meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaCC_09072021_2021-1186
|
Speaker 2: and so July 20th, I'm sorry, wrong date. And so basically there's two things before you to consider tonight. There is one thing the contract and the second thing, funding options. So basically the council does have an option to terminate the existing contract with the Alameda Journal and could then, you know, pursue entering into a contract with the Army to fund and then the funding option. There are basic funding that I think I could turn it over to, Mr. Butler to outline the options and kind of discuss what funding I think they've had to.
Speaker 0: And and just before we get into that, do we have public comment on this item?
Speaker 2: Yes, we have at least one speaker.
Speaker 0: All right. Okay. Ms.. Butler, go ahead.
Speaker 1: Hi. Hi. Nice to be back. So we have given us some examples of the types of funding that we can provide as a city. For example, we could use general funds to do a general sponsorship for the news paper, or we could support the Sun with.
Speaker 4: Ads for our.
Speaker 1: Shop, local campaigns, restaurant week and other local events. Or we could sponsor a section in their paper. We could say it's sponsored by the city as far as funds that they have received from the city grants and things like that, they have not received grants from the city. They did apply for Almeda Strong and they applied for the COVID 19 grant that their lottery number did not come up.
Speaker 0: And those were two separate funds, right? The COVID 19.
Speaker 1: Crisis.
Speaker 0: What was the maximum that they could have received from each of those sources?
Speaker 1: So they could have received 7500 from one or the other. If they were qualified, we would have to evaluate their their application to see if they were qualified.
Speaker 0: And were applicants able to receive funds from both.
Speaker 1: Or just just one? One. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then I believe there may have been some other funds that they received from the state or federal government. Is that.
Speaker 1: Correct? That is correct. They received PPE, and I would just try the paycheck protection plan funds. And.
Speaker 4: That was a.
Speaker 1: Federal loan that could turn into a grant.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Counsel, any clarifying questions for Ms.. Butler before we open that public comment? Okay. Let's hear from our public speaker or speakers, please, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 2: We have one speaker at Chuck Capellini.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Capellini.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Not a mayor and city council members. Thanks. I'll be fast. I know you're trying to get through the meeting tonight. I'm here to encourage you to reconsider your early vote and award the contract for the publication of legal notices to the Army. The Sun. The Army. The Sun is locally owned and operated, and they are a vital part of our community. Six years ago, I began organizing the Alameda Spelling Bee, a citywide spelling competition for Alameda. Students in spelling bees are traditionally sponsored by local newspapers. I reached out to the Alameda Sun to see if they'd be interested in getting involved. And within just a few hours. Eric Cause The Sun's founding publisher responded that the Sun would absolutely be willing to step up and be a sponsor of the spelling bee. And Eric himself even volunteered to be a judge for the competition. In the ensuing years, the Sun has remained an important sponsor of the Almeida Spelling Bee. It provides free space to advertise the event, and they've been they've covered the event every year, including by displaying the winners photos on the front page. I share this story as an example of how the LME, The Sun, unlike other publications distributed in Alameda that I'm aware of, is engaged and active in the city in ways that go far beyond what other publications do. The Sun's pages feature stories about Almeida's history on a regular basis, and the publisher regularly conducts historic walks of the city. The Sun provides an outlet for city government, including updates in the library's other services, as well as regular front page column by Mayor Ashcraft. In fact, I suspect that the Alameda Sun may be the city's most important outlet for informing Alameda about news from the city government. So the fact that the sun is locally, locally owned and operated really does matter. And the legal notices contract goes a long way in helping this paper to survive. So when considering which publication the city should trust the legal notices contract, it's important to weigh the other values and value that the sun provides to our community. And of course, if there are alternate ways that the city can support the Sun, financial or otherwise, I'd encourage you to pursue those paths as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And do we have further speakers, Madam Clerk?
Speaker 2: That was our only speaker.
Speaker 0: Okay, then we are going to close public comment at this time and we will hear from the council. Councilmember Dave, address your hand up.
Speaker 5: Yes, thank you. I think we talked about the reasons why we believe we need to consider reversing our decision. So I would encourage us to go immediately to a decision. And the thing that I would move is that we move to terminate the contract with Alameda Journal and award the contract to Alameda Sun and also invite the Alameda Sun to to obtain their sources of funding described in the three bullet points in the staff report, capping it at no more than $19,200. That's additive to the contract itself, by the way. So just to be clear.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you for your comments. Councilmember Herrera Spencer.
Speaker 4: Second, the motion.
Speaker 0: Was that a motion?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's the motion.
Speaker 0: That was the motion at second. Okay, then we'll open for discussion. I'd like to lead the discussion. Okay. I will. I think this is a case for we can have our cake and eat it, too. And I'll tell you what I mean. I don't think we should terminate the contract with the Alameda Journal to provide legal notices. And the reason for that is they have the more extensive circulation, and that's important when we're providing legal notices. And I don't want to see us pit one small newspaper against another, albeit one is even smaller than the other. But they're both small newspapers. And in an era where we're seeing a lot of local journalism just fold and not be able to carry on, I don't think we need to in any way be punitive or adopt a punitive stance towards a newspaper. But I do think that we can certainly provide some forms of financial assistance to the Journal The Sun. And I mentioned briefly when we were talking about ARPA funds and ARP offenses, we all remember were there to assist businesses and entities to recover from the impacts of COVID 19. And certainly COVID 19 has has impacted this small local newspaper. They were they did get the paper money. And presumably, if they didn't lay off any staff, it converted into a grant. The ability to apply for either the city's COVID 19 relief funds or the strong was just by lottery. And your number came up or it didn't. And I guess we have expended those funds, is that correct? So we'd be we'd be looking from two other sources. But I would I would recommend that we follow the the first bullet and the alternative, keep the contract with the sun, with the Journal and provide direction on funding to assist the Alameda Sun. And I liked all of the things that Ms.. Butler mentioned to us that we can take money from general fund. I would add we can take money from ARPA, we could place ads for restaurant week, we can sponsor a city or a city section. I think a number of our departments I know I do a monthly column, by the way, my monthly column runs in the Journal as well as The Sun. And because we know we're trying to get the word out about important topics as widely as possible. But I know the city attorney's office and our public information officer and probably others recreation parks, I think all two informational pieces. So I do want to see us assist the sun. And I think it's a matter of how much money we'd like to allocate to doing that. Because remember, the contract isn't a price specific. There's an estimate that if the number of ads continues at the pace at a previous level, it would be about 46,000 a year. But that's not a guarantee either. We may be able to provide some guaranteed income anyway. My thoughts? Anybody who wants to weigh in who hasn't yet. Okay, back to Councilmember Harris Spencer.
Speaker 4: I just want to say, in the interest of time that I believe this meeting is at midnight, we have 14 minutes to go. So I'm looking at this correctly. There's a motion and a second on the table. I think it is critical that we terminate the contract with the Journal and award it to the Sun, I think , and that's what the referral was. But so that I wanted to try to move this along.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Well, you know, in the end, when you mentioned time and time is running out, something that I made a mental note of after we didn't finish the consent calendar until almost 9:00. Is that moving forward? I'm going to go back to something I've done before, that when items are pulled from the consent calendar, we're going to move them to be heard at the end of the regular agenda item because it's just not fair to make our staff and any public speakers have to hang around this long to have their items heard. I want to hear from the entire council, though, before we vote. Vice Mayor Vella, we haven't heard from you and Councilmember Knox. Well, I don't think we've heard from you either. So.
Speaker 1: Your thoughts.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Knox.
Speaker 3: I am happy to speak. Yeah, well, I want to. I have a different perspective. I don't think we're talking about funding two small hometown papers. The Alameda Journal is owned by a Denver hedge fund, and they have 100 papers and 200 other publications nationally. The Army, The Sun is a local one and I continue to support them. If for some reason we wanted to continue running the ads in the Alameda Journal, I think that the number in the the original staff proposal was $46,000. If we want to commit to funding $46,000 in support for the Alameda Sun as well, I'd be happy to look at that as a as a way. But I think that, you know, right now I my interest, you know, I didn't vote to move the ads to the Alameda Journal. But if for some reason that bet that there's an interest in keeping the ads there, I would be willing to support something that also provided the funding that we were talking about for the Army. Do something about it for us back in June. If not, I'm happy to support that. The motion that's on the table.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor Vella.
Speaker 1: But I continue to have the issue with the circulation and the whole point of the legal notices and until we can find a way to expand that. So, you know, I'm happy to, you know, look at the other options relative to the grants, advertising, things like that. My position hasn't changed. I. My sense of things is and I and I agree that they are not both hometown newspapers, but my sense of things is, at least for me, wanting to help them out, I think is separate from making sure that we have the legal notices. So I just want to make my position clear on that. I don't I would not support moving over the legal notices and then also giving them aid or assistance. But I would be open to talking about the, you know, the options that Ms.. Butler added.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And. Okay. So. Are we? Is this a do we need to bifurcate this? Because the the there is the recommendation that we reconsider the awarded the publication.
Speaker 1: And.
Speaker 0: Funding options for the son. I I'm not sure. Well, I certainly can't support all of that, that we're going to avoid them the contract and give them all this other financial assistance. I mean, at some point, would would the city be the major funder of this local newspaper? And that raises some concerns in my mind.
Speaker 5: Councilmember SAC Yeah, thank you. I think that's a good point. I think, quite frankly, I think the cleanest thing to do is simply to terminate the contract with Alameda Journal and award the contract to the Alameda Sun without providing additional funding to the Alameda Sun. I think the contract is the funding. And Mayor, as he Ashcraft, I appreciate what you're trying to do. I really do. But in this case, I think we're just going to have to go with one provider who we believe to be. And each of us are going to have different opinions as to who we believe, but who we believe to be reflective of of the needs of Alameda residents. And so that's why I'm I'm just going to go with one legal notice provider and and change my vote from previous to the second bullet point. So that's the motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. And I appreciate that. I always appreciate our dialog. And also just and to be clear, we're doing this to support a local paper and not because they will provide their superior service of more extensive legal notices, because they won't. But we want to help keep them in business, but that's pretty generous and that's as far as we go. So the second year of the motion, are you in agreement with them?
Speaker 4: I'm happy to second that.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. We had a motion. We had a second. Any further discussion? Saying. Then let's have a vote. A roll call vote, please.
Speaker 2: On Florida. Yes. PEREIRA Spencer.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: KNOX Right.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Bella.
Speaker 1: I'm going to vote I. But I really hope that we can find a way to expand the legal legal notifications, because I think it's we need to do that.
Speaker 2: Mayor Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: I will reluctantly vote I and I'm going to look at this as a trial period for a year. I expect that this is a pretty, pretty significant infusion of funds to the sun. So we'll see what they do with them. Okay.
Speaker 2: Trace by five.
Speaker 0: So when your contract. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. Not quite.
Speaker 3: All right. Just related to this that I'm wondering if we want to one of the reasons we have to do this is our charter actually requires us to have a newspaper, a record, which is a very outdated thing. It doesn't allow us to necessarily use online and other sources as our as our record. I'm wondering if you want to give some direction to it over the next few months. Consider bringing something back to the ballot that can be a part of a clean up in the 2022 election. There may be other items that people are interested in, but since it's something we.
Speaker 0: Can yeah, we can talk about that in charter. I think we're kind of creating a bucket of things. Okay. With that, let's move on. Thank you. Good. Good point. And that that will be considered that so let's let's call it close out.
Speaker 3: But we're not going to be very clear. We're not giving that direction to staff because that was my question was very in giving direction to staff to do that.
Speaker 1: I am.
Speaker 0: Vice mayor.
Speaker 1: I was just going to say I'm comfortable giving broad direction to staff to figure out if there's alternatives for writing a broader legal notice and what that would entail.
Speaker 0: We just don't want to get in trouble with that. Would you see?
Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. All right. So keeping it general direction.
Speaker 0: All right. Thanks, everybody. Okay, let's move on then to the next item. We're closing the item and we're moving on to council City Manager Communication, Mr. Leavitt. There you go.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Reconsider Award of the Contract for the Publication of Legal Notices and Consider Providing Direction for Funding Options to Assist the Alameda Sun. (City Clerk 10022020)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07202021_2021-1125
|
Speaker 0: . And in particular we want to promote transparency. Transparency relative to all the decisions are being made, in particular relative to all of the homelessness, housing considerations that are going forward tonight. So I just wanted to say that. Yeah, you could.
Speaker 1: Bakery's out bakeries. I'm sorry. You are referring to an item that will come before us in just a little while. Right now, we're just trying to confirm the reappointment to the Housing Authority Historic Advisory Board and the Planning Commission. And so that is not related to that, the items you've raised and the Public Utilities Board. But Madam Sheraton, when we're going to consider a. Item six a coming up very quickly. All right. So are there any other speakers who wish to speak on these resolutions reappointing some members of the historic advisory board and planning board and appointing a new member to the public utility board?
Speaker 0: Okay. Additional speakers.
Speaker 1: With that, I made a closed public comment. Go back to Councilor Knox White.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So with my stated great appreciation for Commissioner Shabazz, who brought forward the idea of doing a survey of our boards and commissions and also a great appreciation for our mayor, who I believe has done a fabulous job of looking at the issue of equity and representation on our boards and commissions in the three years we've worked together. I would like to move approval of the nominated individuals.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Do I have a second vice mayor of seconds. Any comments saying then may we have a roll call vote please, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 0: From a rotation.
Speaker 2: High.
Speaker 0: Or a center? I'm not quite high. Villa Vice Mayor as the Ashcraft I that carries by five eyes. And we will be promoting those people present.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I do want to say it has been an absolute pleasure to get to interview the many applicants for our boards and commissions. We have an amazingly talented population, not only talented, but generous of their time and and their talent and their commission, their their commitment to this community. And you all help make it a better place. And so I am just looking as they come up, we've got L.A. from the planning board, new public utilities board member Christina McKenna, Norman Sanchez returning to their historical advisory boards. Tamara Cisneros being reappointed to the planning board. And by the way, when I say reappointment, not all of these individuals have actually served full terms. It's just that the term that they may have been appointed to fill is now coming to an end and they are reappointed. And I am not seeing Lynn Jones offer. Also from the historic advisory board, but we may have baby news in the near future and we can always arrange that so you can arrange to administer the oath of office. So thank you all for agreeing to to continue serving the city in your capacities. And all of these boards and commissions that you represent have been doing a lot of heavy lifting lately, and we're really grateful. And at this time, I would love to have the city clerk and take it away for the administering the oath of office.
Speaker 0: Thank you. If you'll all raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that you will faithfully discharge the duties upon which you are about to enter?
Speaker 2: I do.
Speaker 0: Great day.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. And I'm going to go through and give you each like 30 seconds. Yes. Thank you. Counterterrorism, as we do applaud you. And if I can just start and just ask you to give us a little 32nd overview of who you are, what you do, why you're passionate about where you're serving. Alan Teague, I'm going to start with you.
Speaker 2: May I guess thank you for I'm time. I've been on the planning board now for four years and it has been a great privilege to be able to help guide the city forward in figuring out how we can optimize the use of land for housing and maintain our quality of life. And I look forward to working on the housing element and the general plan so that we can move forward in improving the equity and being able to support our people on arrival.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Alan. And let's start with the planning board for Mara Cisneros. May we go to you next? Tell us.
Speaker 0: Your your.
Speaker 1: Passion for planning or.
Speaker 0: Whatever you'd like. Sure. Thank you so much, mayor and council members, for this opportunity. And my fellow board member president Alan Teague said it really well. I just was appointed to the board in October, so in my little matter of time I really enjoyed the experience and getting to know my fellow board members. I do feel like we're really great group and it's I'm fairly, relatively a newbie to Alameda. I have lived here for a few years, but I'm just really honored to serve my community in this way and is a great opportunity experience.
Speaker 1: So thank you so much. And Norman Sanchez, may I go to you next from the historic advisory board?
Speaker 2: And yes, good evening, Mayor. So I'm Norman Sanchez, the local architect here in Alameda. This will be the start of my second full term. I had the honor of filling in for Vice Mayor Abella for to complete her term on HIV. So this will be the start of my second full term. And yeah, I guess I'm looking forward to continuing to support staff in our community and in the goals of historic preservation for our city.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much. And Christina McKenna. I'm not a newcomer to Alameda. She's been involved in the community in other ways. But tell us a little bit about the awesome skills you bring to the Public Utilities Board. You're still muted, Christina. Maybe it's a double mute. Oh. Do we need volume up or. Well, we aren't hearing you, and I'm not sure. Oh, yeah. Is there a switch? That. That's okay. I can I can just tell you that she and she does bring a lot to bear, a lot of skills to the public utility board. And I most recently enjoyed reading a very informative article she wrote about electric vehicles. And so we look forward to to your participation with that very important board. And so thank you all so much again for for serving your community in this way. Good evening. Bye bye.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: So then we will move on to council communications where council members can speak up to 9 minutes to address any item not on the agenda, including reporting on conferences or meetings. This is a carryover from.
Speaker 0: Well, this is here so that you can make your nominations in the league.
Speaker 1: Of course.
Speaker 0: Thank you and thank you to it at the end. We need to do it now.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I do need reminders. Thank you so much. So this evening, we're going to go then to item three A because council communications comes at the end of the regular agenda. So three eight is my nominations to the Public Art Commission and I have three nominations. And they are for terms of varying lengths. And I always leave it to staff to determine because I work with staff when I'm choosing board and commission members. And so I'm in alphabetical order. My nominees are Robert Ferguson, Jennifer Huffaker and Peter Plotz Gummer. They are all working artists of one kind or another, and sometimes across several different medium. Robert Ferguson has had public art installations around the U.S., Lake Tahoe, Telluride, Santa Fe. It he met his wife at Burning Man. He does things in in large format. He is also a I has 50 years of experience in metal fabrication and welding and we are very excited to welcome him to the Public Art Commission. He's he has, you know, lots of ideas about public spaces and the all the things that public art can bring to a community. Jennifer Halfaker is recently retired, but she is a former professor of art at the University of Texas in Austin, and she's a former art director. She also is a filmmaker and a sculptor, and she has also has had art installations and and paints as well and drive multi-talented. But she's also worked in community housing as the director of marketing for a Community Housing Affordable Housing Group in San Francisco. And she has volunteered her time here in Alameda with the Alameda Ballet. Peter Flats Kummer is a native of Sweden. He has a really interesting background a Ph.D. in public administration from Switzerland, moving, measuring the effectiveness of public programs. But he has also done a lot of building on large scale, like large architecture.
Speaker 0: Murals.
Speaker 1: And thinks that we really can do so much to bring the community together, and especially in the aftermath of the pandemic, by the kinds of communications that public art can contribute to a community. So again, this was one of those commissions where we just had a plethora of very talented individuals. I am just in awe of all of you. And so they will these individuals will come back to us in September at our first September meeting for the vote to approve their nominations and then their swearing in. So with that, we move on to item three. Be Madam.
Speaker 0: Clerk. It's designation of voting delegates, an alternate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference. And the league requires this the council vote on this, which is why it comes before you and the current delegate is the mayor with the alternate as the vice mayor. So we just seen a council that.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilmember Knox, wait.
Speaker 2: I move that we maintain the same voting membership. Okay.
Speaker 1: Do I have a second? Faith Council over days. I've seconds. Okay. Any further comment? Okay. Maybe we have a roll call vote, please, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 0: Councilmember de SAG. Hi, Herrera. Spencer, I. I'm not quite.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 0: Valley. Hi, Mayor. As the.
Speaker 1: Ashcraft High.
Speaker 0: That carries by.
Speaker 1: Five eyes. Okay. Thank you. And so that was a special city council meeting that we needed to take to dispense those items. I'm sorry, Councilmember Desai.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Adoption of Resolutions Reappointing Lynn Jones and Norman Sanchez as Members of the Historical Advisory Board; Reappointing Xiomara Cisneros and Alan Teague as Members of the Planning Board; and Appointing Christina McKenna as a Member of the Public Utilities Board.
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07202021_2021-1123
|
Speaker 3: considering. We were also attempting to provide options sprinkled throughout the city of Alameda in order to be equitable. Possible sites described in our staff reporting. The Alameda point and its courts. The bottled parcel grant pavilion. Parking lot. Alameda Point Campgrounds. Parking lot. The Marina village. And then the locations of future potential homes. Staff is taking direction from Councilor Knight in the following ways regarding the type of homeless housing that City Council prefers that we further investigate if staff should pursue one type of homeless housing in the short run or another, and another type in the long run locations that the Council prefers of this housing be located or located because the Council prefers that we not further investigate. We wish to stress that this staff report is very preliminary and only offers a high level look at some of these options. We anticipate that this conversation with council that we're beginning tonight will be the first of a number of conversations related to this very important topic, and it will take significant effort to house our unhoused neighbors. So we will be talking with you further about this as we develop additional facts.
Speaker 0: But what we wanted.
Speaker 3: To be sure that prior to investing the city's resources, whether those be monetary or staff time, that we come forward to have this initial conversation and seek your direction about which type of housing seems the most preferable to you, whether it's two types. Like I said, that we can pursue one currently and one subsequently knowing that it's a bigger left and will take more money with council direction. Following that follow and receiving that tonight, we'll do a deeper dove into a particular housing type. For instance, will then consider the cost to construct the project or repair or remodel a project. The operating budget for the Park Project funding and finance opportunities whether those the ARPA project ROOMKEY grants, tax credit deals, loans, vouchers, etc. a project schedule development partner and operating partner. The population to be served the best site for the particular project and various other factors that I'm sure we'll discover as we continue down this journey. We anticipate returning to council to provide more specificity on the project as we develop those facts that for Council's consideration, staff currently recommends that we pursue, in the short run, a community cabin project that would offer approximately 20 cabins, including 88 cabins and and staff space and community space. We represent we recommend providing a higher quality cabin such as the group Delphi or the Pallet Option. We could provide bathrooms depending on council's preference and we would also provide community spaces for queer folks can gather and get to know one another, enjoy meals, potentially gardened or potentially have pets so they can exercise. So at this point, I welcome I'll open this up to your questions and your comments, and I look forward to hearing more.
Speaker 1: So we will thank you, miss back. So we will entertain any questions about the staff report itself. We will hold our comments until we have heard from our public speakers and we have at least a few public speakers. So any clarifying questions about the staff report counts from a desk.
Speaker 2: In terms of the pallet approach, how does.
Speaker 3: How does that affect system.
