councilmembers or other body members; when it was uploaded to CivicClerk;
when it became publicly visible;
whether underlying drawings, cost estimates, memoranda, or attachments were also distributed; and
which section 54957.5 procedure the City contends applies.

1.6 Administrative-Record Integrity Should Be Part of Public Hearing Procedure
The Council should treat the public decision record as part of the public hearing procedure.

For ordinary meetings, this means a complete and accessible record of agendas, staff reports, attachments, public comments, supplemental materials, presentation decks, corrections, minutes, video, transcripts, and written staff responses where staff chooses, or the Council directs that responses be prepared.

For major policy, planning, financial, capital-project, or environmental matters, the Council should require a more durable project record. That does not mean the Brown Act or the California Public Records Act (CPRA) automatically requires a permanent online archive in every circumstance. It means the Council should adopt a stronger local policy when the decision record will affect residents, projects, budgets, grants, environmental review, accessibility, public safety, or litigation risk over multiple years.

The City has already identified goals that support this approach. The 2026 Goals and Objectives include developing a City Council Code of Conduct/Rules & Procedures document, standardizing how departments analyze and report service data, approving and implementing the Trails Master Plan, and enhancing engagement and communication with residents, including a website refresh to improve user experience.

The Council Norms also support this approach. They call for doing what is best for the community, demonstrating respect, engaging collaboratively, listening carefully, being prepared, and conducting effective meetings. Those norms are not limited to controlling members of the public. They also require the City to provide clear materials, reliable records, and sufficient public access so that Councilmembers and residents can be prepared.

1.7 The Public Decision Record Should Be Searchable, Stable, and Accessible
For major items, the City should maintain a single durable project or decision record using stable links, accessible Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) where feasible, searchable Portable Document Format (PDF) files where appropriate, maintain link integrity, document dates, document descriptions, and agenda item crosslinks.

That record should include, as applicable:
agendas;
staff reports;
attachments;
public comments;
supplemental materials;
presentation decks;
written staff responses;
version histories;
consultant scopes and contracts;
project drawings;
cost estimates;
environmental documents;
permits;
funding applications and awards;
legal notices;
accessibility materials;
meeting video and transcripts;
records of corrections to agenda materials; and
posting and distribution logs sufficient to establish when materials became publicly available.

A meeting-level public comment folder, a red binder, a temporary StoryMap, or disconnected webpages can be useful. They are not a substitute for an organized public decision record when the Council is adopting rules, approving long-range plans, or acting on projects with multi-year consequences.

2.Agenda Item 2.1 Should Not Be Limited to Speaker Management and Decorum
The staff report frames the presentation around public hearing procedures. Still, the described focus is mostly on Paragraphs 11 through 14 of Resolution No. 2026-084:
addressing the Council, manner of addressing the Council, voting, and order/decorum. The report further states that the "primary goal" is to improve efficiency by managing communications and limiting disruptions.

Meeting efficiency matters. Decorum matters. Actual disruption, threats, fighting words, and conduct that prevent a meeting from continuing may be regulated. But the City should be careful not to frame the update as though the main problem with public hearings is the public.

A complete public hearing procedure should address both sides of the meeting relationship:
what the public must do to participate effectively and respectfully; and what the City must do to provide timely materials, clear instructions, transparent posting, accessible records, and reliable public inspection procedures.

The Council should therefore ensure that any revised rules include a public access and record integrity section, not only a decorum section.

3.Resolution No. 2026-084 Should Be Harmonized with the Agenda Instructions
Resolution No. 2026-084 states that written communications shall be delivered to the City Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting.

The June 30 agenda uses a different operational rule: comments received up to two hours before the meeting will be emailed to Council, placed in the red binder at the back of the meeting room, posted online in CivicClerk under Public Comment, and made available for inspection at City Hall. Comments received after the cutoff will be provided to Council the following day and posted online.

Those rules may overlap for a 7:00 p.m. meeting, but they do not necessarily apply to a 5:00 p.m., 6:30 p.m., or 7:00 p.m. committee, commission, or special meeting.