Speaker 2: Work? I mean, you know, it can get cold out at Alameda Point at nighttime. I mean, how does.
Speaker 3: The heaters.
Speaker 2: Work? I mean, so it's like any other house.
Speaker 0: Yes. So the pallet this is lots butler. For the record, the pallet option would have heating and air conditioning as part of the unit and it would need to get connected to the utility systems.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any other clarifying questions? Counsel for her, Spencer.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mary. I'd like you to discuss the funding sources for these different projects. And why didn't you bring back a bigger discussion of where you're going to get so much money or have access to so much for ARPA, so much for this homekey and what are the different projects? As well as working with the Alameda Housing Authority, which had presented some ideas back in March and I don't see any of their is being considered.
Speaker 3: So the funding sources, we still need to do further investigation. And some of the responses that I would wish I could provide to at this point, such as ARPA funds that we have available and potential project HOMEKEY funds where available are that that information isn't determined yet. You're you as a councilor discussing ARPA this evening and maybe you'll choose to allocate some of the funds in this direction. Project Homekey is still also a developing topic. We understand we won't even have the opportunity to submit an application into the fall. We estimate we could potentially be eligible for $10 million for a larger project, but that is our best guess. And the rules related to those that that particular fund aren't even finalized yet. But like I mentioned, otherwise we'll explore all sources. You know, if we can apply for grants, if there's loan opportunities, tax credit deals, we will definitely turn over all the stones. But we'll need to return back to you to discuss the package of options that we're considering and get your input on those in the future. We'd also be talking to the housing authority in particular. We are interested in seeing if there's some sort of an arrangement to be made with respect to affordable housing vouchers.
Speaker 1: Hey. Anything further?
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: So Councilmember Knox Slate.
Speaker 2: All right. I'm wonder if you could speak really quickly about how you're thinking about locations and what makes a successful location. And one of the reasons I'm asked, you know, often there is let's just put it out at the end of the base, but the base doesn't have transit services. A lot of a lot of things sometimes depend where it goes. So as we're thinking through, you know, sites and whatnot, how is staff thinking about that? Which sites would be what would make a successful site?
Speaker 3: You're correct. There's a variety of elements and items that we need to consider with respect to each site. But yes, access to services such as grocery or other sorts of local amenities are important and transit line access. This is a consideration. We certainly are going to need to have a robust conversation with the community and the neighbors and, you know, make sure that we can have a and a comfortable relationship among the various uses, for instance, that with respect to bottled water. So we would be having conversations with the local residents as well as the College of Alameda, since we would have adjacency there and there would be a constant consideration because we need to be able to successfully implement this project. There would be operating costs, long term cost that we would need to come up with year after year to consider utilities. It's a very multifaceted consideration of considerations that we'll be discussing with you as we put the pros and cons of each site together in more detail to the extent you direct us to look at a particular site. Also, as I mentioned, equity, like trying not to place all particular services such as homeless provision services on Alameda Point where they are currently and just trying to look at a little more broadly than that.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Factor. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. Next week. Okay, good questions, everyone. So I'm not seeing any more council questions. So, Madam Clerk, I think we have public speech. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: Yes, we do. We have eight. Oh, there's more reason there. We have nine public speakers, so the chime automatically lowers to 2 minutes. And so our first public speaker is Nancy Schmidt.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Good evening. Speaker Simek.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Thank you all for your service. Very much appreciated. And also, I wanted to thank Lisa and Lois, if you were the ones developing the spending plan, perhaps along with a city manager. The proposals are really clear, and I appreciate all the information you're sharing with the public. I did want to ask a couple of questions and hopefully they'll get answered in more discussion. And one is what role does the city of Alameda have in the larger regional approach to homelessness? This is not an approach that just is within our city boundaries. And as we know it is as people are pushed from one location, they move to another. And this is something that we need to look at much more broadly than just our city issues. I wanted to know what kinds of involvement there is there. The second is my concern, particularly looking at the hotel acquisition and the hotel operation in, I believe, close to $28 million till 2026, recognizing that the homeless unhoused issue will continue way beyond that. And I appreciate Lisa's comments about what can we do beyond that. My big concern is the costs, particularly for hotel operation, is very costly and it won't be reduced. And it looks like from then on, that general fund would be required to pitch in. So I'm just curious about kind of beyond the 2026. We're kind of almost in 2022. So I'm feeling like, you know, four short years from now, we'll be kind of hanging. And I just keep in mind that the Marina Village and residents were cut off on January 31st and without much ramp down. So thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you for your comments. Our next.
Speaker 0: Speaker, Sherry Johansen.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker Johansen.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Madam Mayor. And council and staff. I am actually speaking tonight with the voice of the Alameda progressives. We commend the city staff for the proposals and success. However, we believe the marina in transformation is the most viable. It is a logical.
Speaker 1: Extension of its use during the COVID.
Speaker 0: Crisis. We urge Council to approve the necessary expenditures to convert the marina and to a permanent facility. We strongly recommend that this facility or the approved facilities include a resiliency center, a sort of batsman of services and information, a resiliency center where both residents and members of the Alameda Public have access to counseling for transitioning from the streets or from the crisis to continue as viable members of the Alameda Committee. It's suggested resources would include in the center would be financial assistance, as well as banking and financial.
Speaker 1: Management behavior.
Speaker 0: And physical health services, transportation, legal services, nutrition and food access. The center would provide showers and laundry facilities. The Senate, without to avail itself of resources and volunteers.
Speaker 1: In the Alameda community.
Speaker 0: The faith based business and public. And we hope that the council will provide space for community gardens at all the suggested locations. In this time of crisis, thousands of our neighbors are about one disaster.
Speaker 1: Paycheck.
Speaker 0: Away from losing their home. Many of these are single mothers with children. Many are elderly. The heart of Alameda on both sides of grand has always been compassion. The Alameda Progressive urged you at this moment in time and opportunity to take this step towards eliminating homelessness in our community.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker Johansen our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Grover Wyman Brown.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker Women Brown.
Speaker 0: Good evening, council members. Thanks to the city staff for putting together these off these options, they are you know, they give many options to the community and they're well considered as a long time advocate for affordable housing. Who myself was unhoused as a young person. I, I, I wish that we actually could just do all these things because that's actually what's needed to address the scale of the problem. But given these options and the resources we have in Alameda and the resources that are available from the state government for a very rare opportunity, I'm I'm calling to support the Marina Village in project project Roomkey. As the previous speaker mentioned, was the short term project. And unfortunately, people were asked to leave that that hotel lodging quickly. My hope was that the city would have been selected to leverage it to project Homekey, which is a really unique opportunity to take that that building that already exists, that's already connected to plumbing and water, and let it be a temporary and transitional home for people as they get on their feet. And our need to end homelessness is both urgent and long term. It's going to keep going. And so I hope that the city uses these funds, pairs it with ARPA, project, homekey and the things that are available to invest in something durable, not something short term that could easily catch fire, that needs to be connected to water and sewage. And that isn't a place that people can feel like they really belong in community. Marina Village is close to grocery stores and transit, and it's in the center of the island, allowing people to more easily integrate, find jobs, connect with friends and family. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Marilyn Rothman.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Speaker Rothman.
Speaker 0: Hello. Oops. Hello. I just want to second what the last speaker has said. I feel like it would be very valuable to use the Marina Village Insight as it's, you know, pretty much ready to go as far as starting. Ah, are ending a homelessness for people. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Austin Austintown.
Speaker 1: Good evening, speaker tam.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Mayor and City Council.
Speaker 3: I just want.
Speaker 2: To.
Speaker 3: Urge you to support the marine band inside. And they second what my colleagues, Jerry and Grover have said. And the speaker. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Denise Anderson.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Speaker Anderson.
Speaker 0: Good evening. I just wanted to call in and support item six a. I really look forward to our city making more of an effort to assist some of our more vulnerable neighbors. I think all of these are a step in the right direction, but feel more in a village in May be the best way to get people into sheltering the most expediently. I saw a lot of concerns from people about an increase in crime in the correspondence, but this is a lot of the same NIMBY argument that we hear on so many issues in the city. We need to invest in everyone's safety, not just some people's. And that means getting them into housing and helping them with the services to find and maintain more permanent housing in their.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next.
Speaker 0: Speaker, Lauren, myself.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker Eisele. But welcome back, Chi Chi. Good evening.
Speaker 0: Marion. City Council Members. Thank you for my comments. As a member of the village community, we have worked with Project in the past, in the past to make their residents at the Marina Village in a win win situation when they were here during COVID. And we welcome a positive opportunity for housing the homeless in Alameda in the future. However, I would really, really recommend that whatever reuse that happens, whether it's at the Marina Village in other places in the city that we consider all of the other auxiliary issues that come along with housing, unhoused people related to their health and security and safety and in particular fire hazards. We all know that there have been lots of fire hazards in our community and and making sure that we are all safe from fires. Their number one concern and in our in our community so just considering.
Speaker 1: That and the.
Speaker 0: Safety and the welfare of all the residents, this is something that we would be very much interested in considering and also taking into consideration other issues related to safety and security of the nearby residents as well as residents that we're considering. Housing is something that we also need to consider. So before the city decides to authorize.
Speaker 1: And your time is up. Thank you so much. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Josh Guyer.
Speaker 1: Good evening.
Speaker 2: Speaker Guyer Good evening, American Living Vice Mayor and other City Council members. So I am a member of Renewed Hope here in Alameda. I think the best project like other folks have said, the best individual project is the acquisition of Marina Village. That's doubtlessly the fastest way to get the most units online as possible. It's a great site. It's near a lot of different commercial activities, job opportunities and transit it all over and a lot of other amenities. It's a great site. My druthers would be as to just echo Grover Wayman Brown. All of the above. There can never be enough new housing in Alameda. We need it desperately, desperately, both for people who are here and people who are here already. People have been forced out and other people who would like to join us in our community. I the only other thing I would say is I'm looking at housing type one here from the pallet shelter, something that kind of jumped out at me as a red flag is that the shelters intentionally do not have restrooms. It's a part of the company's philosophy, and they believe that helps give residents a reason to leave their cabin and socialize. I think having an inn unit bathroom is like really about human dignity in a lot of instances, especially to people. For people who have not had privacy in some amount of time. I think it's a it's a it's a huge deal. And I think it's pretty paternalistic to for this company to to assert that that they know best and they should be depriving people of having a private bathroom in order to to, like, coerce them into meeting . I'm sure they will get out. The weather's beautiful here. I'm sure there will be a service realizing as much as they need to. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Margaret Thatcher.
Speaker 1: Welcomes speaker question.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Hi, can you hear me?
Speaker 1: We can hear you. Welcome. Yes. Do you want to tell us who you're with, by the way? Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mayor and council members. I guess I'm an echo.
Speaker 1: We hear you sound defined from our side, Marguerite, but I know that can be annoying. And we're not going to time you till you start talking. Oh, and you're muted now.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm so sorry. I wanted to thank the staff for putting this together. I think it's really great to start the conversation. This is definitely a moment in time that we can take advantage of the opportunities of the statewide funding. We were up. I'm from Operation Dignity and we do that. So we do the transitional housing for veterans on the base, and we also do mobile outreach for the city of Alameda. We know that the long term unhoused residents of Alameda really deserve to have a safe and secure place to live. And when looking at all these options, I would really encourage you to consider thinking about not only the marina village in, but also either modular or prefab. Those are all eligible under Project HOMEKEY And you want to think about if you're inheriting a lot of problems potentially with a with an existing facility that hasn't been updated or upgraded in a long time as opposed to modular housing, which can be built offsite. It's not expensive, but you can bring in plumbing. It's all put together somewhere else and then it comes in. You have plummeted electrical and you can stack it so you could really house the folks that you need to house. So I would encourage you to really look at all the opportunities to think about what makes sense for the city of Alameda. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. And I'm just going to put in a little plug in addition to being a very hardworking staff person at director at Operation Dignity and as Rashan has been a member of my mayor's vaccine task force doing amazing work. So thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 0: Laura Thomas.
Speaker 1: Evening, Speaker Thomas.
Speaker 3: Now you can hear me right?
Speaker 1: There you go. Yes. Yes.
Speaker 3: Right. Well, thanks. Thanks for letting me speak. Good evening, everybody. I don't want to. I'm from Renewed Hope housing advocates. And I don't want to take up too much time because the other people have spoken of I pretty much second what most of the speakers have said. I do want to say that the the motel the motel purchase is a good idea because the idea of supporting permanent housing as opposed to transitional housing, I think is something the city has to take very seriously, because basically a lot of people that are out there that are unhoused, as we call them now, are people who once had homes and the result of rising rents and other problems of forced move out of their homes onto the street. And so transitional housing works, I guess, primarily for people who may have been long term homeless. And I'm sure there's plenty of those people we wish to help and they need the services and everything. But transitional homeless transitional projects always mean that you're trying to get somebody into permanent housing. And permanent housing is really the challenge is trying to give people where they have stable housing. And so I think the motel is the best option. And has Sherrie Johanson pointed out, people are one step away from a paycheck. So again, people who have had homes have been forced out. They know how to take care of themselves if they have a roof over their head that's stable. And I think that's what the city is to start to focus on, is how do we create permanent housing for the people we need, the people we actually rely upon. Often people who are low wage workers are the most vulnerable and the people we need to really provide this housing for. So I thank you for this for this option, and I hope you go forward with it. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Friend, Pauline.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker Pauline. Are you able to admit there? Monica. There you are. We can hear you. Hi.
Speaker 0: Sorry, I'm. I'm also speaking in support of purchasing the marina village and for transitional housing. Actually, let me say again. Hello, Mayor. Council and your hard working staff. Once again, I want to thank you for recognizing and acting on the need for affordable housing. That is a situation further worsened by COVID. I think the decision to have a more permanent transitional housing location is smart. I think stabilizing people earlier in the crisis is far more effective than watching a very predictable downward spiral. Additionally, as a senior on fixed income and facing my own stress and housing insecurity, I truly appreciate your plan for a mental health center at Alameda Hospital for respite and resources before someone needs police intervention or hospitalization along the same line. I'd like to speak on the need for a resiliency hub located in Central Alameda as a member of our. I've spoken to too many renters who did not learn the relevant information and resources early enough to use it. Online listings alone are not really working. People are being displaced without being counted, without receiving aid that would have been available to them. I believe strongly that a staffed One-Stop Center would make a real difference. Finally, I wish to encourage consideration of land trust purchases of rental complexes that tenants could ultimately own and truly stabilize their housing . Again, thank you for not just acknowledging me, but acting to find and put in place solutions.
Speaker 1: And thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Zack BOLLING. And then we have one more speaker after that.
Speaker 1: All right. Good evening, Speaker BOLLING.
Speaker 2: And I just wanted to quickly throw my support in also for the Marina Village and project. And I'm not going to take up too much time since everybody else has already made a lot of great points that I was going to hopefully make. But thankfully, everyone else has done it. So just trying my. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Linda Fortuna.
Speaker 1: Good evening, speaker fortuna. Hello.
Speaker 0: I wasn't planning on speaking tonight, but after hearing all of these comments, I. I think I need to say something to protect the citizens of Alameda and to sort of give my opinion of being a property owner for many years in rehabbing and rehabilitating old buildings. The marina village in is not new. We all know that the cost of retrofitting it will probably not make sense for this project. I think that the modular housing is is the best solution because you can use solar technology for each modular house or cabin and you'll be you have no gas, no grid. No. It'll be a more efficient way of housing these homeless individuals. And I think that the homeless need more social help. They need rehab. And that is the most important thing that we can offer them also. So a combination of that and modular housing, I think would be a good solution. And I oppose the marina village in as a homeless center right on the waterfront, which is and should be used for the public. And and that way it's shared by all. Alameda. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, speaker, for today. And our next speaker.
Speaker 0: One more speaker. Kristen van gumble.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker Fun.
Speaker 0: Van Gumble. Well, good evening. Thank you, everyone. We just my husband and I, we just wanted to second everything that Rosalind just said. And we agree the cost is going to be too much for the Marina Village and strongly urge you to consider the modular housing. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: That was our final speaker. Okay.
Speaker 1: With that, I am closing public comment on item six A and we will return to the council. I'd like to start.
Speaker 2: Well, I'll start.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Kazak.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you very much. You know, having reviewed the staff packet and analyzed the situation, I'm of the opinion that in the marina village in we have a rare opportunity to do something fantastic. And let me say why. Above all, who are trying to serve our families, particularly single woman headed families with children who are coming out of homelessness in a variety of crisis situations. When you look at the Marina Village in and its proximity to the west, to the Shoreline Park, its proximity to the east of Wind River Park and to the south in a straight line down triumph drive to the Jean Sweeney Park, as well as the breadth of shoreline around the area. You find an environment that I believe will be conducive to families who are transitioning out of area, a place of crises so that the children can hopefully not only recover but achieve the full capacity that we expect of any children, whether they're children of homeless families or children of families in the foreign side or in the west end of Alameda. So this is a rare opportunity. There is no doubt that it will cost more. But I think in the long run it would be a better facility than a modular house or it would be a better facility than pallets. So I think that we should not miss this opportunity to do something bold. So I think, you know, the environment is definitely conducive to that, to families and helping them make a recovery. But as indicated, there are other elements that also make this location really ideal. It's proximity to the job. Rich Marina, Village Business Park. You know, as a as a city council, I would encourage our city staff to figure out ways to work with businesses there to to get families and individuals into jobs there. It's proximity to Lucky is proximity to a CVS pharmacy and above all, its proximity to a range of transits. There's the marina village shell shuttle. I don't know if it's still running right now, pandemic time, but there's the marina village shuttle, which is free and it goes directly to downtown San Francisco, downtown Oakland, stopping at the BART station. There's the city of Alameda is when it's up and running again. Our own internal shuttle, by the way, which goes right by there. And finally, there's the AC Transit bus that we had rerouted to go through that area. So I do think that the wealth of natural and social amenities makes the marina village in an ideal place to to to have this facility. Yes, it will cost money. And yes, we as a city council, we will have to do our due diligence. And if it's going to come in as too expensive, then, you know, then we'll have to think about, you know, what to do. And when that when we're asked to cross that bridge. But if you're asking me if staff is asking me, looking at all the things that's kind of laid out for us, you know, what? What we should do. I'm of the opinion that that we should move forward with with the marina village in. I just want to say on a final note, you know, so much of our community have always come to the attention of trying to help out families in need. I know for many years ago it started out with the United Filipinos of Alameda, then transitioned to the Filipino, the Alameda Community Service Agency fixer, where we ran a shelter for for homeless women coming out coming out of a crisis. So so, you know, it's part of our DNA to be helpful. And I think that that if we're going to do something, let's do it in a place that's really going to help transition people to to to to going can help transition people out of crises. And I think in the marina village and that's what I see.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Counselor de Desert. Wow. Thank you. Who wants to go next? I am happy to go next. Councilmember De Saag. I see you and I see eye to eye. I was really moved by your comments. One of the things that I have learned from working on housing issues and in, you know, statewide and in the Greater Bay Area is that there is a serious shortage of housing that is appropriate and eligible for families because there are restrictions. For instance, when staff and I took a field trip down to San Jose a couple months ago and saw some really exciting modular development that the city of San Jose is doing. Those were for adults who could have either one adult or maximum two in a unit with it in a bedroom with its own bathroom. And. Josh Guyer. I second everything you said about pallet homes, rather flimsy argument for no bathrooms. I'll get to that in a minute. But one of the things San Jose was excited about as they were building the first ever family shelter or family transitional housing, it wasn't done yet, so we couldn't go visit it. But here in Alameda and we certainly don't have something like that, we have, you know, Midway Shelter. It's emergency housing. But I do think that the marina village in Prevent presents so many opportunities. Is there a cost to rehabbing it? Yes, there is. What value do you place on giving children and families a good place, a safe, healthy place to grow up? I appreciate the residents of Marina Village, the neighbors who spoke I spoke earlier in the evening yesterday. I had a conversation with one of them. And they you know, we talked about when Marina Village in was used as a project roomkey home for women and children who were homeless and needed to be have a safe place to stay during COVID. And there you know, there were some bumps in the road at first. There always was with changes. But I really applaud the neighbors. I applaud city staff who worked with the county staff, folks from building futures, who who all work together to make sure that it was a living environment that was respectful of everyone, the folks who lived there, but also the neighbors. And it was very moving to attend a town hall organized by our supervisor, Wilma Chan, to hear from the neighbors who by then had been working and getting to know the situation and better. And they were so supportive, wanted to know what can we do? Making donations, collecting supplies, wanted to host a holiday party. Did the kids need tutoring? And just really heartwarming response. But it is also true that we need to, you know, will need to do communication and make sure that everyone is is on board. But I do think for all the reasons that have been stated, that this is something the city should definitely pursue, look into, and there are as mismatched. So know that there are multiple funding sources coming down the pike right now. So we really do need to seize this opportunity. It doesn't come around very often, and I think we can really make a difference in people's lives as far as housing types. I am partial to the model that was presented by Delphi, in part because it is a local company out at Alameda Point, which I think is great . And the. I also will say that I was not a fan of the argument by pallet homes that that said need to find it in my know my notes here that they because pallets model does happen to be just a small structure with no bathroom community bathrooms. I will tell you that the community bathroom model is a just favored model now even before COVID, but especially during COVID for health reasons, but even before that, that it just leads to unnecessary conflicts. And is Mr. Geier, one of our speakers, very eloquently stated this is about human dignity. And when we visited and walk through these two different sites in San Jose, people were so just pleased and relaxed to be there, to have a place where they could sleep inside. Not sleep with one eye open because they were worried about what would happen, not had to get up and leave, go walk someplace to use the bathroom, walk outdoors to use the bathroom, but, you know, do the things that you and I do. We don't have to go out unless we're camping. We don't have to be going outside to find the facilities. And so there are better places to socialize than than a restroom. And, in fact, these developments would be set up to have a place to do laundry, to access services like the the the counseling and the resources and whatnot, to have a garden, a community garden, even a dog run, because pets are generally allowed. And as far as locations, I, I think that the well again Marina village and I think we can do more than one thing I think the marina village in is definitely an attractive option but also I think the bottle parcel over near the College of Alameda is close to amenities and would be a good location. And I to second what Miss Maxwell said earlier about equity. We are not just saying, okay, let's put all of our homeless resources at Alameda Point. So again, staff, I want to thank you for bringing all these options to us, really doing a great survey and bringing them to us. I'm really excited to see these funding opportunities that are coming. Let's seize the moment. We came really close. We were on the short list to get funding to transition the marina village in from a Project Roomkey to Project Homekey. But we just didn't get off the waitlist before those funds ran out. So I know that the county certainly thought it was a good project. Anyway, that's all from me. And who wants to go next? Vice Mayor. That's mayor of L.A..
Speaker 0: I'm going to try to keep my comments really brief. I cosign what has been said by my two colleagues. I really think that the guiding principles here. Well, first of all, we know that there is a significant need. We also know that this need is not going to go away any time soon. I'm very much interested in finding opportunities for permanent a permanent, affordable and permanent transitional housing. Just because folks are in a state of transition does not mean that the units themselves need to be transitional. And I really want to second the comments that were made by Councilmember de SOG and Mayor Ashcroft. I think when we talk about housing, we really need to lead with the value of empathy. We need to lead with the value of making sure that we are addressing the human dignity aspect of things and providing and providing a home. And that is to say, I do not like the pallet suggestion. I think that there are options. I think that there are a number of issues that have been addressed by my colleagues that I also find to be of concern. I think, you know, I very much support pursuing Marina Village, and I think that there's a huge opportunity for us there. But I also want to just say that I think that this is a yes and conversation. I think this is yes, we need to do Marina Village. And we also need to find and be looking for opportunities. We know what the numbers are. We we've heard the reports. We know that there is a significant need for transitional housing. So this is not going to be enough. We know. We know that. So I think we always need to be on the lookout for other opportunities for sites where we can either build permanent affordable housing or build permanent transitional housing. And that's really what I want to see, because these needs are not going to go away. In terms of who's going to administer it and how that's going to be going, I'll be looking forward to the staff report. I think that there are a number of different options out there. I think we need to look at that. I do think that there is a difference between permanent affordable housing and providing the services needed to operate a temporary or transitional housing site. And so I want to see that fleshed out a little more in terms of what that will look like. But I'm very much supportive of moving forward with Marina Village in and as well as other options. I did like. I do like the idea of modular. I think that there are some limitations with it. And as the mayor noted.
Speaker 1: Thank you Vice Mayor Vella and I did also under when we talk about homeless families who are experiencing homelessness. I heard recently from someone with us that there are at least 57 children in the Unified School District who are from homeless families. So we're thinking of them to council members. Spencer Herrera, Spencer, let's hear from you there.
Speaker 0: So I appreciate the comments of the callers as well as my fellow council members. I am concerned that back in March, the Housing Authority came up with some suggestions of using stimulus funds that would also.
Speaker 1: Make it so that the.
Speaker 0: Housing was available quickly. For instance, they could purchase 18 very low and low income homes for very low and low income families. They could bid competitively on a purchased land disposition from a U.S. that could house 30 affordable family apartments they had on this list. They could use 8 million to expedite the first two phases of federal funding for the housing authorities. North Housing Development, which includes units of mixed supportive housing for homeless senior and family housing. They could buy existing units or restrict them to at least 80% of the area median income. They could also they said that for every $10 million, they could generate nearly 30 units of the rent restricted apartments. So I think it's important that staff, city staff work with the housing authority and see what are the viable options. The comments that the Bring a village in is so important that we need to just disregard the cost. I'm very concerned about I think the focus has to be that we do in fact have limited funds. And what is the best way to spend this money to meet the needs of the unsheltered? I do prefer permanent housing rather than the temporary relief. She made the comments of not supporting not having bathrooms in housing units. I don't think that that is appropriate in regards to the other sites that some of these proposed sites, for instance, the marina village in as well as the Grand Pavilion, have brought revenue to the city over the years. When this comes back, I'd like to see what is the tax, for instance, the transit occupancy tax, any revenues that the city has made in the last five years, pre-COVID, so that we can have the analysis of what revenue stream we would then be using if we're converting these to housing. And then any estimate of the upgrading the facilities. I think that we really do have to look at the total cost as well as what the cost would be to purchase. But I think we should really keep our options open broader at this time to acquire, get more information working with the Housing Authority. Another issue I'm concerned about is that this covenant, 55 year covenant. What that really means and I would like that language to be more specific when it comes back to the public understands is that the people that end up operating it then after 55 years could actually end up owning the property and then they flip it to market rates. So it's not long term affordable housing. So I think it's real important that recraft these documents so that they end up being owned by the city or the housing authority long term for the benefit of sheltering those with low income and that they do not eventually become market rate. I'm very concerned about that happening. That's a real serious issue. So I would like those all of this to be better vetted. But I really want the city staff to work more collaboratively with the housing authority and to make sure that we're getting the most housing for the dollars and not be so narrow in our focus at this time. And then I also want to look at other uses of this money, because there have been suggestions that the universal basic income, for instance, and I would like to be able to see how.
Speaker 1: It comes out.
Speaker 0: Piecemeal with these monies. I would like to continue. Please. Thank you.
Speaker 1: That's the next item that.
Speaker 0: I can speak in regards to the money on this that I'm concerned with any any other uses of the money to make sure that we're not eliminating our narrowing our options probably at this time, ARPA monies could be used for multiple things. So I do want to look at our other all of our options. Some people had suggested the support services and locations and all of that and distance. That's critical. So for instance, this auto parcel is near the college and that's a lot of benefit for services that's already there and to Maxima and also close to James Rainey Park. And they will be having community gardens and that's one of the common areas of public comment. I spoke about that. So when we're looking at sites, I think it is important then member Knox. So I have brought up and I agree some of the sites out at the base, public transportation is really hard, is not there at all. So I'm not sure that those are really viable locations. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And in my conversations with staff, I understand that they certainly have reached out to the housing authority and they are just waiting for a little more concrete proposals. But there is nothing that stops the housing authority from using their funds, certainly to purchase buildings to address our housing needs. Councilmember Knox, why did you want to wait?
Speaker 2: I don't have much more to add, I think. Yeah, it sounds like we're heading pretty strongly toward some form of. Yes. And I guess my one concern is, you know, well, I think arguments for both the marina village in and the battle parcel are very good. I also want us to maybe double down in thinking about where else we can be. Look for sites. You know, I will throw out my perennial solo shot of we have a large building across the street from city hall that has been vacant for the 20 years I have lived in this city. We continue to wait to find something to do with it. And I do think that housing and homelessness are two of our biggest priorities. And I do think that we should consider whether the Carnegie has a role to play in this at this point in time, especially with this much money. I, you know, I would like that at least on the table. It may be too expensive. It may not work because of. Etc.. But, you know, we keep trying and we keep not finding a use for it at certain point in time. We've got to do something. But but I definitely agree that we need to go big. I want to make sure that before we go too far down the road with Marina Village in that there is public engagement very early because I know that it is causing a lot of stress from folks who have inhabit that area. But I also think that a lot of the folks I'm talking to also understand that it doesn't matter what neighborhood you're going to suggest for, for this type of housing, that that neighborhood is going to raise concerns. And I've heard from a lot of very open, reasonable people who just want to hear that the city is considering their concerns and working with them to to address them. And so I think, you know, we're out there early. We can do that, you know. But again, I think that when that when these items come back, what I would I would like is I know that the county has done a lot of work thinking about who we need to help, where we need to help, etc.. I'd like to hear a little bit about where that where the needs that the county is identifying for for our not just city but region as well. So that, you know, we are making sure that we're moving forward with services and housing for the folks who are kind of at the at the greatest need as well, and not unintentionally picking and choosing winners and losers based on, you know. Characteristics that might not be where the greatest need is. So I think thinking about how we're feeling in the cities kind of spectrum of services and housing options, I think will be very helpful in just understanding how we're how we're moving forward. But I definitely think that the more that we can do some form of both transitional and looking at a larger permanent project like the Marina Village and or something else of that, if that's not the one that works, I would be fully supportive of. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Exploring next week, Councilor RIDDIFORD.
Speaker 2: Oh. I just want to make sure to say that. Just. Just a form of a correction. I, I did not say, quote, that we will disregard cost. What I did say was that, Marina, whatever we do at Marina Village will probably be expensive. But that, you know, we will have to analyze, you know, the data and the cost information that the staff make brings forward. I think I said something to that effect and determine if that makes sense. But I did not say that we will disregard cost. So I just want to make sure to clarify that.
Speaker 1: Thank you for that. And good points raised by all of you. But Councilmember, not quite to your last point. We did hear from San Jose City staff when we did the walkthroughs of these two developments in San Jose that it took a lot of outreach with the neighbors and and it's a combination of their security provided there . But there has to be that constant outreach and communication and ahead of time. And but again, I think the groundwork was laid when Marina Village in was a Project Roomkey Hotel. So hopefully we can build on if this ends up being a site, we could build on that so well. All right. So let's see. Just going back, we're looking for providing direction on constructing or installing temporary shelters, transitional housing and or permanent supportive housing, provide direction on the types of projects to pursue and location staff. Do you feel that you have enough direction from? Is this maximum as Butler looks? Counter weight care counselor Harry Spencer has a handout. Sorry. Say that.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mary. I wanted to follow up with regards to a number not quite common in regards to the Carnegie. I, too, would be interested in looking at that, that if that's at all a viable option, it is absolutely centrally located. And so I think it's a great idea to consider that also.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. Back to staff. Would you need more from us and city manager Levitt? Feel free if you want to chime in. I'm sorry I didn't recognize you before the shake of the head. Okay. Miss Maxwell. Miss Butler.
Speaker 3: If I understand correctly, it sounds as though we should be sort of better assessing the group Delphi opportunity for some transitional housing that could be done in the potential shorter term, but then also do some further financial analysis around the Marina Village in the battle parcel and if there's any other particular sites that lend themselves to something comparable.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: We will need to know by far what we're going to apply for through the county. So we'll have to be cognizant of our timing.
Speaker 1: I sense that we're ready for you to bring it back to us as soon as you can. I really miss. But did you want to add anything?
Speaker 0: No, I was going to summarize similar to what Maxwell summarized.
Speaker 1: All right. Well, I think I speak on behalf of the entire city council to thank you profusely for all your hard work on this very important topic. So is this a real opportunity, I think, for us in Alameda to to take action on helping solve a big problem. So thank you so much. Okay. At this point Council, we are going to take a ten minute break. We've been at this for more than 2 hours. So it is almost 925. We will come back at 935. So everybody take a break. Rest your eyes, get a snack, what have you, and we'll see you at 935. Thanks.
Speaker 0: The club. Girl.
Speaker 2: So I need to talk to.
Speaker 0: You treat.
Speaker 2: It's silly.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: I'm doing my nose count. Sean's there. There's Tony. So I just don't know if familiar.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Who've you got? Can you tell.
Speaker 0: Laura? There's.
Speaker 1: There's Chris. Okay, so we're just.
Speaker 2: Seeing.
Speaker 1: If Melissa.
Speaker 0: There's some ask to start video features that I've asked a couple of people, so hopefully they're getting the notice. We're already in the chambers, we're live, so we're good at any point.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Let's see. I'll send a quick.
Speaker 0: Quick text.
Speaker 1: I will wait one more minute and then we're going to get started. To try and just know. He just. I never know why that is that people. Relocate to another. Location on the screen. Keeps me guessing.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Well, tell you what, it is just about 940, it's 939. And we did say there is Councilmember Vela. Vice mayor. Vice Mayor. Hi.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: We've got everyone. Are you. But we've got staff. I'm glad everybody took snacking seriously. It's. It's important. So, Miss Speller, is this are you doing this presentation or are we also waiting for Miss Maxwell?
Speaker 0: No, I think it's nice. Butler. Yes, ma'am. Oh, okay.
Speaker 1: Okay, great.
Speaker 0: Would you like me to read the title?
Speaker 1: Just. There she is. Okay. You ready to go, Miss Butler? Yes. All right. Yes, Madam Clerk, would you. So welcome back, everyone. And we are moving on to our next item, native clerk.
Speaker 0: 60 is a recommendation received direction from the City Council regarding uses for a potential homeless housing assistance and prevention grant towards.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: And all right. Good evening, Mayor and members of city council. For the record, I'm Lois Butler, Economic Development and Community Services Manager. The county shared information with the city regarding a potential award of homeless housing assistance and prevention grant funds. Each HAP funds in the amount of $285,767. In order to prepare to receive this grant, award, staff is requesting direction from City Council. Once the grant funds are available, we will return to City Council with a recommendation that reflects your direction. There are several potential uses of the funds, including providing emergency funds for shelter to shelter. The UN has provided mental health emergency support for the unhoused, providing one time emergency assistance to those on the verge of becoming house, supporting community cabins and providing direct assistance to the unhoused who have located housing and have no means to pay for but can't afford rent. So they can't afford to pay for the initial move in costs. Staff is recommending the following allocations 125,000 to provide overnight shelter to the day center. This would allow up to ten persons to stay overnight. Customers would be able to use the facilities throughout the day and night, and this would allow the city to house a small number of the city's homeless population until we have longer term shelters for them, and then 75,000 to augment existing street outreach with mental health. This would enhance street outreach and street based case management with mental health support. These funds would be targeted to the unhoused that need the most, it seems, with that need moderate to extreme mental health services and then finally allocate roughly 86,000 for flexible funds. This would provide one time assistance for homeless prevention. The funds would be used for car repair, back rent, utility payments for previously homeless, or those on the verge of becoming homeless. The funds would also support homeless individuals with emergency expenses, such as car repair for those living in vehicles, emergency help motel stays working with the unhoused to clear up credit or other related records, such as driving records. If the funding is sufficient to address the mental health needs of the city. If other funding is sufficient, staff recommends that the proposed mental health funding go to the other remaining categories. Increasing the overall. Amount for overnight shelter to 186,000 and the flexible funds to 100,000. Alternatively, the funds could be used to support traditional transitional housing, such as those that were mentioned in the previous report. Based on the City Council's direction, staff will return with a contract for award of the funds after the county has received its funding from the state of California. And that concludes my report.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Miss Butler. It's always nice to get fans we weren't anticipating. And that's what we have here. And thank you for your report. And Madam Kirk, do we have public speakers on this item?
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Provide Direction on Constructing or Installing Temporary Shelters, Transitional Housing, and/or Permanent Supportive Housing in the City of Alameda; and Provide Direction on the Type of Homeless Housing Project to Pursue. (Community Development 10061833)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07202021_2021-1004
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Miss Butler. It's always nice to get fans we weren't anticipating. And that's what we have here. And thank you for your report. And Madam Kirk, do we have public speakers on this item?
Speaker 0: We do not. Okay.
Speaker 1: Well, counsel, it's if we have no public speakers, then I'm going to go ahead. They're going to go ahead and close public comment and we will just launch right into council questions, comments, motion, what have you. So Council, what's your pleasure, Councilmember Herrera Spencer and then Councilmember Knox.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Jack, for this report. I'd like some more information about the all of these items. How, for instance, how did you come up with the ratio? Is there some formula that the reference of the 125,000, if I heard correctly, and I read this correctly, it's ten persons, but I don't know for how many nights. And I'd like to actually know what is the cost per night that you're estimating. And then the second one, the Street Outreach, Mental Health. Do we have an organization right now that you're working with that you're extending what is the 75,000 buy and then the last digit, the amount that.
Speaker 1: 85,000.
Speaker 0: Is actually the most broad. That could actually be my preference. And I don't know if you could allocate more money to that. I really like the idea of that includes assistance for car repairs, paying back rent and utilities for previously homeless or those most vulnerable are on the verge of becoming homeless. And this to me is actually, if I'm understanding correctly, is the most similar to some sort of universal basic income where we help, we treat people that they know that they how to spend the money work best and can get the most bang out of it. And I think that that might actually be my highest priority is where I think it could be most efficient. But so I would like more information of, you know, what is the cost per night for the overnight shelter. I think maybe some people can figure it out, maybe lower if we give them more money to spend. Thanks. Okay. So I don't have the cost per night, but I could probably calculate it. I would need to go through my notes for that. What I do, what I do have is that. And the way we the way that it was figured out was we were trying to have a stopgap measure for a for for shelter. We need a way to put people in shelter temporarily. It cost about $100 per night to have people in in shelter temporarily. And this would allow us to get some of the most vulnerable off the street. People say that they don't have a place to stay at all, and that's why they're setting up camp in our city. We would be able to move them temporarily to a shelter. So I will I will come back to that item. As far as as the other items are concerned, mental health, we do have a provider that we're working with that that does provide mental health services that could tack on to what they are providing. We have not negotiated a deal with them, but we we have talked I have talked to them about perhaps having them work with some of our moderate and extreme mental health folks that that that we have in and that are homeless in Alameda that were trying to get in into permanent housing. But we can't do that because their health condition is such that they can't be trusted in housing at this point. And then with the flexible funds, the amount was based on being able to provide the temporary shelter and the mental health service, and that was the remaining amount. So I will get back to you on the the shelter item. Okay. You have to do a calculation.
Speaker 1: And Councilmember Harris, as you had more questions.
Speaker 0: So I would like to know who that provider is that you're looking that's currently working with the city that you're looking at extending. Um, the, the shelter, the, the case provider would be Operation Dignity. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I had a question having to do with mental health assistance, Mr. Butler. Is it possible if we were to augment the amount we're spending on those services now, that we could have someone on call 24 seven for somebody who's just having an episode and looks like they could use some assistance, as.
Speaker 0: Does.
Speaker 1: Operation Dignity. I think they do outreach. Outreach, correct. And what you know, what are their what are their what's their structure now? Is it Monday through Friday certain hours? Is it on the weekend?
Speaker 0: No, it's not on the weekend. It's Monday through Friday. Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: So would there be a possibility of extending to the weekends and maybe the evenings?
Speaker 0: We could look at doing that with the dollars instead of doing the mental health piece. Are you? Are you? We don't have them doing any mental health. Okay.
Speaker 1: I was confused when you said Operation Dignity. I was. Yeah. So who who would be providing the mental health services?
Speaker 0: What I would be proposing is operation. Technically, they provide it in other jurisdictions within hours. Got it.
Speaker 1: Do we not currently provide some mental health assistance to our homeless population?
Speaker 0: No, we only provide case management. Hmm.
Speaker 1: Got it. Okay, so this would actually be something new. We're starting. Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, then I could see the I could see the the reasoning for starting with a monday through Friday model. But hopefully, perhaps if it's successful, it could be expanded to to longer, because I think we could probably all agree that people that just have their mental health crises Monday through Friday. Okay, I, I have some other thoughts, but I'd love to hear from the rest of the council council members. Anybody want to add anything or to be like these recommendations? Council member, not quite when it was.
Speaker 2: Ready to move the staff recommendation. I think they did a great job and I just want to thank them for their work. They moved the staff recommendation. Okay.
Speaker 1: And did. Okay. Let's have a say and then maybe have a just a little bit more discussion. Council member, they said, are you seconding? Okay, perfect. We've had a motion by council member that's. Wait a second. By councilor would decide the. I just wanted to. I love everything you proposed. Ms.. Butler and then on the page three where it says if well, it's a carryover from page two, if other funding is sufficient to address the mental illness needs of the city's housed staff recommends that the proposed mental health funding referenced above be divided between and allocated to the other two categories, that being increasing the 67,000 plus fortnightly shelter to 185,000 plus, and then increasing the flexible funds from 14,000 some to 100,000. Alternatively, the funds could be used for transitional housing programs such as the community cabins. I might like to see some of that money going to try to help get those shelters where people could go. That I do think more than 14,000 for flexible funds is a good thing and jumping it all the way up to 100,000. That's quite a bit. And again, this is only if we find that there's funding coming in to cover the mental health services that Ms.. Butler's proposing. But I. Anybody else have any thoughts about that? Ms.. Butler ahead.
Speaker 0: I should say that this cut, the funding cut, can span over a couple of years. It's not just a one year funding amount. And so the the moneys for the flexible funds, which just extend for a longer period of time. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 1: I thank you for that clarification. What period of time are we talking about?
Speaker 0: Currently the funding would probably last about a year, just over a year and a half. And if you extended it, it would last approximately two years. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Councilmember Herrera Spencer.
Speaker 0: Q In regards to mental health services, I don't know if we've looked in at Almeida Family Services, and I know they provide quite a bit of mental health support to other APEC, I believe, as well as our schools. And obviously within the community they offer quite a bit of counseling. So I don't know if you checked with them, if they would be eligible to help with any of your ideas. But I, we we could we could extend it. We could do an RFP for these services. We don't have to go with the entity that I spoke with. It was just that I spoke with them because they do provide it in other locations. It's my understanding when analysts here she had spoken to Alameda Family Services in the past for services and they they are interested in providing services but maybe not of this type. I can go back to them and speak with them about that again. And then APEC, I was not aware that they provided mental health services, so I can also speak with them. Family Services at least provide some mental health services to APC. Sorry if I misspoke. Okay. I really value our services of the different locations within the community already. And I and I this my understanding that they have the capability to do the Weekender 24 seven services. Well, I can I can definitely speak with them. So just this is, you know, something to look into. But regardless of the formula, how is it the bet is that this.
Speaker 1: This allocation.
Speaker 0: Really the best use of.
Speaker 1: The money?
Speaker 0: I'm not really sure because I'm not really sure what it's based on. But I, I do like with, you know, flexible funds and letting it can go to a lot of different options. So I just think that so when you're saying the one 2575 and then the 86, is that like at some point it means the city gets these means that they could reallocate depending upon what things actually cost and where we actually see the greater need to meet people's needs. Yes. So to answer your first question about the the cost, it would be $1,250 a week, and that would be five, five days a week. Just $50 plus the weekends. So it would be seven days a week. And then your second question. I'm sorry, I was doing the calculation to try to get you your information. What was the second question going back to the first one then? Is it how many days does. Over a year? It's over a year, 50 to 52 days and ten people. And it's $1,250 a week. Okay. So depending upon if that really is the best uses the program unfolds, I'd like to hope that we can have some flexibility there because I think keeping people in their homes might actually be a good use of that tool, which is the flexibility issue option.
Speaker 1: Anything for the second baseman, Avila. Okay. Vice mayor of L.A..