The Council should direct staff to reconcile the rules by answering:

1. Which deadline controls when the agenda and resolution differ?

2. Does the rule apply differently to regular meetings, special meetings, committees, and commissions?

3. What happens to comments submitted after the cutoff but before the item is heard?

4. Are after-cutoff comments withheld from the body until after the meeting?

5. If the after-cutoff comments are distributed before or during the meeting, how will the City satisfy public-inspection requirements?

6. Are written comments with large attachments treated differently from short emails?

7. Is the public-comment posting deadline tied to staff receipt, staff processing, distribution to the body, or the agenda cutoff?
This should be expressly resolved in the rules.

4.The City Attorney's June 17 Letter Confirms the Need for a Formal Protocol
The City Attorney's June 17 letter confirms the need for a written protocol. The letter acknowledges that, for the May 26 City Council meeting, City staff did not post my written comments on the City's website "in strict accordance" with Government Code section 54957.5(b)(1). It also states that the City should consider procedural changes, including active monitoring, clearer identification of inspection locations on the agenda, revised website postings, and improved public access to agenda-item comments.

Those are exactly the types of changes the Council should now memorialize.

The letter also contains an inaccurate factual statement: it states that I chose to email each individual Councilmember directly rather than follow the established written instructions. That is incorrect. My original May 26 written public comment was submitted through the City Clerk channel identified in the agenda. To the extent additional recipients were included, they were included in addition to the official intake address, not instead of it. Individual Councilmembers were copied on the later Brown Act complaint and notice correspondence.

This matters for Agenda Item 2.1 because the rules should not treat additional recipients as making an otherwise timely public-comment submission "non-standard" or non-compliant. A simple rule would avoid future confusion:

A written public comment submitted to the official intake address will be processed under the City's written-comment procedure even if the sender also includes other City officials, departments, commissions, committees, or public agencies.

The rule can still instruct the public to use the official intake address. But it should not be used as an excuse to convert additional recipients into an excuse for unclear routing, delayed posting, or incomplete public access.

5.The June 3 Finance Committee Incident Remains a Procedural Gap The June 3 Finance Committee incident remains unresolved and shows why the procedure should apply across all City Brown Act bodies, not only the City Council.

The June 3 Finance Committee agenda allowed written comments to be submitted by email at least two hours before the 4:00 p.m. meeting and stated that written public comments would not be read aloud. It did not identify where timely written public comments would be posted or made available for public inspection before or during the meeting.

My June 15 notice documented that my June 3 comment was submitted at approximately 12:02 p.m., acknowledged at approximately 1:46 p.m. as received and to be provided to the Finance Committee, but not visible in CivicClerk before or during the meeting based on screenshots taken at approximately 2:20 p.m., 4:08 p.m., and 12:05 p.m. the following day. The same notice requested the receipt, routing, distribution, physical inspection, PDF creation, CivicClerk upload, and publication chronology.

The Council should not allow committee and commission practices to fall outside the rules. If a City body receives written comments, distributes them to members, and does not read them aloud, the public needs a clear way to find those comments.

The rule should apply to:

City Council;
Finance Committee;
Planning Commission;
Parks and Community Services Commission;
Architectural Review Board;
Transportation Advisory Committee;
ad hoc and standing committees subject to the Brown Act; and any other City legislative body subject to the Brown Act.

6.Conduct Rules Should Not Chill Protected Public Criticism The June 30 agenda contains attendee-conduct language addressing profanity, threats, hate speech, disorderly conduct, excessive profanity or slander, fighting words, and speech outside the Council's subject matter jurisdiction or the agenda item.

The City may regulate time, place, and manner, and may address actual disruption.

But the rules should be carefully drafted so as not to chill protected criticism.

Government Code section 54954.3 protects the public's opportunity to address the body and prohibits a legislative body from barring criticism of agency policies, procedures, programs, services, acts, or omissions.

The Council should direct the City Attorney to modernize the decorum language to focus on actual disruption, true threats, fighting words, reasonable time limits, relevance to the item, and orderly conduct. It should not be written or applied in a way that penalizes sharp but lawful criticism of the City, staff, consultants, Council decisions, agency procedures, development approvals, or public records practices.

The Council Norms already provide an appropriate internal standard: focus on policies and issues, not personalities; listen carefully; be prepared; and conduct effective meetings. Those norms should guide Council conduct, staff procedures, and public-speaker rules.