Speaker 0: It just we know that our unhoused population has grown. We have a significant need with the folks that are going to our shelter. We also know that they do not have a place to go at night. And I think that this is a good opportunity. I think that what we are going to find is that this is insufficient to serve. That need is substantially insufficient. This is not a huge amount of money that we're talking about. I'm very supportive of the staff recommendation. I think it is trying to maximize the space that we have at our data center while still addressing with dignity the needs of the folks that we have. So I'm prepared to support the proposal tonight. And I also just think that at the end of the day, I also want to be cognizant of staff time. We are having this staff work on a number of different issues. And so I actually don't support having them try to go back and kind of do work a second time. We keep bringing up Alameda Point or we keep bringing up different vendors relative to the mental health services. We have vendors that are already operating in this space and so are providers, I should say. And I think that we need to honor the work that's been done rather than second guessing it and, you know, move forward with this. I think there's going to be other opportunities. This is not something where I think that, you know, an RFP or anything like that is needed. I think it would actually delay providing these services that are very, very much needed. That's all.
Speaker 1: I would say I agree with that approach. Anyone else want to add anything before we vote on approving the staff proposal? Remind me. We had a motion by Council member Knox White and it was seconded right. By former SA. Correct.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: All right, then. Well, let's take a roll call vote, if we could, please. Madam Clerk.
Speaker 0: Councilmember de SAG. Yes. Herrera. Spencer, I.
Speaker 2: Knox Light. Hi.
Speaker 0: Fella. I mayor as Ashcraft high.
Speaker 1: That carries by five eyes. Great. Thank you. And Ms.. Butler, thank you again for all your hard work in following up on this. It is so important we have not had a place in Alameda where every day of the year there is someplace that an and sheltered person could lay down their head and have a roof over their head. And so now this is an important first step toward doing that. So thank you so much for all your hard work and we'll look forward to hearing more from you.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: All right. So with that, we're going to close. I turn six B and we're moving on to item 60. Madam Kirk, will you introduce that item for us, please?
Speaker 0: Recommendation to assign a portion of the 28.68 million funding from the federal government through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to assist this recovery from the impacts of the COVID 19 pandemic.
Speaker 1: Right. Who doesn't like talking about money coming into the city, huh? And I see some familiar financial faces. We have our finance director and Anita, we have Jennifer, 12, also from finance. And I think. Do you ladies have a presentation? I believe you've got a PowerPoint. Is that you, city manager?
Speaker 2: No, I think. Mr. Bowden, are you. Oh, I'm so sorry. Yeah, I'm going to try. I'm going to do the presentation, but these folks are critical to the conversation. So we'll tag team the responses and Q&A segment. All right. Thank you. Good evening.
Speaker 1: Anyway.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Council members, we have another update for you on the the American Rescue Plan Act funding. We hope that the conversation tonight starts to start to funnel our our priorities into a particular direction. Next slide, please. And thank you. So as you all know, we've got $28.68 million in ARPA funding coming to the city of Alameda on June 17th. We received our first tranche, which is a $14.34 million, and we had City Council direction on this topic back in May. There were a couple of themes to the meeting in May. One of the things that we took away from that meeting was setting up a framework for us to be able to allocate these funds. So we did set up some guiding principles for council's consideration this evening. We also distilled down the topic from the main meeting into four topic areas supplementing revenue loss. This is general fund revenue. Loss was one of the topic areas. Addressing housing, homelessness and behavioral health matters was another topic area building broadband infrastructure in the community and really investing in that in that key and really underinvested in piece of infrastructure in the community was another topic area that came to light. And then finally the household and local small business assistance programing, which which is essentially a bucket at this point. There is no program designed around this like we had with prior funding sources. First, with respect to COVID, COVID response and recovery, the monies are intended to be a response to COVID. So that is a critical, critical theme, underlying theme that needs to be considered throughout the discussion. Next slide. So these are the guiding principles. There are eight of them on the screen. The ones that I guess all I'll I'll call out this this information is all fleshed out a little further in the staff report. But we did want to make sure that we called out the equity lens as a particular item that we're wanted to emphasize with the ARPA dollars. This is a response to COVID. And COVID did impact certain certain elements in our community, certain folks in our community, more so than others. And so as we look to funding opportunities, this is a way to to ensure that we are spreading those resources a little more generously to areas that were harder hit by the pandemic and the impacts also that the general fund has taken a hit during COVID, and we did bring in less revenue. And so the idea of being able to top up the general fund, which does provide services across the community, is is a topic area that we wanted to make sure was in there. And finally, the one time expenditures element was a theme that we pulled out as well from the the main the main discussion. This is this is one time money. So anything that we create that creates an ongoing operational cost is going to be something that the city's general fund or other funding sources would have to absorb. So with that, we'll say next slide, please, and thank you. The interim final rule is really what guides the the elements that are eligible for the that the spending. There are there are some pretty big buckets there. We did using the interim final rule, using the the guiding principles, using the city council priorities that had been established
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Receive Direction from City Council Regarding Uses for a Potential Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Grant Award. (Community Development 267) [Not heard on June 15, 2021]
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07202021_2021-1102
|
Speaker 2: So with that, we'll say next slide, please, and thank you. The interim final rule is really what guides the the elements that are eligible for the that the spending. There are there are some pretty big buckets there. We did using the interim final rule, using the the guiding principles, using the city council priorities that had been established in those kind of general topic areas. We did come up with three recommendations or a recommendation and two alternatives. These are for discussion purposes. We still really are at the early stages. There's time to refine and make changes to this program. Overall, we've heard five as recently as today from the Housing Authority and it's clear that we need to have some additional conversation with that group. The options that have been presented will likely will likely generate they're the kinds of projects that will likely have a blend of funding sources. And so I'm mentioning that because the the way that the staff report is structured, it's 100% ARPA funding for each of these topic areas. So for example, the Marina Village project, if we were to move forward with that and it's a little bit of a webbed agenda here this evening with closed session, the prior the prior item that was discussed as six a and now this item. But if we were to move forward with the Marina Village Hotel project or motel project and conversion, there would likely be a series of funding sources or a number of funding sources that would develop that project. This report looks at it as if ARPA was 100% of the funding source. So the reason I'm mentioning this is that with any alternative that we or any projects that we move forward with, we're likely to be checking in with council every 3 to 6 months. As projects firm up and spending starts, we'll be able to better assess the amount of ARPA funding that's remaining on the table. So I'll say next slide and we can talk more about that maybe during the Q&A. So the requests that are in the report total a little over $51 million. And they're in those kind of four broad topic areas that that I discussed earlier. Next slide. The staff recommendation focused on, I'll call it, spreading the wealth, but spending kind of creating a program that was within the means provided by ARPA. So it's about $28 million. The first year or two is about $14 million, which is what we have in our first tranche. And this really allowed us to hit the ground running on some of the supportive transitional housing options that are available. I was listening loud and clear to the conversation earlier this evening and recognize that this recommendation may need to be adjusted. But that was the rationale behind the staff recommendation. These are properties that the city owned that we had the ability to move on quite quickly and actually start to spend money in the in the next year . So with that, I'll move on to the alternatives because, well, I think it's important to based on the prior discussion this evening here, those as well. Next slide, please. So we had some housing proposals. These these did look at going all in on housing, including both transitional and hotel. Again, with a blend of funding sources, we could likely get the the $28 million of ARPA to go the distance and actually probably even be able to fund other options that are not considered in this option. Next slide. This this is the opposite flip of the switch where we did not focus on housing, but focused on things like broadband, small business support and and creating those kinds of lending hotspots and other technology support for for members of the community. It applies the same a similar equity lens. What we learned and saw loud and clear during the pandemic is that not having access to Internet for certain populations was particularly difficult. And it created challenges that that we we likely could have foreseen had we had we predicted the pandemic but are really important to address moving forward. Next slide. So if that this is this is a point in time where we have an opportunity over the next essentially three and a little bit years to to program our ARPA spending. And we have about four and a half to five years to spend these dollars. So this is our first attempt at identifying some priority projects. There'll be a lot more discussion. We want to be accountable and transparent to the community, so we will be reporting back regularly on how the money is spent. And so with that, we'd like to hear counsel's direction and on the guiding principles that are included in the report. And if there's anything else you'd like us to associate with those so we can use those moving forward. And then if there are projects that we want to that we want to start to move forward on at this point in time relative to the overall ARPA investment, that would be great. So with that, I'll conclude staff's recommendation and our presentation and we'll move on to questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Nice report. And madam, click, do we have public speakers on this item?
Speaker 0: You do not. Oh, now we have one.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, we will have any clarifying questions from council, and then we'll hear our public speaker. Or maybe there might be more than one council member next. But if you can say your hand up.
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you. And thank you for the thorough report. For the revenue loss proposal. Does the current budget that the Council adopt adopted include $8 million in revenue loss, or would that be that would be new funding not not considered in the correct. And we would bring that back as part of either midyear or mid-cycle update, depending on when the actions occur, when the directions received. Or sooner, if that's if that's possible.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other clarifying questions before we get our public comment or comments? Okay. Madam Kirk, you're going to call the first speaker or the only speaker when you've got two.
Speaker 0: Right? Three. First is Josh Dyer.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Speaker Dyer.
Speaker 2: I can living you. So I am a member of a recent member of a really great group here in Olmedo called Transform Alameda. And we some of us along with us the Alameda Justice Alliance and Renewed Hope and an ARC and other groups have the opportunity to meet with you. We appreciate that to talk about your thoughts and our thoughts on how to use these ARPA funds. And we are also glad for the opportunity to share our kind of more developed proposal with you. So I just wanted to for those who had other people who may be listening, what kind of briefly what our ideas are that so transform. Alameda believes that the city of Alameda has a once in a generation opportunity here to use its ARPA funds to establish comprehensive, integrated public services that are fundamental. We feel for a safe, healthy and thriving community. AMO is created in response to this terrible public health and economic crisis that has, as we all know, impacted the poor and the marginalized more so even than than others. The goal of ARPA is to lift up members of our community in a way that supports and sustains well-being in this unprecedented infusion of federal funds should be used in that spirit, we transform Alameda. We propose that the city use these other funds directly to address our communities in interconnected needs and struggles, specifically around housing, mental health, economic security and climate vulnerability. We realize, obviously, that not not all of you think these things can be fully addressed with this one funding source. But we think that this is these are the lenses through which we should be looking at how to spend these moneys and minds in the future to provide the fundamentals for a functioning community. So for housing, we really strongly support the Rainy Village in project. We also would like to the City Council to consider looking to fund a community land trust or some other sort of thing to preserve housing, look ownership here. We love the idea of a mental health clinic that could potentially be housed in a park in a part of the hospital that's being underused right now. We'd love to see a a a resilience hub on the east and or central part of the island in order to when it inevitably gets very hot, we can have people have access to cooling in other parts of the island. And finally, we're really interested in a UBI pilot that fits Alameda specific needs. So I'll stop there. Thanks very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Laura Thomas.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Speaker Thomas.
Speaker 3: Living there. It's nice to speak to you again. And you and the entire council I standing in for renewed hope advocates here and to say that we stand in full support of those priorities that were listed in the letter. And I think you got a letter from me today to that effect. And I'm really happy to hear Josh talk before me because he pretty much put out all those priorities that we talked with you yesterday. I just want to say in general that I think this notion of community resilience is going to be very, very important in the years to come. I just think cities and towns everywhere and their leaders are going to be called to more and more to help the residents survive those natural disasters and a certain amount of social upheaval, as we can see from what came down just with COVID. And I think the the loss of workers, the fact that we don't have workers in our restaurants and our businesses is really has made us less resilient in the last year. I think that's it's really unfortunate and it's something we're we're going to be looking at with if we follow these priorities through, I think our survival will depend on making sure that we all help one another and and erase that divide between the haves and have nots that seems to be growing, especially in the Bay Area. And all of these proposals really speak to values that we hold and renewed hope and we hold them in the Alameda Justice Alliance. And I think we actually many people in this community that have marched just in the last year to see past injustices remedied also hold these values. Everybody wants to see us move towards the care of the entire community. And when we do move to care for the community, I think we're actually going to have that safe and secure community everybody really wants. So I thank you for your attention. I think these priorities are very important and renewed, hopefully supports them.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Nancy Schmidt.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker Schmidt.
Speaker 3: I thank you. I really appreciate your proposals here and the discussion completely and wholeheartedly agree. I did want to make sure that we come up with some kind of community criteria that does reflect our values when it comes to social justice and equity, and that if there is a way that we could measure how these dollars are being spent and identify kind of almost a scoring mechanism, if we could, the reason being that one is this is a once in a lifetime opportunity and every penny that we get really needs to be spent to the best possible use and to have the most effect for the most people. So many are in need. And I I'm just curious because there had been discussions earlier in the previous agenda item discussing looking at different housing options. Kind of when it comes to cost effectiveness, but also impact, what's the impact going to be? And are there ways that we can look at the impact of those dollars and not just simply looking at how much they cost and what those alternatives are, but to really look at the social impact, the equity impact, and then also how it reflects our values so that we if we were to give a report card back to the community of Alameda, what would that report card say as far as how we chose to decide to spend those dollars? Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: That was our last speaker.
Speaker 1: Okay. So with that, I'm going to close public comment. And, you know, Mr. President, if I could just ask you, we've been on a couple of webinars together about our refunds, and I think you've probably been on even more. To just give the listeners an overview of the the reporting requirements, how strict it is to adhere to the.
Speaker 0: The.
Speaker 1: The the structure, the requirements of this funding opportunity.
Speaker 2: Sure. And I'm going to I'm going to invite Andy and Jennifer into the conversation, if that's okay with you as well. But the the reporting where it's frequent, we have to be updating the federal government regularly on the use of our funds. And he sent a calendar which I don't have in front of me right now, but I think she's looking for it. I think it's every three months or so that we are we're required to report. And really, the thing that's been stressed by all of the folks from the federal government who've talked with with city officials, is the the importance of of adhering to the to the the the eligible project list and making sure that there is accountability for the dollars that are spent so that the federal program doesn't have there's no ability to. It's beyond reproach. The idea is that these are these are an investment in your community. And they they we are ensuring that we are taking good care of the public dollar as we're investing in the community. And so any we'll have a lot more detail on the the report, the actual reporting requirements and frequency. But the overall intent is to make sure that local governments are doing their their very best to be transparent with the community and investing in a way that's consistent with the interim final rule from the U.S. Department of Treasury.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And Ms.. Two, what would you add to that?
Speaker 0: Yes, Jason, very comprehensive. Before you go, I know.
Speaker 1: I apologize for interrupting. I'm hearing a lot of static, as are others, too. Yes, it's very garbled. Any suggestions this way? I figure.
Speaker 0: I do have a headset and I can share my screen with that.
Speaker 2: One.
Speaker 0: You seen the screen?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Oh, sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay, so this is on the calendar. These are the operating dates is pretty much the first day is August 31st with interim report. And then there's a lot of strict requirements on a quarterly basis. By October 31st, we'll have to complete our second and third quarter. And every quarter we have to some.
Speaker 2: Points maybe.
Speaker 0: You can call in.
Speaker 1: And actually, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I think this is probably deeper information than I really need. I suffice it to say, there are strict reporting requirements that the city will have to adhere to. But I think I wanted sort of the overview so far. So thank you both very much. And yeah, we we will have to figure out what the audio challenge was there. Council questions, comments, your recommendations, who would like to start? Councilmember Knox White thinks so.
Speaker 2: I think I really appreciate coming back with three different concepts. You know, for the most part, I do. I'm fairly supportive of the of the housing proposal. I do. I would I would be open to considering some form of you know, I would say say hybrid that had a little bit of business assistance. But for me, business assistance is not grants to businesses, but thinking about things that again, one time, one time funds that could actually go to rebuilding the resilience of our of our business areas, specifically downtown and in Webster Street. So whether that's ways in which to kind of make permanent some of the some of the things that we put in that are attracting people to our downtowns in order to in order to strengthen the local economy, those kinds of things. The reason I asked about the budget, I think that if we were to put some of this into revenue loss and then we would have the flexibility to use that on projects we wanted to use. That would be the about the only way that I would be willing to consider revenue loss in this. I don't want to just see it as kind of backfilling things we've already actually dealt with in the budget. It's not to say that we didn't have pinches in the budget, but I really appreciated that what the first principle of one time only costs. But for the most part, I think your housing only proposal as it links up with item, our conversation around item six eight is probably the most impactful. I do agree with the this is a one time opportunity. Let's see and let's use it to to, you know, have some ongoing and strong future outcomes that we can look back and say we didn't we didn't squander this and just throw around 5000 here and 5000 there and wonder what happened with all the money. So thank you. It's a great, great, great work.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. Now it's like Councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mayor, and thank you staff for this very comprehensive report. I am concerned about dedicating the 20 plus million dollars out of this 28 million for the purchase of the hotel. For me, I'd like to actually spread this as much as possible to impact as many people as possible that really have, I think, been greatly impacted and left out that the Internet, smart city, wireless hotspot service, wireless hotspots. I think that those are critical. This this gap of the digital gap, I think now we're having an opportunity to close it. And as we all know, we're having a meeting right now online that many people cannot access. They haven't been able to apply for honestly supports. They haven't been able to. All of the students trying to study this really been a hardship. They've been left out of our society for a year and a half now. So for me, that's actually a very high priority. I also noticed in.
Speaker 1: Exhibit five that.
Speaker 0: There's just comments in regards to your possibilities to support public health, support for isolation, quarantine, vulnerable populations to medical and public health services. I think that that's actually a very, very important to try to figure out how people that are vulnerable, when they're impacted from COVID, how how do they exist, they need help. So I think that that does meet the needs. The assistance to households. That was another thing on exhibit five, food, rent, mortgage, utility, legal aid, cash assistance, things like that, as well as new and expanded child care. I think those types of services that cover low income, lots of people that are very vulnerable. I think that that's a very good use of this money and I'm really concerned when we're talking about dedicating, I think it'd be like 4/5 of the money to one project. It would impact maybe 50 people versus I'm going to just thousands of people that are have been left behind. And I think we have to really think the medical especially, you know, so those things that I've just said, I'd like to see us to consider. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Let's go. Next, Councilmember De Salud.
Speaker 2: Sure. Yeah. In terms of well, you know, to begin with, I would have loved to have some of the money towards a kind of a Jean Sweeney Park. But I accept staff's analysis saying that that's ineligible. And so we move on in terms of what's before us. I, I support one of the categories being housing. And if there's going to be an abundance of funds for particularly the Marina village in, I'm supportive of that. Although I want to make sure to say $20 million of the $28 million probably isn't the right number. So. So I'm sorry. That's that's just not going to work. I think what we what's what's going to drive the number is whatever our analysis in terms of the sales and all that kind of stuff. But my gut level tells me, you know, $20 million is too high and dedicating so much of the $28 million on one thing is probably not going to not going to fly. But I am supportive of housing and and dedicating a portion of that to the marina village. And because I do think it'll be a cause the way that I want to pursue it, at least it would be a permanent asset of the city of Alameda. And like I said, by virtue of its location to all the social and public and economic amenities, I think that makes it something that we shouldn't miss an opportunity to to to take advantage. It's not on the list explicitly. But you know what keeps me up at night, especially when we got the report about the about the groundwater coming up as a result of sea level rise.
Speaker 3: I think that's something that keeps me.
Speaker 2: Up at night. I know that it's not on the list, the category of sea level rise. But but I just want to note that it is something that keeps me up and it is something that cuts across the city. I don't know if somehow that's housing related insofar as, you know, all the houses, all the residential buildings or for that matter, all the buildings have to link up through our stormwater system or or take advantage of our stormwater system. But I just want to know that that's the thing that keeps me up at night and I'll just leave it at that.
Speaker 1: Thank you, vice mayor of L.A..
Speaker 0: I absolutely support spending ARPA funds as needed based off of our assessments relative to the Marina Village. And I think that that is a good use in terms of when we talk about equity, sometimes those who need the most help. That's really what equity is about, as is sometimes we are going to spend a significant amount of resources to have an impact on those who need the most help. And I think, you know, I think that we can do something really positive there. I also think that there you know, if there are concerns relative to additional well, I think that we've addressed most of our budget shortages. But if there are service needs that are ongoing relative to providing services, I want to make sure that we're not cutting further services. So I do want to make sure that our budget is taken care of and we don't have additional cuts because I think we passed a fairly tight budget. I also would like to find a way to. To maximize the use of these funds for other housing needs. So I just want to make sure that that direction is very clearly given to staff. So if it's not the Marina Village and what are other ways we can we can maximize and assist with the housing needs that we have, because that is the top council priority. I think that there are other things that that are being discussed at the state level by Senator Skinner. Huddle is working on that. There's a number of other things. I think there's going to be multiple layers of assistance coming to families and to folks in need. And I really do think that where we can make the greatest impact with the ARPA funds at the city of Alameda level really is towards meeting our housing needs.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So, just to wrap up, I.
Speaker 2: Just.
Speaker 1: Dropped my agenda. I'd be lost without it. I want to echo something Councilor Knox White said in our previous item. We should think big in what we're doing. These ARPA funds have been described as a once in a lifetime opportunity. Once in a generation. This is the sort of thing that won't come around again. So we do want to do big things that make an impact. And and I applaud the the staff report. It's very well laid out. I want to just I draw your attention to page four of the staff report where there is that discussion about the housing, homelessness and behavioral health. And there are some projects that are are proposed the part of transitional housing program, the hotel acquisition. I agree with my colleagues who have said yes use ARPA funds toward the purchase of the marina village in but not all 20 million. And it's also important to remember that there are other sources. This is going to be a matter of cobbling together some sources. It's just so exciting to have these opportunities are coming added around the same time. But in addition to this federal money, we've got money coming in from the state. There's some county money that may actually be used to help us we may be able to use to help pay the operating costs. So, no, we don't need to take 20 million of our 28 million for the marina village in. But we can we can have some pretty good seed money to help make that project a reality. But I also want to just go back to what a couple of the speakers have said, and I should stop and say it was a pleasure to meet yesterday on a screen like this, but with members of the Animated Justice Alliance, the Transform Alameda and the Alameda Renters Coalition. Thank you so much for enlightening me for your comments this evening on a number of different topics, including this one. We did talk a bit about this possibility of using part of Alameda Hospital as something akin to the Whitebread Clinic that you've heard discussed in these meetings before. That's the underpinning of the Cahoots Program in Eugene, Oregon, because it is this facility that provides mental health, physical health, substance abuse, housing, resource connections, and also things like just a day center, like a respite care for people who just need to get off the street where they're having whatever episode or mental health crisis they don't necessarily need to be committed or even overnight, but they just need a place to get away. And so we have started conversations. I will talk this up as often as they have the opportunity. And I know that our city manager, Eric Leavitt, is in conversation with the city managers of the city. Eric Hayward in San Leandro, right? Yeah. And we are neighboring cities, similarly sized and there is some interest and the city managers are looking into what the possible funding mechanism might be. I know they want us to connect back with health systems that oversees Alameda Hospital, Highland and others. But I think there's some pretty exciting potential there for us to provide these alternative services that would be well needed by our community and maybe some of our neighbors. And also to help Alameda Hospital, which I understand is struggling a bit with low census numbers. And, of course, our residents, property owners here in Alameda, whether you business or residential, you pay $298 every year in your property tax. I know because I chaired that campaign and, you know, we created the health care district to be able to levy that property tax. So let's make sure our money is being well spent and maybe bring in some other dollars from outside communities. So very much interested in in pursuing that opportunity to to make that a reality with some of these are funds. And then as far as the universal basic income, just last week in the one of the trailer bills to the governor's budget, there is money, a nice pot of money for pilot programs, for universal basic income. What little I've been able to read about it, it would be directed toward youth, young people exiting the foster care system . That's a population near and dear to my heart. Some of you know, I have a background as a probation officer, and these are kids who pretty much raise themselves sometimes just. Shuttled around from one foster home to another. And then they come to an age. They're young adults and they're out on their own. And so if they could be assisted with universal basic income and we have them here in Alameda and also some of the pilot program would be directed toward pregnant mothers in certain income categories. And we've talked earlier, there's not much better investment you can make than in in children and babies and you know healthy growing up. So so I don't know that we need to set aside ARPA funds now at least maybe not in the first tranche because I think we should take take a shot at applying for those state funds. And at our mayors conference, county mayors conference meeting in May, one of our speakers was or our speaker was Michael Tubbs, former mayor of Stockton, California. And you probably all know about that two year pilot that Stockton did. So I know the city manager and assistant city manager have Mr. Tag's contact information. He is now an advisor to.
Speaker 2: An.
Speaker 1: Economic adviser to Governor Newsom. So I think that's where that that UBI pilot program may have come from. I'm also really intrigued by the concept of a community of land trust. This is something that our neighbor Oakland has done and other cities as well. It was mentioned by a couple of the speakers and it's an opportunity when there's maybe a distressed property or foreclosed property for the city to buy it and, you know, turn it into that affordable housing. So maybe some money for an affordable for a community land trust. And then so with my meeting yesterday, I'm afraid we didn't get to talk about a community resiliency hub. I am really intrigued about what that is. I confess this is the first time I heard that term, so email me and tell me more about it. But that might be something that we should look into too anyway. And I want to just send a huge shout out to all of the staff who helped put this report together. That was a lot of material, and I know you're going to have a lot of work to do with just these different allocations and the reporting requirements. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So with that, I let's see, I'm just looking back to the ask, is it that we are just giving staff directions? So okay, so the recommendation is to assign a portion of the 26.8 million and again in two tranches. So we've only got the first tranche right now from the ARPA, ARPA of 2021. So staff to you staff. And I'm going to include the city attorney and city clerk. Do you have a.
Speaker 0: Direction from.
Speaker 1: Us? Do you want need a motion? What's your pleasure?
Speaker 2: So, Eric, take himself off our tickets.
Speaker 1: I want.
Speaker 2: To make sure.
Speaker 1: That it.
Speaker 2: Other too. I was thinking emotion if you wanted to. I mean, I think we have some direction, but I think a specific emotion would be helpful just to give us specific direction on which which of those approaches. I think I sort of understand. But want to make sure.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: So, Mr. Bowden, you want to weigh in on what you've heard and what you might need in the form of a motion to provide clarity?
Speaker 2: Well, I guess what I will what I will say is that I heard from four council members, too, to focus on housing as in that Marina Village project. I think some of the earlier items this evening lend themselves to that. The timing will have to work work on a schedule for that piece of the project and our analysis of the true costs and the funding sources. I think public health came up in a couple of different contexts, and so I think that we could provide some additional options related to public health and how we how we invest in. You know, whether it's mental health clinic or whether it's other local support for public health. And then the the. Business assistance didn't come up more than once. I think it'd be great to hear counsel's direction related to the general fund and revenue loss. I guess the only clarifier that I'll put on to that is that that funding does come back in and then it becomes part of a broader ability to spend on different priorities. And so it is more flexible in some ways. Once it does come back through the general fund so that that is something that we can continue to refine and we have until the end of 2024 to fully program all of these funds so we could look at it in future budget cycles as well. So so it doesn't have to be done tonight. But I just wanted to add that context on the the revenue loss discussion.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you for bringing that up. And I favor the approach that you just articulated because ARPA is wonderful, but we are limited to them. We have a lot of things we can spend on, but we are limited to the the regulations that the federal government has put forth. If this money goes back into the general fund, it gives us much more flexibility for other things that we can spend on. So that would be my direction. But guess what? And that's what I was just going to call on you. Thank you for putting your hand up because you brought this up from the beginning.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I would be supportive of that. But I would also want to make sure that we had some sort of spending guidelines. I don't want to say let's let's just ask for the 8 million. It's flexible and then it becomes kind of the grab bag. That's not like if we're giving direction on the project, we should be. Then in my mind, the flexibility should go toward to meet the goals that we're spending the rest of the money on for the most part. And not that.
Speaker 1: You want to propose some.
Speaker 2: You know, I guess for me, I'm I feel like we're honing here still as opposed to just selecting, you know, and so so I think actually that the assistant city manager did a great job of of, you know, as the one business support person. And I will I will let that go. But I think I think he I think he did a good job of kind of outlining that in terms of the goals, I think that they should be kind of housing, mental health and and public health related programs that are not would not be reimbursable through this program. And I don't know what those would be. I didn't come actually prepared for for for kind of.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And Vice Mayor Val, I set your hand up.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I was just going to say, I think that that's really what I was getting at. When I talk about the revenue loss and potential loss of services, I think we as a council can can outline what that would be. But my concern is, you know, if we're if we're looking at revenue loss, that could impact the services that we're trying to provide relative to this program or to other priorities. That's really what I would be looking for in.
Speaker 1: Counsel for her center.
Speaker 0: Oh, and I was just going to say, Ross.
Speaker 1: I guess maybe you guys.
Speaker 0: Are relative to the business, and I think businesses are also included within that directive as an impact to loss of services. We have done a number of different things for our business districts, including providing outreach and things like that that have had and services that have provided, you know, overall help for the for the entire business district . And I think to the extent that that so I do think it is relevant and tied to this conversation. Councilmember Knox, what I had said specifically, he's not necessarily interested in more grants. We've done a lot of grants with city funds, but I think that where we can leverage funds to provide services that are overarching, that meet a number of different needs, that's really what I'm looking for.
Speaker 1: Okay. And Councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you, ma'am.
Speaker 0: So I wanted to follow up in regards to the smart city master plan that is on here, as well as the hotspots. I don't, of course, hear of any other support for it. So is there other money that the city is planning to use for that, or what is the I'm going to ask starter or is it going to be funded from some other way? Or what is what is the plan?
Speaker 1: Oh. And I will just throw in.
Speaker 0: Actually, I.
Speaker 1: Support that too. Is it we I guess I thought we were doing this for categories, but are we? Mr. Bodie, can you help me understand, because I saw.
Speaker 2: That the focus was in the report was on the four categories based on the input that was provided in May. But again, it it was it was an attempt to try and put our finger on where the the council wanted to, to focus the funds. The there is the possibility of adding to the program as we go. We're in the planning stages for that smart city master plan, for example, and we have funding to plan. But in terms of dollars to actually build it out, those have not been identified. So if other funding sources come to the housing topic for the Marina Village Project and there there remains ARPA funding as we go, we should be able to we should be able to reallocate those things on a on a rolling basis. We just don't want to wait too far in. I've been preaching that we have time, but eventually we will run out of time.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Councilmember Herrera. Spencer, go. Let's go back to you. I, I, I, I wanna hear what you have to say, and I think I support it.
Speaker 0: Well, I've been looking at these attachments, so we had multiple proposals, but we didn't just go line item by item. We're looking at your proposals as well as the categories. But one of them had wireless hotspots, $50,000. Is that something that's a standalone that we could dedicate $50,000 to hotspots?
Speaker 2: It is, and it's something that we could do. It's probably one of the, I'll say, lower hanging fruit, but probably very impactful, particularly as people are still doing a lot of things from their home at this point in time.
Speaker 0: Then there is also. So that's I think I think so. Right. So I think that's very important. But the service wireless lending hotspot, 18,007, what can you describe what that is and.
Speaker 2: Sure. This would be a program delivered by the library. We would essentially let people sign out hotspots. And I can't remember the number of devices, but it's a lot like your video. Your wireless system is 30. Thank you. So you'll be able you know, a household could theoretically be powered by one of these hotspots that they've signed out from the library, and there'd be no cost for that. It would just be like checking out a book and this program would fund the service and and and then obviously it would come back over time and it wouldn't just be something that would be given out forever. It would be on a lending basis. So if somebody did it for a couple of weeks, they could do that. They needed it for longer. We could probably figure that out, too.
Speaker 0: And then that virus hotspots. Can you say give us a description of where those would be across town?
Speaker 2: These are these this is all part of the library program. The broadband system would allow us to to create a network across the city to really create an Internet of basically a hard wired system that would allow us to increase Internet speeds across our community. The wireless hotspots could be adapted to those, and we could certainly stand up a broader network. So there's the lending from the library, and then there's the hard infrastructure, as well as the wireless infrastructure that would come with it, with the with the overall broadband program. And they're all tied to smart cities, whether it's a lending system or whether it's physical improvements and infrastructure. It is part of our broader effort to improve connectivity across the community.
Speaker 0: So. But if we don't. If we don't. So I'm not hearing 6 million. Maybe I didn't hear. Maybe I misheard or whatever. But you have on here another you have the 54 hot spots and then you have 18 seven for the landing. When you're talking about broadband, is that under the master plan, 6 million or is that correct?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the broadband is the 6 million. It's the Smart City program that basically would be a fiber network across the city, wi fi in our business districts. It's a it's an entire system that would be in the ground and above the ground that would that would improve connectivity across the community.
Speaker 0: So can the 50,000 and the 18 seven be used without that or you need the system.
Speaker 2: That can be used without that?
Speaker 0: So I would like us to at least consider the 70,000 to help people be able to have Internet access. But my preference is to do the 6 million plus. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm supportive of what Councilmember Harry Spencer says. And also bear in mind that we're talking about two tranches. So to the extent that some things really need to be done now and some can be done.
Speaker 0: You know.
Speaker 1: In a year when we get the other.
Speaker 0: Half.
Speaker 1: Or leveraging some of the money toward that. But I think that's very important. Mr. LEVIN. Actually, excuse my interruption. The city clerk would normally be reminding me we need to make a motion council before 11:00 and it's 10:52 p.m.. So we have these remaining items before us on the regular agenda. 60 is the police policy. Six F is the public art ordinance and six G is the Sunshine Ordinance. There are also five council referrals, but I don't think so. But do we have a motion to. I would entertain going to midnight to try to get at least D.F. and G heard. Councilor Max White, a motion made by Councilmember Knox White to add the secondary need for votes to pass. And we need to do it fast before 11. Face Maravilla There you go for a second. Thank you, Mayor. We have a roll call. Vote, please, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 0: A fleur de thug. I heard Spencer now Knox and actually I Leola. I may or as the Ashcraft high net carries.
Speaker 1: Four, two, one. Thank you. Okay. Who is speaking with it? Oh, Mr. Leavitt, I am sorry I had to interrupt. Yeah, go right ahead.
Speaker 2: But based on what I have heard in the last in the discussion, specifically in the last probably 10 minutes to 15 minutes, I would recommend that you direct us to go back and bring back a program that that's a combination of option one and option two. Because I think your focus was the housing, but also option one had a lot of the focus on things such as broadband and that type of infrastructure. The revenue loss could be used towards the housing and bring back a package combining those two. That would be my recommendation because we could probably narrow the broadband, maybe not go the full 6 million and maybe do some of the elements that have been talked about tonight.
Speaker 1: That sounds promising. What do we think, council? Councilmember Knox white guy. Any thoughts?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess I just want to say I am supportive of the the wireless hotspots and whatnot that the councilmember, her sponsor, was talking about. I'm going to get a little nervous when we start getting the broadband ahead of us actually having a smart, smart city plan. If staff is, I'm not going to say don't bring it back. But I'm because I have some concerns and I'd like to know a lot more about what literally we're going to do as opposed to just putting some broadband in and hoping to connect street lights and traffic lights to it. I think that to me, that's not good. That's not what I'm thinking about when I'm thinking big and and impactful. So they're just throwing that out there on the on the broadband. I'm a little. Yes. The wireless hotspots. And we're not 100% onboard.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. I can hear her, Spencer. Still muted when more.
Speaker 0: Okay. My apologies. I continue to keep having unstable internet here. So is it is it possible to get more information from staff in regards to how many what percentage of our population actually has not had Internet does not have Internet access and how impacted they are? Because maybe I'm overestimating the impact. I feel like it's a very important need that impacts many. But obviously I'm not hearing that from my I don't really feel like I'm here. It's very much. So I do appreciate some of the support, but I would like some more information if possible, in regards to how great is the need , because maybe I'm overestimating it. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Well, I would suggest that rather than send staff to do more data digging, that we actually pursue this in the manner that the city manager proposed and to have him come back. I'm mindful of Councilmember NOx. We don't want to get too far out of our smart city plan. And, you know, there's some other ways we may be able to fund that. Infrastructure bills come in, come in from the feds soon, we hope. But, I mean, I do think that was a plausible suggestion by the city manager to have staff come back with this combination. Kels very nicely.
Speaker 2: I wish I could say I was a part of weekly meetings last summer with the school district to kind of answer that question. At the end of the day, while there were a few people, it was the numbers were not huge and they were very disparate. And what we found was that it was not something where infrastructure specifically was going to solve the issue, that there was there were needs of folks who had more need for a specific one household connection, as opposed to giant backbones of infrastructure. And so nothing kind of really moved forward because the school district was already handing out hot spots to families that needed them. So I think that that's where I think the hotspot idea continues to kind of build upon that. And then as we're doing the Smart City rethink, we can plug in further with what we learn.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Spencer.
Speaker 0: Fazio. So, yes, I've heard about the students getting them, but I've also heard the seniors that we normally see at these meetings have not been participating. And I think that that is actually a need. So maybe Mastic can help us figure out how we're going to connect our seniors to our community.
Speaker 2: Thanks.
Speaker 1: Let's have a motion.
Speaker 2: I will move. It is unfair. I'm not going to move to support the city manager's recommendation to combine to have staff come back with a combination of options one in two that has a housing focus but includes some revenue loss, flex for flexibility and wireless hotspot, and potentially some broadband support as discussed.
Speaker 1: And in addition to the public health and mental health that was all folded in. Right.
Speaker 2: Sorry. Yes, that was perfect.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have a have had a motion. May we have a second, please? Health over day 3 seconds. All right. Maybe we have a real cover up with expectation.
Speaker 0: Oh, it is.
Speaker 2: If I.
Speaker 0: Were Spencer, I not quite.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Leola. Mayor as he Ashcraft High that carries by five eyes.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Thank you again, staff. Good work. Thank you, counsel. Good discussion. Let's move quickly on to item six D Medicare for you introduced. That was a thank you staff. Good to see you all. Good night.
Speaker 0: Recommendation to authorize the chief of police to update the existing Alameda Police Department policy manual to be current with the existing best practices and statutory requirements.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I know there is a little changing of the guard here. And as I believe our new police chief, at some point, I suppose we have to stop saying new, but he's still pretty new. Here is our police chief, Nishant Joshi. Welcome, Chief Joshi.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam Mayor, and city members of the City Council. So I'm the item that I'm bringing for it has to do with departmental policies. Well, when I first came to the department about five weeks ago, I learned that there were several policies that required updates to meet statutory requirements and best practices. So the department contracts with a company called Flexible and Flexible develops and updates. Our policies, like support, consists of a team of policy and legal researchers and attorneys who regularly review case law and legislative updates along with industry best practices as they make these reviews. They automatically, excuse me, send policy update recommendations to the department. The department has reviewed the recommendations and is going to ask for authorization to update the policy. So I'll provide a brief overview. There are several policies of of that that include the recommendations that are in here. So I'll start with the first policy, and that's policy 300 that is on use of force. The previous.
Speaker 1: Chief Joshi, I apologize for the interruption. I did also just want to introduce the other individual on camera who just came on is Alan Cohn from our city attorney's office, who represents the police department. Welcome, Mr. Cohen. All right. Sorry, Chief. Back to.
Speaker 2: You. Oh, no problem at all. So the first policy is excuse me, policy 300 on use of force. The previous policy did not contain language that specifically prohibited the use of the carotid restraint or chokehold. And so the department did remove that as a as a force option last year. However, now this policy recommendation includes specific language that calls out and prohibits the use of such holds. The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training removed the instruction as well. And so we're recommending that we accept this recommendation. I'll move on to the next policy. That's policy 314. That's on vehicle pursuits. The previous policy had language that permitted a secondary vehicle that's involved in a pursuit to notify dispatch of the pursuit. And it says as soon as reasonably practicable, practicable. The new language is actually more straightforward, and it directs a secondary unit to notify dispatch of their involvement in a pursuit immediately. And this is significant, especially as a chief. There's an as I think about risk it with vehicle pursuits, there's an inherent risk associated with vehicle pursuits. And then anytime we add an additional vehicle in a pursuit, the risk increases as well. So we don't want any delayed information about how many units are involved in pursuit because we want our monitoring supervisor commander to be in a position of advantage where we're I require them to constantly monitor the pursuit detail so they can determine whether or not to cancel a pursuit. So it's minor language, but I think it's very relevant and important to adopt. Next policy is 320 on domestic violence investigations. Previous policy included factors such as marital status between the aggressor and the victim. The new policy is inclusive of all classes policy 324, which is temporary custody of juveniles. The policy, the previous policy defined, quote, sight and sound separation as located or arranged to prevent physical, visual and auditory contact. The new policy continues that definition, but also adds that is more than brief or inadvertent. So it's just clarifying language on existing policy. The previous policy also directed officers to transport juveniles who are suspected of using a firearm in a crime to a juvenile facility. The new policy actually increases that threshold by directing officers to transfer juveniles who use a firearm to commit a felony.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Assign a Portion of the $28.68 Million of Funding from the Federal Government through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 to Assist with Recovery from the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic. (City Manager 10021030/Finance 10024051)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07202021_2021-1067
|
Speaker 0: And these are a really good fit for young or emerging artists. Not all of them have are operating under nonprofits. So making this change would give the Public Art Commission more flexibility to fund emerging artists. The park, however, still intends to maintain that nonprofit requirement for grants over $2,000. They would just do that through a series of public art guidelines rather than written into the ordinance. And finally, the current ordinance requires that any expenditure from the Public Art Fund be approved by City Council. The park is recommending that City Council approval only be needed for expenditures above the purchase authority of the city manager, which is $75,000. So this would allow the park to make small changes to public art grants and to implement smaller grants and grant programs in a more flexible and efficient manner. Of course, City Council approval of budget appropriation from the Public Art Fund will continue to be required. The image here shows the fabrication of Palomar, which will be a 12 foot tall bronze squid that will be located at Alameda Point near the heated building. In retrospect, the installation of this artwork this winter or next spring's next. So in April of 2021, the Planning Board also reviewed the proposed changes. They made some excellent recommendations which are listed here. We've incorporated these comments into the draft revised ordinance and in May the Planning Board voted to recommend City Council adopt the proposed changes to the ordinance. There was one concern that the Planning Board actually brings to City Council for consideration. Specifically, they were concerned that the ordinances exemption for 100% affordable housing might result in less public art and affordable housing projects and therefore inequitable outcomes for the folks who live there. One suggestion that the Planning Board made with that was that that exemption only apply if inclusion of the art is an economic impediment to project development. Another way to address this might be to direct the Public Art Commission to consider proximity to affordable housing or other equity measures when selecting public art. And both of these ideas are listed as alternatives in the staff report. Next slide, please. So staff recommendation is that City Council adopts the proposed city wide text amendments to the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance to modify public art requirements. This image shows a new artwork entitled Beacon by artist Stuart Godfrey that is planned for Waterfront Park at site. Next slide, please. So that concludes my presentation. We're going to end with a piece entitled Title Art by Adrian Segal. This is an 84 foot long concrete sculpture that will be placed at 1951 Harbor Bay Parkway overlooking the bay next winter. And with that, I'd like to thank you for your time and welcome any questions. Thank you. Let's.
Speaker 1: Are you getting my echo or. Okay, I was. Thank you, Miss Jerky. That was. I love all the visuals in. In your presentation, so thank you for sharing that exciting public art with us. I have one question. What is Deaccession?
Speaker 0: So the exception is the removal of public art from the city's public art collection. Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. Have we done that?
Speaker 0: We have not done that yet. Generally, there are a variety of ways that you can do that. You can sell the artwork, you can. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to you might have to destroy the artwork if it's degraded to such a point that it that it can't be restored. But there are a few different ways to handle that. But it is a process that's governed by state and federal law and is a lengthy process.
Speaker 1: Wow. Okay. Thank you for that. And madam, quick, do we have public figures on this item?
Speaker 0: We do not.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, we'll close public comment then on this item and we'll just go straight to council questions, comments, a motion. Councilmember Knox, I think Councilmember de SAC.
Speaker 2: Thank you for all the great work. To you. I know that it's been a lot of work that's gone into this and to our various boards and commissions. I did want to just make one suggestion. I am prepared to support it. With that, I would like to propose one minor change, which is that while I am in support of being able to move forward within the under the the sorry without council approval onto the city manager's spending, I do think that there should be a requirement that the City Council is notified of what that is and what it looks like, so that if a call for review is needed because the folks who are going to get the calls if something goes in that has a negative impact on our on our community, are going to be the council folks. And it won't be a good look to say, Oh, sorry, we just didn't know about it. I am doubtful that we will get too many calls for review, but I think it might be a way to to balance that that need of just making the council aware at the same time that allowing that the expenditure to move forward quickly without having to delay for council approval. But other than that, great work and I'd be happy to. So I see the city attorney.