7.Requested Council Direction
I respectfully request that the City Council direct the City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Manager to return with a written, Council-adopted rules and procedures update that includes the following:

7.1 Written Public Comment Intake
A uniform rule identifying the official email address, subject-line requirements, agenda item identification requirements, cutoff time, treatment of attachments, and staff responsibility for monitoring.

7.2 CivicClerk Public Comment Posting
A rule requiring timely written comments to be posted under the relevant CivicClerk meeting date within Public Comment, or an equally clear current location, and not on outdated webpages.

7.3 Agenda-Item Labeling and Cross-Linking
A rule requiring written comments to be labeled by meeting date and agenda item.

Where one comment addresses multiple items, it should be cross-linked or clearly identified under each relevant item.

7.4 Distribution-Based Timing
A rule requiring the City to preserve the time a writing is distributed to all or a majority of the body and to make qualifying writings publicly available at the legally required time.

7.5 Red Binder Procedure
A written red-binder rule identifying location, availability time, organization, indexing, staff responsibility, remote-viewer equivalency, and whether the binder is the City's designated physical inspection location.

7.6 Presentation Decks and Supplemental Materials
A rule requiring the City to post, label, and preserve presentation decks and supplemental materials when they are distributed to the body or presented at the meeting, consistent with Government Code section 54957.5.

7.7 After-Cutoff Comments
A rule explaining whether after-cutoff comments are held until after the meeting or may still be distributed before or during the meeting, and how the City will handle public access if they are distributed.

7.8 Agenda Corrections and Staff-Report Shells
A rule for correcting agenda-management-system artifacts, placeholder staff reports, incorrect links, wrong public-comment locations, outdated webpages, or missing attachments discovered after agenda publication.

7.9 Accessible Formats
A rule requiring timely access to alternative formats and accessible versions of agenda materials, written comments, presentation decks, and supplemental materials, consistent with Government Code section 54957.5(c) and disability-access obligations.

7.10 Administrative Record / Public Decision Record
A rule requiring durable, searchable, accessible, agenda-linked records for major policy, financial, planning, capital-project, environmental, and public hearing matters.

7.11 Citywide Application
A rule applying the same public-access principles to all City Brown Act bodies, including the City Council, commissions, committees, boards, and advisory bodies.

7.12 Record Preservation and Auditability
A rule requiring preservation of receipt, forwarding, distribution, printing, scanning, upload, modification, publication, and public-visibility timestamps, including CivicClerk logs and website publication history.

7.13 Written Deadline Consistency
A rule reconciling the 5:00 p.m. written-communication deadline in Resolution No. 2026-084 with the two-hour-before-meeting cutoff used in the June 30 agenda.

7.14 Additional Recipients
A rule confirming that a timely submission to the official intake address remains valid even if the sender also copies other City officials, departments, commissions, committees, agencies, or interested parties.

7.15 Staff Training and Agenda Templates
A direction that the revised procedure be incorporated into agenda templates, CivicClerk workflows, City Clerk training, department staff training, commission and committee procedures, and the City website refresh.

7.16 Council Approval
A direction that these procedures return for Council approval and not remain solely an informal administrative practice.

7.17 First Page Agenda Notice and Agenda Transmittal Instructions A rule requiring concise written-public-comment instructions to appear both on the first page of every agenda and in the email transmittal that distributes or announces the agenda for each City Brown Act body.

The first page of the agenda should not merely direct the public to "refer to the end of the agenda" for participation options. It should include, at minimum, a short frontpage summary identifying:
the official email address for written public comments; the applicable written comment cutoff;
where timely written comments will be posted online;
the physical public-inspection location, including the red binder location if used; how after-cutoff comments will be handled;
whether written comments will be read aloud;
the disability-access contact and timing; and
a direct link to the CivicClerk meeting page or other current posting location.

The same information should also appear in the email transmittal used to distribute or announce each agenda. Many members of the public rely on agenda emails, calendar notices, or forwarded agenda links rather than reading every page of an agenda packet. If the City's operative written-comment procedure is placed only near the end of the agenda, or only inside the packet, members of the public may miss the cutoff, use an outdated webpage, or fail to understand where timely written comments will be posted. The agenda transmittal should therefore repeat the current writtencomment directions and link directly to the CivicClerk meeting page and Public Comment location.

This requirement should apply to the City Council, the Finance Committee, the Parks and Community Services Commission, the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Board, the Transportation Advisory Committee, and every other City legislative body subject to the Brown Act. The City should use the same basic front-page and transmittal language across bodies, with only necessary operational differences. This is consistent with the City's 2026 Goals and Objectives to develop Council Rules and Procedures, improve public engagement, refresh the City website, and standardize service-data reporting, as well as the Council Norms requiring preparation, careful listening, respectful engagement, and effective meetings.

8.Conclusion
The June 30 special meeting is the correct venue to move from reactive correspondence to a durable policy.

The City has already shown that a better process is possible. The language in the June 30 agenda's Public Comment posting is clear, practical, and much better than the earlier approach. The Council should now memorialize it, apply it across all Brown Act bodies, reconcile the deadlines, define the red binder, address supplemental materials, and preserve the administrative record.

Public hearing procedures should not be framed only as tools for controlling speakers or shortening meetings. They should also ensure that the public, Councilmembers, Commissioners, Committee members, staff, and reviewing agencies all know where written comments and supplemental materials will be posted, when they will be available, and how they become part of the public decision record.

That approach is consistent with the City's 2026 Goals and Objectives, including developing Council Rules and Procedures, standardizing service-data reporting, improving public engagement, refreshing the City website, and implementing the Trails Master Plan. It is also consistent with the Council Norms of doing what is best for the community, listening carefully, being prepared, demonstrating respect, and conducting effective meetings.

I respectfully request that the Council direct the City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Manager to return with a written, Council-adopted public hearing and meeting procedures update that expressly incorporates written public comment, Brown Act access, first page agenda instructions, agenda transmittal instructions, CivicClerk posting, supplemental materials, red binder inspection, accessible formats, correction procedures, and administrative-record preservation.

Nothing in this comment waives any prior Brown Act, CPRA, administrative-record, California Environmental Quality Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, public comment, or other objection, claim, deadline, or remedy.

Respectfully submitted,
Brian C. Swanson, AICP
San Ramon Voter, Taxpayer, and Resident
On Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 5:03 PM City of San Ramon <[email protected]> wrote:

The City Council special meeting will begin at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 30, 2026.

The meeting agenda is now available at,
https://sanramonca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1396/files/agenda/1477 Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your email address to log in.

If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact [email protected] or visit subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com.

This service includes a Public Alert System for San Ramon. Subscribers will receive real-time Public Safety and Emergency Alerts both via email and wirelessly. In order to receive these time-sensitive emergency notifications, you MUST subscribe to the service. To subscribe, please click here. For wireless alerts, text message and data rates may apply.This service is provided to you at no charge by City of San Ramon.

City of San Ramon | 7000 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583 | (925) 973-2500 | www.sanramon.ca.gov From: Brian Swanson
To: City Clerk (Public); City Council; City Attorney (public) Cc: planningcommission; Planning Services (public); Finance; Parks (Public); City Manager (Public); Naomi Yun Subject: Late-Submitted Written Public Comment: Agenda Item 2.1 - Discussion and Direction Regarding Public Hearing Procedures Record Preservation Notice - City Council Special Meeting - June 30, 2026 Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 5:49:25 PM
***| EXTERNAL EMAIL: Think before you click and do not open attachments unless you know they are safe. |***
City Clerk, City Council Members, and City Attorney:

This written comment is submitted as a late-submitted written public comment under the June 30, 2026 Special Meeting agenda procedures. It is intended for inclusion in the official record for Agenda Item 2.1.

1.Special Meeting Notice, Location Clarity, and Public Access Today's Special Meeting was held in the City Hall Training Room rather than the Council Chambers.

While the agenda identifies the meeting location, it does not clearly or prominently consolidate information regarding remote viewing or streaming availability, and the meeting was not actively streamed or broadcast.

When a meeting is held outside the regular Council Chambers, clarity in the agenda regarding:
·Physical location accessibility; and
·Remote viewing or broadcast availability;
is essential to ensure that members of the public can determine in advance how to observe proceedings.