Speaker 1: So I would say, Mr. Sheen, thank you. Thank you for that. Just look at the right side of the screen. I was waiting for Miss Florida State to remind me. Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember, I just have a quick question. Your direction can be implemented two ways. It could be by a council direction, two staff or it could be it could be also done by actually amending the ordinance. That's before you tonight. Do you have a preference on which way you like to proceed? I think if we could move forward with this as a first reading, with that minor adjustment as first reading, I'd like it in the ordinance because I think it's just clear to have it there rather than hoping that somebody remembers that that was the direction, which I'm sure all of you will, but someday you all of you will have found even better jobs.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: And would that still constitute a first reading Mr. Show?
Speaker 2: Yes, it's a minor enough. I just want to make sure we capture it if we're going to modify the ordinance. I always want to make sure we capture the.
Speaker 0: Juror.
Speaker 2: Counsel's direction. Councilmember Knox, why, if I may, may I suggest that the modification be in subsection F of 30 dash 98.10. That is the subsection that talks about city manager expenditures. And perhaps we just add a sentence to reflect your direction, which is that any approvals of expenditure by the city manager shall be the city manager shall promptly notify the Council of such expenditure. Does that work for you? As long as. I guess. My only question is if the city manager's approved, the expenditure is there. Has the expenditure been made and therefore isn't called for review? Because my interest is in giving giving future council people the ability to to raise their hand and say, whoa, that is really offensive. I can't believe nobody cut that. I think we should have a discussion about this before it gets spent in and and put up in town. Let's say I'm just using a very hyperbolic example. I'm sure Governor Christie would never do that. But I'm just saying, you know, they did. So I guess my question is, is there a place is there a place before the city manager or is it possible to give the city manager the ability to approve it with a ten day? You know, it doesn't go into effect for ten days or five days. I don't think it has to be like weeks and weeks and weeks of review. I just want an start in it.
Speaker 1: Let's hear what the city manager has to say.
Speaker 2: Mr. LEVITT I've done not on public art, but similar type of structure where I have to inform the council ten days. And I don't know if you can put by ordinance or direction. They inform the council ten days prior to approving the purchase, saying I'm intending to approve the purchase. If a council wants to appeal that approval, they can do it within that ten day frame and then it doesn't actually get approved and signed up and it goes straight to council. That would be perfect. It.
Speaker 1: And this butler.
Speaker 0: Do you want to hear about minor, minor changes? Like, for example, we came back to council for 15,000, a 1500 dollar increase in to pay for overages on one of the contracts. Do you also want to hear about those? What and.
Speaker 1: Before? COUNCILMEMBER That's right. Answers I think you're talking about actual installations, aren't you, that things that you would be concerned that neighbors might complain about or. Um, but, you know, to to Ms.. Butler's question, what would you what would you say?
Speaker 2: I. It might get too complicated to start trying to put together a list of what is and isn't. To me, I'm much more interested from my standpoint on this one. This is approving their work gets approved and it's a $55,000 artwork. I just think that should be alerted rather than he used to come here. I'm just saying give us the heads up that it's coming forward. If it's if it's an overage of within 10% or something like that, and it's still under the thing, you know, I don't think this isn't about is it worth it? It's it's much more about the artwork. So I think that in this Butler's example, no, I wouldn't personally need to see that. I just don't know if it makes it too complicated to try it out.
Speaker 1: Okay. Let's go back to Mr. Leavitt.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The way I understood the concern was it's about the artwork, not necessarily the expenditure being five or 10,000. It was artwork and the impact or concerns that could grow in the community. And if that council member wanted to bring up for review, that would do that. And that's what the ten day suggestion was regarding. So if there's a way to phrase that so that it's not change orders and things like that, I think that that would be great.
Speaker 1: And then just take me one step further. Councilmember Knox Right. So say the someone in the public says, I hate that it comes to the council. What is the council do?
Speaker 2: I don't think somebody in the well, I mean, somebody the public could say that they hate it. It doesn't go up. So this is this is before the before the city manager has been authorized to make the payment to make the payments. So this is basically right now, the Public Art Commission makes a decision and then comes to the council for our vote of approval. What's proposed is we don't ever see the artwork if it's under the city manager's threshold. I'm saying give us the opportunity to at least see the artwork and have a Oh my gosh, we shouldn't be putting that up then if it's up, it's already been paid for. So we're outside of this process. It's no different than what happens if it happens today.
Speaker 1: Okay, I see what you're saying.
Speaker 2: I just like I said, I should have had a really simple way call for review is to counsel people. We have a process for that. And just I think we should just I don't see it getting used very often, but I can see it being the kind of thing that people wish it had existed. And it does become that one problem in 15 years.
Speaker 1: All right. Other. Councilmember.
Speaker 2: DE So just maybe two or three points. The first point is it sounds like we're almost creating a whole new animal called public art. A call for review. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I'm not opposed to it. I'm just saying. I'd be careful about that. The second thing is, do we have a sense if we could sample the number of projects that required public art? Do we have a sense, at least, you know, as to and I'm not asking you to be precise, do we have a sense as to how many were below 75,000 ? Because I kind of want to get how many and what's the universe. So what percentage tends to be below 75,000? Do we do we have a notion about that?
Speaker 1: Miss Butler. Mr. Key.
Speaker 0: The the expenditures from the Public Art Fund are typically what we're talking about right now in terms of bringing to council. And we have at this point given $150,000 grant, one $50,000 grant, and I would say the rest were under 75,000. So that includes two or three public art grants and then about 16 small grants between five and 10,000.
Speaker 2: That's my sense is I got to believe that, you know, where we're giving, you know, kind of small things that are like below. It's just that's just my hunch, which kind of like. Suggests to me that a lot of the I don't know. You know, I think my thing is I sure hate to give up counts of a prerogative as if it was my for good. If I don't want to give it up, it's getting late so that that's just I do sense.
Speaker 1: And with this because the public art fans are not always going to be spent on an installation of an actual physical art piece. Is that correct? It could also be performance art. So is that something that would come to the council if it's under the city council, a city manager's approval threshold? Councilmember decide.
Speaker 2: Oh, I just have another question. And so if you wanted to answer.
Speaker 1: I thought you were going to answer mine.
Speaker 2: No, no, I'm not.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, let's go sequentially. Where is is that councilman, is that what you would contemplate any expenditure under?
Speaker 2: I would have it be any expenditure under the for for a new piece of art, for a newly approved piece of art is how I would say it. So again, back to Miss Butler's example. If the price goes up 1500 dollars, I don't want to have to I don't think we need to be reviewing that type of
Speaker 1: . That that physical art as opposed to, say, the waterways project. That rhythmic, I.
Speaker 2: Would say all of it.
Speaker 0: All of it.
Speaker 2: Just I don't expect it to be. I'm just saying. Give us the opportunity. Is that kind of Councilmember de point? Yeah, we do. Currently, the buck stops here and I think we're just giving us ourselves the opportunity to raise our hand and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, I've got a problem with that. Whether it's dance or sculpture. I think that the form of the art to me doesn't. Change. That doesn't change that. There could be a concert.
Speaker 1: To account for her death.
Speaker 2: So I think my basic question is, has there been any harm in the fact that we know that that the counts I mean, have we somehow slowed up the process?
Speaker 0: I guess what's what's.
Speaker 2: Kind of like behind I mean and I don't mean that in a nefarious way, but but what's the source of what I mean? Yeah, I hope you get my question.
Speaker 3: It's getting late.
Speaker 1: And I to go with Mr. Leavitt and then this butler. And you're muted, Mr. Levitt.
Speaker 2: I'll defer to Ms.. Butler first.
Speaker 1: Okay, Miss Butler.
Speaker 0: So we've had to come back on change orders. And for small grants like the small grant projects, we couldn't go forward. It was the small grant projects. We were giving out $2,000 grants and we gave out 20 of them for 2000 or less. And so that project could not go forward until we we came to city council and said, we're doing this grant program. We had a 1500 dollars change order that happened. And I. I'm not sure, but I believe it was over the break. I know that the city manager has powers over the break, but we had to wait for that to go forward. We we have another change that we would bring forward to you. A change order that we would bring forward to you. That will take at least a month. It usually takes about six weeks with what the staff reports. I think if anything, it's it's really that change orders that really get get us hold us up. So and and the small grants. It would be nice to do those if if there's a choice.
Speaker 2: If I can comment on that, my. And thank you, Mrs. Butler. My two comments on that would be. Okay. I could understand change orders because when it comes to change orders, what that means is we have an art that we have adopted and accepted. So it's somewhere or and for whatever reason, you know, they they they are they spent $3,000 more. So I can understand how we don't. But but in terms of.
Speaker 3: New art, even if it's like.
Speaker 2: A whole slew of 15, $3,000 each art. I still feel like that's the council prerogative. So I'll just leave it at that.
Speaker 1: Okay. And the. Mr. Levy, we'll hear from you and then we're going to take a vote, because we do have one more item we're trying to get to before midnight. And this is huge. So, Mr. Levy, then Councilor Spencer.
Speaker 2: Based on the comments I've heard, I would recommend that maybe you just changed the ordinance to that under 75,000 or let's say 10% for change orders the city manager could approve. But for original art, even small grants that has to come to council that I maintain that.
Speaker 1: There's a thought councilor for her, Spencer.
Speaker 0: Though I do have concerns about not having an ability to review proposed projects. However, I think the city manager's comments might very well guess that. Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. Let's count through our days, I guess.
Speaker 2: But I do want to say I hear what Ms.. Butler is saying. So if if they want to come back in one year or two years and say, you know what, this is still a problem, then okay, then let's deal with that. But I do agree. I like with the city manager, it's suggested.
Speaker 1: Would you like to fashion that into a motion?
Speaker 2: Oh, you know. Slate will Councilmember Harris does or or Councilmember dogs played fascinated film who.
Speaker 1: What are the difference time zone.
Speaker 2: I know. I think I'm kidding.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Okay.
Speaker 1: Sorry I wasn't clear on that concept. Do we? Okay. We have had a proposal from the city manager. I mean, would you be able to read that back to us?
Speaker 0: Well, I think it's just an interaction ordinance. Do we need that language specific language city attorney? That's a question.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Councilman.
Speaker 2: So I just I haven't heard from either you or the vice mayor about whether you feel that everything does need to come to us for approval.
Speaker 1: I would not.
Speaker 2: Kind of.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I would not bring change back in the thing. I guess we have a public art commission. I think they're pretty confident. I have a lot of faith in staff who works with these issues day in and day out and. You know, I made this proposal, so I. I just worry that we can get down into the weeds and really delay projects. And so, no, I didn't see it as such a compelling need. And, you know, when it comes to art, it's just, you know, it's so subjective. Eye of the.
Speaker 0: Beholder.
Speaker 1: What standards are the the council going to to apply?
Speaker 0: So I.
Speaker 1: I was comfortable with the staff's proposal. But I, you know, I'm hearing the city manager's proposed modification, which I think is reasonable. So that's where I am. And. Vice Mayor, did you want to add anything?
Speaker 0: And I'm fine with the city manager's proposal and proposed modification, I should say, rather than proposal. I do get concerned with the amount of things that potentially would be run by the council and can come through here. I think there's a lot of other items that we are dealing with. I do hear Councilmember Knox weigh in his concern relative to the kind of the outlier situations that might exist. But I feel like it's not enough to really convince me to want to legislate around that issue. Or to allow for that issue. And I think that it could ultimately and I guess my concern is that it could ultimately result in a lot of things coming to council as opposed to finding a way for that one issue to get raised and then for us to address things as they actually arise. I don't I just feel like we're kind of ledges that we would be trying to address an issue that hasn't really come up and would be a rarity and potentially could be. Misused, I guess you could say, resulting in kind of more things coming to council than are needed.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Maxwell, I see a question.
Speaker 0: And you're.
Speaker 2: Just a little confused because currently everything comes to council staff proposal, nothing comes to council. We've got two people saying they want everything to come to council, not YouTube, not sorry, I'm sorry. I'm putting the pictures on the screen. That's terrible. But I hear council member de-stocking her expense, are saying they'd like to have everything come for approval. I'm hearing mayor as the know. Okay. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I was comfortable with what staff was proposing.
Speaker 2: That all our comes accept change orders.
Speaker 1: No, under the threshold that is the city manager's. Expenditure authority.
Speaker 2: Misunderstood him. Sorry.
Speaker 0: And I saw that the way that the mayors.
Speaker 1: Reiterating may look back over the the staff report to pull that.
Speaker 2: Out, waiting for the city manager to jump in.
Speaker 1: And say, manager, feel free to do that. Are actually Mr. Key and Ms.. Ms.. Butler. I don't want to miss sides.
Speaker 0: Can I just say, like the City Planning Board, all of our items can be appealed to the city council. So there's a ten day period after approval that they can be approved uphill to the city council.
Speaker 2: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 1: It's cancer.
Speaker 2: It's 25 seconds. Explain something. When I as a council member approve of an art, I kind of feel like Santa Claus. I kind of feel like I'm bequeathing I'm helping bequeath this something that's going to be of artistic benefit. So I just don't want to give up that. That's my point is I just don't want to give that up. And so to me, you know, appealing just doesn't work. I'd like to approve art.
Speaker 1: Okay, fair enough. Let's take a vote. Where's the emotion? Let's vote on it. Mr. Shannon, did you want to add something before we vote?
Speaker 2: May I read the wording of the change before you vote so that you know what you're voting on?
Speaker 0: Or we still need a motion.
Speaker 2: So maybe.
Speaker 1: Well, I think we want to hear what it is that the proposed. Yeah. Let's hear from.
Speaker 0: You.
Speaker 2: So I think the change will. Now I'll read the whole paragraph. The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from the Alameda Public Arts Fund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the city manager shall be authorized to approve change orders within the city manager spending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with approval authorizations in the City of Alameda Purchasing Policy, the city manager shall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager on any change order. Any two council members may call the city manager's decision for review within ten days of the city manager's notification. If no call for review is timely perfected, the city manager's decision shall become final and effective.
Speaker 1: That's fine.
Speaker 2: And just to clarify, but that's.
Speaker 1: Three.
Speaker 0: Days ago.
Speaker 2: So that's the change orders. So so we still have authority over everything else? Yeah. Okay, good.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So.
Speaker 1: Here, change orders. Okay. Okay. So that's been moved. Maybe we have a second. Councilmember Harry Spencer. Okay. And just so I'm clear. A vote not to approve that proposal would leave the ordinance. With what? With coming back to council for everything.
Speaker 2: Change orders included.
Speaker 1: Is that correct, Miss Butler?
Speaker 2: Status quo.
Speaker 0: Yes. That part of the ordinance. Unless you don't vote on the ordinance. Okay.
Speaker 1: Well, I would like us not to get into the weeds that much, so. Okay. We have a motion in seconded. Right.
Speaker 0: Correct.
Speaker 1: Remind me who made it again.
Speaker 0: Any customer based on the motion councilmember. Her sponsor. Seconded.
Speaker 1: Okay. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 0: I thought the proposal was to not just have that for the change order, but to have it for for everything. And then to go to the call for review for everything. The I understand that it's only for that one provision.
Speaker 2: That was my recommended change to what was previously proposed. So I'm consistent. My change proposal was consistent with what the city attorney read.
Speaker 1: Okay. And this is. Okay. And this is actually you're amending the ordinance to add this language, correct? Yes. Okay. And Mr. Shen directs us again to the provision, the particular section.
Speaker 2: In subsection F of section 30, dash 98.10. Which is on page nine of 11.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I am not finding that this is in the witch exhibit.
Speaker 2: It's in the ordinance, which I don't think it has an exhibit. It's not. It's neither exhibit. It's sort of the fifth link down. It just says ordinance.
Speaker 1: Well, the ordinance is four pages long. Sorry. Sorry. I was on that roll. It just jumped to a different item.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Yes. Okay, let's do nine over 11. Okay. And so.
Speaker 0: F. Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: So she has to office expenditures that exceed the purchasing power she managed for the authority of city manager to. So with that. Okay.
Speaker 0: Our sister.
Speaker 1: Okay. And we're.
Speaker 0: Saying.
Speaker 1: This motion is to remove change.
Speaker 0: Orders from.
Speaker 1: Well, the council would be approving. Correct.
Speaker 2: So maybe I'll just reread the whole paragraph because this motion changes this paragraph completely.
Speaker 1: A lot of people were nodding and you don't.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. You go ahead.
Speaker 2: I'll just read the whole paragraph. Some of the council's clear. The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from the Alameda Public Arts Fund consistent with the purchase purpose of this article, comma. Except that the city manager shall be authorized to approve change orders within the City Manager Spending Authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with the approval authorizations in the City of Alameda Purchasing Policy. The City Manager shall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager on any change order. Any two councilmembers may call the city manager's decision for review within ten days of the city manager's notification. If no call for review is timely perfected, the city manager's decision shall be final and effective.
Speaker 1: Okay. Let's have a vote. Any more questions? Council.
Speaker 2: No, I was okay.
Speaker 1: Not fake calls from then by super villain.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure if I'm going to be trying to decide if I'm going to support this or not, because it's actually the almost the opposite of what I was proposing, which was that we be notified by art but let it go through and not be notified about to change orders. I feel like this is this is reversing the recommendation that I supported when I was just trying to give us a little bit more whatever. And so if we could if there is support of a majority of the council, which I think since shaking heads there is.
Speaker 1: With, would you like to attempt to find the amendment, actually hold that from the amendment, if possible, from the amendment. Let's hear from Vice Mayor Vella, because you look concerned as well.
Speaker 0: I actually don't think it's a friendly amendment. I think it's a separate defense.
Speaker 1: So you don't think so, do you? Okay. That's why I.
Speaker 0: Think it's a good.
Speaker 1: Alternative.
Speaker 0: Substitute motion. Substitute motion, I think because anyways, I well.
Speaker 1: You you can propose a substitute motion and if it's seconded, that will get voted on first. If I recall policy procedures correctly, if you want to make such a motion council member. That's why.
Speaker 0: I ah.
Speaker 1: Advised Mayor Villa because no.
Speaker 0: No I'd like counsel over, not wait to make the.
Speaker 2: Determination just as to have specific language. I would just ask if the city attorney is their language. You could quickly just shift to make it so that our word, the notification is for any approvals under the city manager's spending authority.
Speaker 1: Any art approvals, but not change. Order.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just change orders are within his authority that we've already approved the art. Those don't need to come to us like that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I hope.
Speaker 2: That is.
Speaker 1: What I thought I heard.
Speaker 0: So, Councilmember.
Speaker 2: I want to be clear so that what I read to you does not allow the city managers to approve any new artwork. What you're saying is that you do want the city manager to produce, which is the staff. Which is the staff recommendation. Okay. All we were trying to do is just give a little like heads up. We've approved this. You got ten days to say, Oh my God, I hate that. Bring it to us.
Speaker 1: So allow the city manager the authority, but simultaneously bring that notice to the City Council within ten days of the decision being made.
Speaker 2: Eric had language that I think is needed.
Speaker 1: Did. Yeah.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: Mr. Levitt, can you can you restate because I did. I will see if I wrote it down. Could you restate it one more time?
Speaker 2: Well, I was focused on allowing you to continue to seem to approve the artwork based on what I was hearing and then do what my my recommendation was consistent with what the city attorney read. But it sounds like the majority of the council wants to go a different direction maybe, or some councilmembers a different direction.
Speaker 1: I think I, I think you may have a three vote majority. Councilmember Knox. Right. For the.
Speaker 0: The.
Speaker 1: Art approvals under.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But the standard for.
Speaker 1: The.
Speaker 2: Mediation with notification. So I'm prepared to read something new if that's helpful.
Speaker 0: And we're prepared to hear.
Speaker 1: Something is so. Okay. Rebecca, on page nine of 11.
Speaker 2: So replacing paragraph F again.
Speaker 0: So right now it.
Speaker 2: Reads The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from the Public Arts Fund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the city manager shall be authorized to approve expenditures within the city manager spending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with approval authorizations in the City of Alameda Purchasing Policy. The city manager should notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager for any new artwork or project. Any two council members may call the city manager's decision for review within ten days of the city manager's notification. If no, no call for review is timely perfected, the city manager's decision shall become final effective.
Speaker 1: Do we need the date by which the city manager notifies the council so that we're not. Time to do the for review. Has it passed?
Speaker 2: It's ten days from his notification.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter until he. Until he tells us something. It doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Got it. Ten days from the notification. Okay. All right. Councilmember Dogfight, is that your emotions?
Speaker 2: My emotion. Okay. My emotion. That I am.
Speaker 1: Establishing emotion of my values. Seconding Councilmember De thought. Your hands up.
Speaker 2: Just a quick comment. I just hate to give up my council prerogative when it comes to approving public art from the Arts Commission.
Speaker 1: Understood. Thank you. May we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: I'm so invitation no or censor my next fight.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 0: Fella. Hi. Mayor. As he Ashcraft.
Speaker 1: High, that carries 4 to 1. Okay. All right, counselor. It is 1155, which I think is a bit late before midnight to hear the Sunshine Ordinance item. Would you agree? So with that Councilmember Knox way. You're muted. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: The long way. A long way across my screen from my mouse. Can I move that? We continue item 60 to a 659 meeting on September 7th.
Speaker 1: Yes, that we can do that. Correct.
Speaker 0: Clerk right.
Speaker 1: There. Yes. You need a second for that motion. Nice for.
Speaker 0: Villa. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. May we have a roll covered Annapolis member guy? Oh, hold it. Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Shin.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. September 30th of Friday. Council member.
Speaker 0: He said seven, I think.
Speaker 2: Oh seven. I'm sorry. I haven't heard you. And I think it's important as a meeting date, but I remember.
Speaker 0: It.
Speaker 1: Is getting late, people.
Speaker 0: Okay, Counselor, it is not.
Speaker 2: My.
Speaker 0: Her center. I know it's right. Sorry. As I. I carries by five.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Well, then. And actually, council and staff. I want to thank all of you. You've done a tremendous amount of work since the beginning of this year. Actually, since the beginning of this pandemic. I kind of feel like we have been doing double duty. We've had a lot of heavy issues coming before us. I feel like we're getting things done and I really we couldn't we couldn't do it without each other. So thank you for the role that staff plays. We have a very hardworking staff and we stretched some really thin and we're so grateful. And so to all of you, enjoy a month off without council meetings, get some well-needed rest and relaxation, come back revitalized because we've got more important work to do. But again, I really we don't always agree and see eye to eye, but it is an honor and a privilege to serve with all of you and to serve with the staff. And so thank you very much and have a great summer. We'll see you in September. Take care of you. Goodnight.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Modify Public Art Requirements, as Recommended by the Planning Board. (Community Development 24062814)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_06152021_2021-1002
|
Speaker 1: Adoption resolution approving in adopting the operating capital budget for fiscal year 21, 22 and 2223 for the City Council, and then also the operating budget for the CIC and adoption of resolution approving workforce changes and amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association salary schedule.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I see that we're joined by our finance director and he to welcome is too. And also by Robert Vance from Public Works.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And Aaron Smith Public Works director they're all.