Where streaming is not provided, that limitation should be clearly disclosed in the primary agenda materials rather than inferred after the fact.

2.CivicClerk Posting Structure and Timestamp Visibility CivicClerk displays agenda materials in two different ways:
·The event-level file view displays only a meeting or document date, without a clearly visible upload or publication timestamp; and
·The CivicClerk portal/feed view displays a "Posted on" date.

This inconsistency limits the public's ability to determine:
·When materials were uploaded;
·When materials became publicly visible; and
·Whether availability occurred before, during, or after Council consideration.

3.Public Hearing Procedure Transparency (Core Issue of Item 2.1) Agenda Item 2.1 concerns public hearing procedures.

The issues observed today highlight a broader procedural gap: even where materials are ultimately posted, the public-facing record does not consistently provide:
·Visible timestamps across CivicClerk views;
·Consistent labeling of written public comments;
·Clarity on when materials become available relative to Council consideration; and
·Alignment between Council-facing and public-facing access timing.

These gaps undermine the public's ability to verify procedural transparency independently.

4.Procedural Recommendation
For purposes of Agenda Item 2.1, I respectfully recommend that the City consider adopting procedures requiring:
·Consistent visible upload and posting timestamps across CivicClerk views; ·Uniform labeling of written public comments (e.g., "Written Public Comment — Agenda Item X");
·Alignment between CivicClerk event pages and portal/feed displays; ·Clear disclosure in agendas of physical meeting location and remote access or streaming availability;
·Standardized handling of written public comment postings for transparency and record clarity; and
·Clear indication of when materials become publicly available relative to agenda item consideration.

5. Scope
This comment is limited to procedural transparency, public access clarity, and administrative record consistency associated with Agenda Item 2.1.

Respectfully submitted,
Brian C. Swanson, AICP
San Ramon Voter, Taxpayer, and Resident
On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 9:24 AM Joan Snashall <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Swanson,
Your public comment has been received and will be processed accordingly.

Joan
Joan Snashall, CMC |City Clerk | City of San Ramon
7000 Bollinger Canyon Road | San Ramon, CA 94583 | www.SanRamon.ca.gov T: (925) 973-2577| F: (925) 275-0650 | [email protected] From: Brian Swanson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2026 4:43 PM
To: City Clerk (Public) <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council <[email protected]>; planningcommission <[email protected]>; Planning Services (public) <[email protected]>; Finance <[email protected]>; Parks (Public) <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment: Agenda Item 2.1 - Discussion and Direction Regarding Public Hearing Procedures - City Council Special Meeting - June 30, 2026 ***| EXTERNAL EMAIL: Think before you click and do not open attachments unless you know they are safe. |***
City Council Members:

I submit this written public comment regarding Agenda Item 2.1, Discussion and Direction Regarding Public Hearing Procedures, for the June 30, 2026 Special City Council meeting.

I respectfully request that the Council give clear direction to the City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Manager to return with a written, Council-adopted update to the City's meeting rules and procedures. That update should not be limited to meeting start times, adjournment times, speaker order, decorum, and disruption management. It should also memorialize a durable procedure for written public comments, late-distributed writings, supplemental materials, presentation decks, CivicClerk posting, red-binder inspection, accessible formats, correction of agendamanagement-system artifacts, and preservation of the public decision record.

The staff report is too narrow for the subject matter. It states that the City Attorney will review public meeting laws, regulations, and rules, and seek Council input on desired changes to meeting conduct. Still, it then states that the presentation will focus primarily on Paragraphs 11 through 14 of Resolution No. 2026-084:
addressing the Council, manner of addressing the Council, voting, and order/decorum. It also states that the "primary goal" is to improve efficiency by managing communications and limiting or minimizing disruptions. That is only part of the issue. A rules-and-procedures update should also improve public access, transparency, administrative-record integrity, and the City's implementation of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act).

The June 30 agenda itself shows the City has already moved in the right direction.

It now states that comments received up to two hours before the meeting will be emailed to the City Council, placed in the red binder at the back of the meeting room, posted online in CivicClerk under the meeting date within Public Comment, and made available for public inspection at City Hall. That is materially clearer than the May 26 agenda language, which directed the public to an outdated publiccomment webpage.