Speaker 1: And.
Speaker 0: We've got of course we still have Jennifer tell. So Mr. are you are you leading off on this one?
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you very much, Mayor Sears Pratt. Good evening. Members of the City Council and City Manager Levitt, assistant city manager, building, city attorney and members of the public. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to present the budget to you. This is my very first year with the city and very pleased to report that the the executive team and the team Almeida is just very wonderful to work with, very pleased that we are able to work collaboratively to develop this fiscal year. 2122 budget. The operating and capital budgets are were developed based on a lot of collaboration between the departments and it was great to see so much cooperation from city staff. The proposed general fund budget for fiscal year 2122 is approximately one $112 million and $115 million for fiscal year 2223, with the proposed employees totaling about 470 470 employees. I would like to give special thanks to the City Manager Levitt and Assistant City Manager Bo Dean for their guidance and leadership in developing this budget. And this is the first year that we were able to use open govt to develop the budget. It went very smoothly and Genova town did a lot of heavy lifting to make it possible. So I would really like to thank Jennifer for her words and also I would like to give special thanks to Public Works Director and what it means for the development of the capital budget. It looks beautiful. I've seen the draft copy. It just looks very well put together and I wanted to make sure that what? That I want to thank all the residents of Alameda for their input as well. Without their input, we wouldn't have been able to develop this fiscal year 21, 23 operating and capital budget. And we are able to do so by preserving critical and essential services supporting the Alameda residents and businesses during these unprecedented times. So thank you all for your leadership and support. And with that, I'd like to turn over to our wonderful budget manager, Ms.. Jenna Patel. Thank you. Thank you. Finance Director, you need to. Hello again, Madam Mayor. And Council Members and the Finance Department. I'll provide a brief overview of the proposed to your operating budget and changes to the budget that have been made based on direction provided to council at the Budget Workshops on May 11th and 20th. Then I will turn it over to Public Works to provide an overview of the Capital Improvement Program Budget. Next slide. Next slide. Jennifer. General fund expenditures are proposed at $114.4 million in the first year of the budget and $118.7 million in the year to the largest category of the operating budget is employee salaries and benefits, followed by operating expenditures for services and supplies. Next slide. Citywide. The budget is proposed at $272 million in the first year and $273.2 million in the second year. These amounts include entire fund transfers and annual allocations for capital projects. Amounts do not include carry forward of encumbrances of existing appropriations. The proposed budget resolution provides for encumbrances for valid purchase orders and contracts in effect as of June 30th to be carried forward into the following fiscal year budget. Next slide. For this budget cycle, we are implementing an online budget, but as finance director two mentioned and this will provide for web based navigation of the budget, we will also publish a PDF version of the budget by the web and PDF versions of the adopted budget will be available on the Finance Department's website by July 1st, and many of the budget summary reports that will be included in the budget book are available to view now on the city's Open Govt transparency portal. Next slide. As mentioned earlier, these are the only changes to the city manager's recommended budget that have been incorporated in this proposed operating budget as staff received direction from City Council at the May budget workshops. Additional changes to the capital budget will be discussed by public works. The operating budget changes include funding for the Civic Spark, fellow Almeida, Family Services, mental health support, police auditor and reform measures, and a one time allocation for the land tax. I will now turn it over to ising civil engineer Robert Vance and public works to discuss the capital budget.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Jennifer. And good evening, Madam Mayor and city council members. Can we have the next time, please? I'm Robert Hanssen, the supervising simpleton here in public works. And I manage our capital improvement budget. And tonight I'd like to review the capital budget and some of the changes as directed in the budget workshops in May. Next slide, please. The proposed capital improvement program. Budget totals approximately $67 million over the two year period, including more than $18 million in grant funding. It also includes $1.2 million per year in general fund contributions, which is approximately 3 to 4% each year of the capital budget. The general funds are supporting projects such as our street lighting program, Urban Forest Management and our park and playground improvements. The budget also supports several city council priorities, including traffic safety, climate action and resiliency, recreation and park facility improvements and element of point infrastructure. Exhibit three for this item includes an overview of the budget for the full budget and one page descriptions for each project. And the next slide, please. The resources are shown on the left hand side of the screen. Many of those sources are restricted in nature. For example, sewer services go toward sanitary sewer rehabilitation program. There are transportation related funds through Measure B and vehicle registration taxes and other fuel taxes and other dedicated funds. On the right hand side, as shown, some of the project categories that we have and approximately half of the budget is dedicated to transportation projects. About 20% is for the sanitary sewer program and then shown here about 11% for building facilities, 2% for parks, and the remaining for stormwater projects and sea level rise adaptation. Looks like things. Here to show some of the changes to the capital budget based on the the workshops. The first is are matching funds for a safety improvement project, which is approximately a $250,000 grants that we are receiving through Caltrans. There are also general fund contributions for the urban forests to support species specific tree trimming and increased funding for the urban forest master plan. Update. The budget also includes increases for park maintenance to support park improvements and amenities at parks. There's a budget reduction shown here for $400,000 per year. This is based on the updated agreement with Rita that was discussed on the May 4th city council meeting. These were capital funds that for parking lot improvements that will now be funded through the operating budget. And finally, the grant, a grant for the West End bicycle and pedestrian crossing project, which totals $1.555 million, which is a grant through Alameda, CTSI, which will be discussed later in tonight's meeting. And with that, I'd like to close and. Take any questions you might have.
Speaker 0: Thank you, everyone, for your presentations. So I know, Councilman Knox, I think you had a had a question. Why don't you lead?
Speaker 2: I will ask it again. So I just wanted to confirm that tonight's presentation is consistent with the direction we gave at the end of our last two workshops. Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any questions, Councilmember Desai?
Speaker 2: Well, thank you. And is this kind of similar to the question raised by Councilmember Knox, but more focused, particularly on the park maintenance issue, the $200,000 a year, one $200,000 year or two. My understanding of that was that it was for the for the tennis court resurfacing and pickleball, but that the Parks Commission is going to kind of weigh in and give us the read their recommendation. So is that correct? That's what I recall.
Speaker 0: But Mr. Vanska head now, you guys.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Yeah, that's my understanding of the of the direction was that it was an increase in funding for park improvements with the specific projects to be determined at a later date. Okay.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Knox, what does your hand go up against?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just wanted to pick up on the nuance that Mr. Grant's said, which is it's for it's not specifically for tennis court or pickleball. It's for projects that the Parks and Rec Department or Commission identify, which could be beyond that. Just so that there was clarity on what they were, Jarmusch was.
Speaker 0: Okay. All for you, Councilmember. Now, I disagree.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Vice mayor of L.A.. So you had.
Speaker 2: That.
Speaker 1: I was just going to clarify the direction relative to the parks, which were not quite recovered.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Any other clarifying question before we go to public comment? Okay. Madam Kirk, do we have public comment on this item?
Speaker 1: We have two speakers. The first up, number three is Linda Carter Loney.
Speaker 0: All right. Good evening, Speaker Carr Loney. And so right now we just have three speakers. Everyone gets up to 3 minutes. Good evening. We're ready.
Speaker 2: Yes. This is Linda.
Speaker 1: Cannelloni. I live in Alameda and I am a member of the board of directors of the Golden Gate Audubon Society. Unless I'm mistaken, the budget does not include funding for the master planning of the park. So I'm here to urge the Council to fund $250,000 in this year's budget for the master planning of DuPage Park has long been promised.
Speaker 2: But not yet implemented.
Speaker 1: Do you pay? Park represents a unique opportunity to sequester carbon. Accommodate sea level rise. Provide habitat for wildlife. And to give us a special place to teach and learn about nature as well as a place for people to experience the peace of natural areas, which is, of course, a rare opportunity in the inner bay area. The impact this is a special place because it's whatever we do it deep will be magnified by the fact that the VA is creating and improving the adjacent wetlands, which makes the total area much more impactful than the sum of the two areas the city leads to, in.
Speaker 2: My opinion.
Speaker 1: Live, live up to its climate emergency declaration and its Climate Action Plan, which specifically calls out debate, park and fund the amount needed for master planning in order to better position the park to obtain grant funding for its.
Speaker 2: Construction. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Jacqueline Zipkin.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Zipkin.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam Mayor, and honorable councilmembers. My name is Jackie Zipkin and I'm an Alameda resident. Tonight, I'm speaking on behalf of Transform Alameda and I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the city's proposed budget for the next two fiscal years. While we appreciate all the hard work that went into crafting this budget and balancing priorities, I wanted to highlight a disconnect relative to specific direction provided previously by Council on Police Reform and Equity. Item six SI Later in your agenda lays out progress that's been made by staff in addressing concerns by the community, raised by the community and following Council's explicit direction. However, several important items discussed in that staff report have budget implications, yet no funds for those items have been allocated in the proposed budget. Specifically in the staff report for item six, C staff recommends 100,000 for facilitating development of Citizen's Police Account Accountability Board and 20,000 to create citizen's oversight out of the city manager's office until there can be a more formal citizen's oversight body established. These are important steps to implementing. The steering committee is a number one recommendation, and it's something the council has repeatedly formally endorsed. Yet, as we understand it, no funding for this effort is actually included in this budget and council would need to return to identify further appropriations. We want to see funding allocated in the budget now for beginning this oversight process and delivering on the commitments the Council has made to the community. We recognize that doing this oversight right will take time, but there's no excuse for administrative delays, like requiring a separate budget action. Thank you. And transform Alameda looks forward to further collaboration with the city in future years on the budget adoption process.
Speaker 0: Take your next speaker.
Speaker 1: Lauren Lyon, co-owner Shalem.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker like Salem.
Speaker 1: Evening, everyone. First I want to say thank you too much to the city staff for their work on this budget. The first year I really dug into it. And I was just struck by how much work and nuance goes into it. So round of applause for all of you for working on it so hard. I did want to echo the previous speakers comments regarding the lack of funding in this budget process and Police Accountability Board and the temporary oversight that would come out of the city manager's office and far more formal oversight body bodies established. As we know, these were recommended by the steering committee and approved by this council. Funding for this should be in this budget, not require council to have to vote against. So I would strongly urge you to amend this budget to include funding for those items as discussed by the previous speaker. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Before we call our next speaker. We now have seven speakers. So the time to 2 minutes. Yeah. And our next speaker is Josh Guyer.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Guyer.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Good evening, Mayor. So I would like to echo the the calls by other members of Transform Alameda to fully fund the the the steering committee, the Police Reform Steering Committee recommendations. I just want to hearken back to when Marty Gonzalez was killed by Alameda police. We had identified before that, I believe, 42% of police funding that currently goes to things that police are not needed actually to respond to. And we've been waiting I've certainly been waiting to see where the movement's going to be on that number, going from going from where we are in terms of the funding for the police to where we want to be, which is getting the police out of the way of mental health responders and economic supports and housing supports for people when when there is no public safety risk in when there when there are other other issues happening that do not required response. So so that we can not have to repeat and have a repeat of what happened to Marty Gonzales and other people who don't need that kind of response. These efforts need to be fully funded, and we need to move we need to move faster so that, again, no one else can be can be hurt or killed by by people that we pay with our tax dollars. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Laura katrina.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker Katrina.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. I am calling in with the results of the People's Budget Survey. Alameda Transform. Alameda decided to go out and survey the community to understand because the city's budget demonstrates our city's values. What indeed does our city value? And so we had an online survey with 158 responses with approximately 25% coming from the West End East and central Alameda and 12% from Bayfront. And we asked respondents if they'd prefer to increase, decrease or maintain the current level of service for 20 different kinds of care. Our kinds of city services in four major categories. And those categories were basic safety needs and safety net community care and well-being, public works and city administration and emergency response. And if we look at the overall sentiment, basic needs and safety net were at 75% and we calculated that number by subtracting the promoters, those who voted to increase service a lot or increase service a little from the detractors, those who voted to decrease service lot or decrease service a little. It was pretty interesting to see that emergency response was at 0%, and I wanted to call out that. That was including community crisis response responders with 83%. But that then equaled the votes to decrease services for the police, which was 65%, and fire department 17%. So that basically went to zero in terms of sentiment by area. The top five areas to increase and these are where we got more specific was community care crisis responders. 88% of responders agreed and increased a lot or a little. Ongoing mental health and wellness. 86% of respondents. Food security. 84% of respondents. Housing security and community medics. 82% of respondents and education and schools. And they were indicating they'd like the police. 80% of respondents fire department and city administration to be decreased.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Melody Montgomery.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Montgomery.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Thank you all. I don't think I.
Speaker 2: Have like a statement to say. It's more like a it is a statement of confusion. I keep hearing you give direction to staff to do a thing. And then I keep seeing budgets come back without the thing that you asked for. And I'm not sure if that's because it's a it's a miscommunication between what you're asking for or it's just something that maybe staff doesn't want to happen. And it feels very frustrating to me to see this budget come up with none of the things that we've been working so hard for and so a hard on. I didn't see anything for unbundling services. I didn't see anything for any of the recommendations that your steering committee and the people that worked on on those to do so. I sit here watching and listening in confusion. I'm not sure what else the people can do. We've spoken. We showed up. We did the work. We keep showing up. We keep doing the work. We keep telling you what.
Speaker 1: We want to.
Speaker 2: See. And I'm not sure what it takes for that to happen at this point. So yeah, I think I just want to say, oh, that's interesting and confusing.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Deborah Mendoza.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Mendoza.
Speaker 1: Am I unmuted?
Speaker 0: Yes, you.
Speaker 1: Are. Okay. Good evening, dear Mayor and City Council members. How and what we spend money on in the city of Alameda shapes our well-being, quality of life and safety. COVID and the murder of George Floyd have assured the nation into a new era where communities everywhere are forced to reckon with racism and police violence sooner or later . Alameda is no different. Actually, we are very much the same. We have our own version of George Floyd and his name is Mario Gonzalez. While on the task force after reviewing calls for service and meeting with police in dispatch, we reported back to you that well over half of 911 calls are non-criminal in nature.
Speaker 0: And that at a.
Speaker 1: Minimum, we should immediately divert police calls that involve mental health, substance use or homelessness and have that.
Speaker 0: Responded to by.
Speaker 1: Community based mental health professionals. That's not the fire department. With over half of 911 calls non-criminal. We need not only a divestment from the police budget, but also a comprehensive audit of the Alameda Police Department and an examination on which positions could be civilian ized moved out of APD or a combination of the two. This is not in the budget. We should be decreasing the police budget, not increasing it, nor hiring to fill vacancies even before shifting services. Instead, we should be reducing the police budget. Yet the 2021 budget would increase the police budget again today as the pandemic begins to end. We all realize that things will never go back to the way things were before and nor should they. We are forced to reexamine what really keeps us safe. With this in mind, I ask Where in our budget is that divestment from law enforcement? Where is funding to continue the work of the Task Force on Policing and Racial Equity? I urge you to make these adjustments.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Alexia rocha.
Speaker 0: Good evening, speaker our.
Speaker 1: Good evening, everyone. I'm calling in. I support the statement of Jackie Zipkin on behalf of transfer me to. And I'm also wanting to echo what Laura Katrina's statement was. All of these ideas and requests are not new ideas. They didn't magically come out of the Transform Alameda survey. They've been things that we've been discussing and commenting on for over a year now that the public has been working on. And I really hope City Council takes more immediate action and prioritizes accordingly instead of constantly talking about it or creating processes that pay lip service to it instead of action. Melody Montgomery's confusion feels very similar. I've been absent from the last few city council meetings due to life happenings, and yet I feel like it's more of the same. People are making demands. People want less money spent on police. People want less police. And we're still here debating where and how to spend this money instead of creating immediate change that could have immediate impact. While more conversations can still be had. I agree with all of the previous callers statements and hope that council is listening closely. And as Debra said, where is the divestment? Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Marilyn Rothman.
Speaker 0: Evening, Speaker Rothman.
Speaker 2: Hello.
Speaker 1: I am in agreement, of course, with all the previous speakers on this matter. Unbundling of police means shifting resources, i.e. money out of the police department to other services, especially mental health. In the same vein, I am opposed to the Felt and Trust Felt institute as it operates in conjunction with law enforcement, not separately. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Our next speaker is a telephone. Call her with a phone number ending in 2 to 5. Okay. Just need to press star nine to unmute.
Speaker 2: Hi there. My name is Heinrich Alberts. I would like to urge that we include funding in the current year to develop the master plan for D Paved Park. I think this is a really important issue for our city. It's very forward looking and a very proactive approach to trying to deal with climate change, associated sea level rise. And I think that this will be an important investment for the city in that having a solid plan and getting us closer to actually doing the necessary work means we'll be in a far better position to apply for other kinds of funding for this project. I think the $250,000 that's been discussed, well, of course, that's significant money that it will really be, well, money well-spent and be very useful and productive and protective for our city going forward. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Vinny Camarillo.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker Camarillo. Are you able to? There you go. You're married. Hi.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam Marian Council. As a former member of the Unbundling Services Subcommittee, I'm upset, as a lot of other committee members are, that none of our countless hours of work has been reflected inside of this budget. I wanted to echo a lot of what Melody had said. It's upsetting to see that we have worked hours and hours since September towards March on these recommendations for this year's budget, but nothing has changed or has been reflected. Why are you all continuing to find policing when the community has specifically demanded that mental health resources, social services, etc. has not been funded extensively in this budget? It's just upset, upsetting to see that policing has gone up instead of has gone down since we've requested that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Gordon. Good evening, Speaker Gordon.
Speaker 1: Hi. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes, just fine.
Speaker 1: Hi. I am a homeowner. I'm a mother and an educator living here in Alameda. And I'm calling because I'm also feeling really disappointed and confused about what is going on. Last summer was really clear that we needed to make some really dramatic changes to our city to ensure the safety and well-being of all of us. And in March, you guys approved a whole bunch of things to move forward to to really get us there. And this budget just is so minimal in terms of what it actually says we're going to do. It doesn't convey a seriousness about this. And it's really frustrating. And I I'm frustrated that these are the only two that the only two options that the city manager office has come up with are the Felton Institute and the fire department. I'm frustrated that a number of us have offered to support the city manager's office in researching and connecting with other options and helping to figure this out. And we have been really largely ignored. We have not been invited into the process into any kind of a real way to make some things happen. So it's frustrating to see these two options as the only things. Given that these are the only two options that you guys are being offered, I definitely think we should go with the Bellevue Institute at this point because of the police involvement.
Speaker 0: Speaker Gordon, I hate to ever interrupt the speaker. Right now we're talking about the budget item. There is a later item where you could speak again on those choices that you're referring to.
Speaker 1: Okay. What I'm saying, though, is about the budget right at the beginning. What this budget represents are not the real options that we need to see. And it's really frustrating. And I look forward to better from all of you. And thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Jennifer Rakowski.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Rakowski.
Speaker 1: Hi. Thank you. I hope my internet holds out. Um, I wanted to say.
Speaker 2: There.
Speaker 1: Is a lot of momentum for change and this budget for sure. There are some hints at movement, but it feels like it's all around the edges. And as someone who was looking at the budget at the exact same time, I'm wrapping up being on the police task force and a family member of mine is a victim of a crime. It was really clear to me what keeps us safe and what doesn't keep us safe.
Speaker 2: And three police cars did not.
Speaker 1: Increase the safety of my daughter.
Speaker 2: A firetruck did.
Speaker 1: Not improve the medical care provided to her being.
Speaker 2: Billed.
Speaker 1: For a911 call for an assault in a city park did not feel like comfort and support from the community I live in. So both on the where we invest our dollars and also how we collect our dollars, there is deeper work to be done. Please look deeper at the work of the task forces.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 1: The work the community is recommending, and I will close with that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Abby. Good evening. Speaker Abby.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. I am speaking on behalf of Community Action for Sustainable Alameda and though we are supporting the inclusion in the capital improvement budget of $250,000 for the DE Pave Park Master Plan, Deep Park is has been envisioned to be a wetlands education park and demonstration site for educating the entire Bay Area about the impacts of sea level rise and the accommodations for welcoming the water. It really will be a jewel of the city. It's some it's it's planned to be a part of a continuation of the parks around the seaplane lagoon, some of which will be developed when the surrounding lands are redeveloped by and paid for by developers. We have a unique opportunity with this park to receive funding from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, and the City Council did approve the application for a grant last year that was denied. And part of the reason it was denied is because there was no city funding, no skin in the game to demonstrate the city's participation in the park. We are really recommending that you allocate some funding to $50,000, $100,000 to the beginning of the master plan to demonstrate to the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority that this project has city support. I've also been invited and we have course enthusiastically supporting the community outreach project to be initiated over the summer to invite the surrounding neighborhoods on the West End and in Alameda point to have a tour of the sites and to understand better what the options are and to support and to provide a guidance for the plan moving forward. This would be preliminary prior to the master plan, so we were really supporting that process. But we encourage the City Council now to allocate funding for the future application, which will be coming back to you this fall in order to submit to this RFP restoration authority.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our next.
Speaker 1: Speaker, Aaron Frazier.
Speaker 0: Good afternoon. Good evening. Speaker Frazier.
Speaker 2: I want to. I wish I could just. Plus one, what Mellody Montgomery said. I agree with everything she said with with a couple of caveats that I also want to thank folks from the city manager's office who took part in meetings to educate some of us on the budget process. And I guess want to take away one thing from that meeting, which was so helpful and informative. And that is a lot of the budget is basically the same as last year. Right. That's sort of how the budgeting process works. You start with last year, you make a few changes and then you have this year. And I think certainly in 2020, a lot was different, but there weren't too many changes. There were some direction that attempted to make some changes, but some of those were overridden later. So I think now we have two years hence from 2019, and I think it's not the same as last year and you should make some real change. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: That was our last speaker.
Speaker 0: Okay. Then with that, I'm going to close public comment, but I'm going to ask our city manager, Eric Leavitt, to just address some of the concerns that were raised about what this budget does and doesn't do where some other funding may lie. I will emphasize that this is a public comment. It is not Q&A. But when I hear so many of the same questions coming up over and over, I feel a responsibility to make sure the public has a thorough understanding. So, Mr. Leavitt, if I could ask you to just clarify some things for us.
Speaker 2: Mayor says the Ashcraft and City Council I can clarify that and I'll I'll start off and and say what we have done and what has been worked on through the study sessions. And then also, Jennifer, Andy and Jerry are here to add if they if I missed something. We have combined between two funding sources, about 1.3 million that we have added to the police or to alternate police, in particular for mental health, the police audit function. So things that were recommended by the committees, we've put in about 1.3 million, not specifically to those, but so that you had that access to money as we moved these reforms forward. In addition, we do have budgeted the crime analysts in the in the budget, and I believe we also have added more money for homeless programs in the in the committee development budget. In addition, you will have access as we move these reforms forward, as you talk further at a future agenda item. You have access to ARPA if there are ARPA eligible. And also we do have contingency funds that we can always come back and reallocate those contingency funds into further. If as we move forward, if the council wants to and any savings that would be accrued in the police department could also be be allocated that direction.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Levitt. And when you reference ARPA, that's the American Recovery Plan Act funding, that 29 million or so is coming our way into allocations over the next two years of this year and the next year. Thank you for that. Okay. We have completed I have a come in and thank you, Mr. Levitt. So let's go to the council now. I see Vice Mayor Valley's hand up.
Speaker 1: They just want to make I think it's important to kind of clarify and very plain speak for folks who are not familiar with the budgeting process. What the city manager just said without using acronyms or anything else, which is to just say that even if there are items that are not included in this budget, the Council can always add or change amend expenditures as we see fit. And there are in fact later budget items, later items that would potentially include directions to use city funds from various funding streams to fund some of the things that that our public commenters were requesting. So I just I think it's really important that we kind of address that question directly, which is one we can always amend our budget to. We can always add expenditures. And three, there are later agenda items tonight that do address some of the concerns that were raised. So I do want to just make it very clear for that. I do hope that the folks that were commenting will look at our agenda and perhaps participate in that later conversation. I did have a question on relative. There were some some requests relative to park. I know that we had talked earlier about the additional allocation to our rec and park funds potentially. Is that part of the conversation, too, to utilize some of those funds relative to that request?
Speaker 0: And who's in a position to answer that? We don't have Mr. Wooldridge on the call in the meeting.
Speaker 2: She's available.
Speaker 0: But if you're prepared, Mr. let it go.
Speaker 2: I was going to say the 200,000 could be as well as I believe Michael Wooldridge also was looking at combining with grant funds and looking at that and as I'm speaking, she is actually appearing.
Speaker 1: It's great.
Speaker 0: Like magic. I love it when that happens. Welcome, Ms. WOOLDRIDGE.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Mayor and Council. The intention for the 200,000 each year in the previous Council budget discussion was for the Recreation Parks Commission and my staff to determine current facility recreation facility needs that were requested by the community. And we had at present I had presented a list that included things like pickleball, tennis, skate park, BMX, bocce, those types of facilities. So while I strongly support the park, that was not the current intention. But that certainly is something that council could direct or that that we could we could discuss the Recreation Park Commission level. The reason that wasn't in the original list is because. The the facilities that are on the list are ones that are really near difficult to get funds for other than the general fund. There aren't grants to resurface a tennis court, for example, but do Pave Park. There is a grant that we will be that we applied for last year. We didn't get it. We got really good feedback. We intend to apply again this year. So I felt that that was something we could fund through grant funding. It certainly would help our grant application this year if we show that the city has essentially some skin in the game and has put some funds toward the project, even though it's not required, it always makes the grant application more competitive. But we wouldn't have the master fund done prior to that grant application October regard, even if it were funded right now.
Speaker 0: If I can just follow up on your comment and I see Councilmember De so you're next when you talk about it would be helpful to show that the city has some skin in the game when you go forward. Another time for a grant, some grant funding for Dave Park. How much skin are we talking about? Does it need to be six figures because well, I have a whole bunch of other concerns. But what's your sense of that? You've done a masterful job of bringing grant funding to our city over the years you've been here.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I appreciate that. That's a really hard question to answer. Whether it needs to be six figures. It certainly helps whether it needs to be 250,000. It may not need to be that much, but even a smaller amount, I think 50 to 100000 could could certainly help. But I don't I'm sort of throwing numbers out, honestly. I don't have a strong sense because the grant does not require any type of funding match. But but they do they have expressed that they appreciate it, showing they want to see that the city has some kind of commitment to the project.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Kalahari Desert.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you. I'm basically going to say the same thing that I said. I believe that on May 20th, at the end of the budget workshop then and you know, like many budgets, whether it's the operational or the capital side, you know, there are things that that that you dislike and dislike very much. But then there are also things that you like and and that, you know, you had a had an influence in in kind of shaping. And so looking at this budget from that angle, I still believe that this is a budget that I can live with. I do appreciate, for example, the discussion that we had with regard to the recreational facilities, the $200,000 a year for the next two years. And I do now remember, yes, indeed, that the direction was, you know, to have those recreational entities, you know, who are who have who have organized themselves and are very active and whose needs for for improved recreational facilities are immediate. So, so and so it's you know, we for that reason, we've increased, you know, the cap amount for the recreational facilities by $200,000. It's not guaranteed that'll go to tennis courts. It's not guaranteed that'll go to Pickleball or to BMX. But but you know, it's an opportunity for them to work with our Parks Commission to to make their case. And I would encourage to go for us to continue to go in that route, because I hear the need for a paved park. But my sense is that that's more of kind of a study, a master planning, whereas this is for for real immediate needs. So and I would love to work with my counsel, my colleagues to figure out different ways to to to fund and pays park to come up with the money that can assist Park Director Woolridge in going after grant funding for that. But, but, but I hope that we, we, we stick to the much what we had discussed very much and on May 20th, a workshop. I mean, there are things, you know, that I don't like in here and I've expressed a dislike over the years. But but I think it's not just the not just the recreation facilities increase, but but I also like.
Speaker 1: The fact that we're.
Speaker 2: Setting aside money for, you know, not to to to implement an alternative way of doing policing. So we're, you know, following through on the on the issues that were raised by the committee members. So maybe not, you know, to the to to the 10th degree that that that some would like. But but in significant ways though so this is definitely a budget that I can live with and I will continue to support it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Counselor de SAC Vice Mayor Vella.
Speaker 1: So what I would like to do is actually make a motion to approve the budget. And with with a little bit of extra clarity and direction, I do understand and I think it's really important that we have a community led process relative to our parks. And my understanding is that Director Aldridge and Rec and Park is really trying to facilitate that conversation with CASA and APEC and the residents that are near to pave. And so provided that that process yield some sort of forward movement, that that goes through the process with rec and park and African Park wants to add or utilize that, that $200,000 that we moved over to the city relative to pay based off of those community led conversations. I'd be fine with that. So so that's just to add a little clarity to that. I think the overall intention of the Council, which is to help Director Aldridge best utilize the city funds.
Speaker 0: For a recognized career goal. Let me let me do this. If I could ask you to make the motion because I have lost where the motion might have started and stopped and where your comments help us with the motion you're making, and then you'll get a second and then we'll do discussion. Can we do that? Because one of my my resolutions going forward is that we try to be really clear in the motions we're making. And I, I want to make sure I get this gentleman notes, so let's go on top.
Speaker 1: Okay. So I'm going to make a motion to make I guess I can read it off of the agenda item. Approve and adopt the operating and capital budget for fiscal years 2021 and 20 to 20 2021 to 22 and 2022 to 23 and approving and adopt. Do we need to make do I need to make them all separately or.
Speaker 0: I love.
Speaker 1: The budget.
Speaker 0: Yeah, the budget and the workforce change and the workforce changes. City Attorney which.
Speaker 2: And Madam Chair and Madam Vice Mayor. One single motion could do if that is your intention.
Speaker 1: So I want to move approval after all three of the budgets that are listed.
Speaker 0: Perfect. We have a motion by Vice Mayor Vela. I see Councilmember Knox White's hand go up. Would that be the second? We have a second by Councilmember Knox. Right. Let's have discussion. Vice Mayor, why don't you lead the discussion?
Speaker 1: Just I think that as to to clarify, that director will work with the rec and park process, understanding that there's already underway an effort to involve and have a community led conversation around park and that potentially the additional allocation to the city could be utilized to move forward. DP Park If if that is in line with the recommendations and process through rec and.
Speaker 2: Parks.
Speaker 1: Overall master. I think it's was it the master plan list for our parks?
Speaker 0: Miss World is, in fact.
Speaker 1: That's correct.
Speaker 0: In your head? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anything further in your comments, Kels? However, I mean, Vice Maravilla.
Speaker 1: I just look forward to the later conversations in this meeting.
Speaker 0: Definitely. Okay. Other comments? I have a question and a comment. You go first. Councilor Harris. Spence, raise your hand up.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I'm happy to wait.
Speaker 0: No, go ahead. I am waiting for you.
Speaker 1: Sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't have any questions with this man's comment, so I.
Speaker 0: Didn't have any questions or comments on this item. Okay. All right.
Speaker 1: I guess I didn't want to respond to the vice. May sound like you had wanted to. I had want to just make my general comments.
Speaker 0: No, this is the time. We've had emotions. So now we're going to have our discussion. Then we're going to take the vote. So please. All right.
Speaker 1: So thank you. And I first of all, I want to thank the staff for all their efforts on this item. I think it's very important to acknowledge that at all. This is a very heavy lift and it's extremely comprehensive. Secondly, I want to thank the community for all of their input. And I also want to acknowledge that some some of the speakers this evening and I have received emails also that have concerns in regards to the budget that is being presented, but I believe will be adopted this evening. And if it truly reflects the community's values and the statements of the budget is reflective of the city's priorities, I do hear loud and clear. And I also want to thank my colleagues because there were many compromises on this budget throughout the process. So I think it's very important to acknowledge that. That being said, I will not be supporting the budget. I, I do not believe that there were. I'm not I'm not exactly. If you want to say on the same page, then I think coming out of or moving forward after having the pandemic the past 15 months, mental health is extremely important to fund. I would have liked to have seen AUC, Almeida, Unified School District and Almeida Family Services requests fully funded. I have advocated for more funding for recreation and parks. The data shows mental health as well as physical health being compromised in the past 12 to 15 months. And I fully expect that we will see more side effects moving forward. I do fully support the funding of the 250,000 for de pave part planning. I think that when our council and our community supports climate action, which I actually did not support the plan and this goes to actually some of my concerns. We spend a lot of money and time on plans and then things like this that I, I think are a big part of the plan are left behind and and have it come out of the park budget. I don't think there are sufficient funds there. I also have concerns with which I don't even recall being discussed. The firefighter safer grants positions transitioning to the general fund and that was it is discussed in the correspondence from the city manager is an attachment and if you go to the bottom of I believe it's page three.
Speaker 0: And maybe.
Speaker 1: Four, but it shows that for fiscal year 21, 22, 532,000 is coming out of general fund to pay for those firefighters. And then 20 in the fiscal year, 22, 23 is 1,792,000. And I think as much as we're looking at how to improve policing, I think we have to also consider analysis of the firefighters just to make sure that that is money well spent. If you look at also in that letter shows clearly that the reserves are being depleted. And there's actually a really nice chart in that letter, which I believe it's exhibit one to this item, but it speaks to. Okay. We're going to drop below, but we try to do 25% operating reserve at the end to have that. Starting. I guess it's by the time 20 to 23 and then at the end of the five years, 24, 25, we're at 12% of projected expenditures and you'll see the contributions to the unpaid pension liabilities. I believe it's 10 million, 5 million, 3 million. But I really think we need to spend more time looking at that. I think since we are what I calls sweeping funds annually, we take that percentage of what's left in the reserves after we do the budget, and then we use that to pay down the unfunded pension liabilities . That is a significant chunk of money. And I personally think we should actually. And that money goes to employees and then there are their benefits. So as as was already shared a large part of the budget is for employees and then their pensions and unfunded pensions and unfunded pension liabilities. But at the end, I think that if we are in fact going to deficit spend, that is appropriate to deficit spend for mental health and physical health and recreation and parks. I think it all goes together. I would have liked to see a lot more money allocated to that. And then also, of course, the Deep Park, I think that's something that I actually do think at some point my colleagues will come up with a way to fund that because I think it is a priority. But I do think that's one of those things sooner rather than later because and we had some great speakers this evening and we received a lot of emails on this. If you if we really are serious about climate action and then also working with the veterans as they spring in their clinic, then I think it is appropriate to fund that at this time. And and I also want to commend our director of Record Park, Amy Walters, that I see here, because she has, in fact, applied for the grant before. Sadly, it was denied. Grants are extremely competitive and. I think that it is critical that I actually do not expect the grant to be and of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority. I do not expect it to be successful until the city does, in fact, put some money in and maybe it's 50,000 or 100,000 if we're not going to do the 250,000, I don't actually know where the 50,000 a dollar figure came from. But I do think that the and also I would have liked to see in scholarships to participate and an increase in scholarships to participate in the recreation and parks activities. And I know we have some I'm going to submit that there is much greater demand this year. And so I think that and when you look at the budget, you can see we're using up the reserves. So at the end, I was suggesting, you know, we've gone through the process of this is what fully what I expect the budget to be. But I do think that when we are deficit spending anyway, that it is appropriate to spend it on community members, which also includes library the services when you call the ambulance, if that has to be paid somewhere. I actually and I want to thank the speaker that spoke to we have a victim of a crime. You have nine loved one called and then you have an ambulance, of course, and then you have the victim receive a bill for the ambulance. And I understand that that can actually be thousands of dollars. And I had another had a mother reach out to me and say that a similar thing had happened and that it was their son that they had called because of a threat of suicide. And again, they received this bill. And so things that we can look at to improve our expenditures. I appreciate everyone's comments and thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herrera. Spencer let's see. Councilman asks, why did you want it?
Speaker 1: And I just want.
Speaker 2: To give you my thanks to staff, I think did a great job of coalescing everything into a budget that we agreed upon last month. I'm ready to call the question, but I know you probably have some comments, so I will.
Speaker 0: Okay. Listen, called the question takes a whole other motion second. I know we're not going to do that. No, my my honor, pretty brief. I want to just clarify a couple of things that. So maybe City Manager Levitt, you can help me. I was under the impression that we did fully fund the request from HST and from Allenby to family services for mental health services. Can you help us understand those items?
Speaker 2: I might need help. I think it's 125,000 that we funded for that. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Oh, Michel. Yeah, and that was it. My recollection was that's what we were asked to fund.
Speaker 2: I'd have to go back to our Gary, my assistant city manager.
Speaker 0: My father.
Speaker 2: Your car? Yeah. So they the. The PTA and the school district representatives have raised $75,000. They needed $25,000 to top up a position that'll be in the school system. The second are the remaining $100,000. This fiscal year will be used to support both the this I'll call I'll call it school but it's also school and family. They have a program that will help not just survey us but other other students across the community, plus family needs. And so the idea that there be two people in that position, what we've learned since the last budget workshop is that AFS may be back. The the PTA contribution is not necessarily in place for the second year. And so whether that school district funded or PTA funded or city funding is still a question. But we have set aside $125,000 in both years for mental health related items. And I would I would say that there'll be more to come for a year or two on that topic.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Bowden. And this is something that I have been skimming the report and trying to find it, and maybe it was in my imagination, but I thought I saw a table and this would have come in your community development department. And in one fiscal year we had funding for Village of Love, but not in the second year. There was the first year, but not the second or the second, but not the first. But is it does anyone recognize that item? And my question was simply why would we not be funding Village of Love over two years? But as I as I sit here today and this too, if you happen to know where that might live, or maybe I just feel like I made a note somewhere, but I'm not finding it impacted.
Speaker 2: It's sorry, mayor.
Speaker 0: This note, please help me.
Speaker 2: This is in the mental this is in the police reform staff report. One of the I know is there's a two column there and.
Speaker 0: I believe.
Speaker 2: There's just funding sources coming from a number of different areas.
Speaker 0: Okay. You know what? Mr. Burton, thank you so much. I'm not losing my mind, at least not at the rate I thought I might be. But when we come to that item, I'll ask my question. I knew I had had, you know, flagged it in my notes, but I got it. Yes, there's more budget discussion to come. So then the only other thing I would say, and I agree with three of my former colleagues and then certainly some of what Councilmember Harry Spencer said, that when it comes to whatever funding is or isn't allocated to Dave Park, I just want to say that I very much respect and want to honor and give space for the work of our boards and commissions. They do important work on our behalf. They, they bring items to us, I mean, but based on city council priorities and direction and whatnot. So I have complete faith in Mr. Aldridge and the Recreation Parks Commission, which she staffs, to bring us the information we need. If she feels that she needs Ms.. Aldridge feels she needs some additional funding to really amp up that grant funding. Like I said, she's she's really a master of grant funding applications, successful grant funding applications. She'll let us know and we can we can take action then. But anyway, I am very satisfied with this budget and I'm ready for a vote. Except I see Councilmember Sykes hand up there.
Speaker 2: Oh, well, thank you. You know, I'm still going to hold to my comments in terms of the way that I framed my view of this thing, even while I would want the $200,000 per year over the next two years dedicated to hard or active recreational uses, improving active amenities or infrastructure for active recreational uses such as Pickleball or BMX or those roller skate people or tennis court resurfacing. You know, I think I think like I said, you know, you have to look at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that we weren't getting the $200,000 per year for over the next two years prior to this decision. I do think that to taking some of that money to use it to to as kind of leverage to to match as matching funds for grants, it will, you know, lessen the amount available for active recreational users, improving those infrastructure. But like I said, it's a it's a compromise that I can live with. And, you know, it'll just be it'll behoove the stakeholders. Whether they're pickleball people or BMX people or tennis court people, you know, to continue to make their case as well as the stakeholders on behalf of the park. So I'm still going to support this this budget, but I do I think a point raised by Councilmember Herrera is worth repeating because, you know, several years ago, points were made that, you know, when the safer grant funds for fire departments is exhausted, well, that's you know, that's going to end the project. But the reality, though, is the Safer grants is being exhausted, but we are now backfilling it with general fund money. And that's, you know, one potentially $1.7 million out of general fund money. But, you know, these are the type of difficult decisions that we have to make. I still think that on balance, that we're moving in the right direction, but we've got some larger issues to deal with. For example, that and for those who are fresh to this, you probably won't know this issue. But we still have larger issues to deal with, like how to revamp hopefully the pension, the additional pension set aside so that we do buy out the reserve. So we do need to look at that policy. But like I said, you know, on balance, I could support this. I think there's more good in it than and challenges. And I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thanks. Councilmember Garza, Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de Stark.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herrera. Spencer. No. Knox Fike.
Speaker 2: High Avella.
Speaker 1: I may. Or as Ashcroft. I might carry a 4 to 1.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. All right. With that, we close. We actually adjourned this special city council meeting of the city council and successor agency to the Community Improvement Commission.
Speaker 2: And excuse.
Speaker 0: Me, we move on to the regular agenda item. May we have roll call please?
Speaker 1: ROCCA Husband noted five present. And also there were at 1.102 attendees on the zoom and it's down to 99 now.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 1: Mayor, we can't hear you. Your mike is all right.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Thank you for remembering to do the count for us. Okay, so Raqqa has been noted. And then. Do we have any agenda changes? I think so. Councilmember Harry Spencer, were you raising your hand? As you know, I do have.
Speaker 1: A question in regards to pulling items, wanting to speak on them and not just voting no.
Speaker 0: Is that on the consent calendar?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Sure. But you're not you're not suggesting that we change the order of the agenda, right? Yeah. Okay. We will hear you when we get to a consent calendar momentarily. Well, maybe a few more minutes from now. All right. So then we move on to item three, which is proclamations, special orders of the day and announcements. And we do have a proclamation declaring this month, June 2021, as Elder Abuse Awareness Month, and you'll find that online on the city's website.
|
Joint Agenda Item
|
Adoption of Resolution Approving and Adopting the Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2021-22 and 2022-23; [City Council] and
Adoption of Resolution Approving and Adopting the Budget for FYs 2021-22 and 2022-23; [SACIC] and
Adoption of Resolution Approving Workforce Changes and Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule in FYs 2021-22 and 2022-23 Effective July 1, 2021. [City Council] (Finance 2410)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_06152021_2021-1003
|
Speaker 0: All right. And that one was pulled by Councilmember Herrera Spencer, I think.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mayor. I don't really think that this will take that much time, but I did want to speak to it because I actually. This is to and the local emergency state of emergency or actually the most the item is to continue it. And I and I received an email and I think a lot of people did today from our city staff, which I appreciate that as of today, 85.1% of our meetings that are eligible to have received the COVID vaccine have received at least one vaccine. 71, which is currently 12 years old, and 71.4% of Alameda EMS that are eligible are now fully vaccinated because the 12 year olds were just recently eligible May 13th. And it takes a few weeks in between each one before it's actually considered effective or complete as these numbers of who's fully vaccinated within that group. I would expect to go up within the next week or so whenever we get new numbers. And I do want to commend our meetings for getting vaccinated. We have, as someone had shared earlier, very high numbers. In fact, as a state, we also have high numbers. My understanding is least the last report I saw, we have at least 71% of our adult population has at least one vaccine. And we have one of the lowest COVID 19 case rates in the country. Another data point that I've been monitoring, I know many of us have been has is what what what's going on with the hospitals, the bed occupancy and the most recent information I can find for Alameda Hospital. Of inpatient beds currently being occupied is 33.2%, and that was as of May 28. And then in regards to the ICU beds being. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay, I'm going to exercise my prerogative as the chair and I'm going to call the question. And what that means is we are going to take a vote. There is no discussion. We're going to take an up and down vote whether to suspend discussion on this item now. And if we have a majority for that motion, then we will go forward and vote on item five. I so I'm calling for the question. Do I have a second on that.
Speaker 2: From.
Speaker 0: Vice mayor of L.A., your seconding. May we have a roll call vote, please?
Speaker 1: That's my vacation.
Speaker 2: I will wait.
Speaker 1: For the.
Speaker 2: Order. So what is the.
Speaker 1: Basis of calling?
Speaker 0: The basis of calling this and calling? The question now is that it is almost 10:00 at night. We are still on the consent calendar. We have some very significant, substantial items. What happens is.
Speaker 2: As Roberts rolls, that's what I meant. Let's.
Speaker 0: It's procedural counsel. Madam Clerk, you went to.
Speaker 1: The Robert's Rules of Order does allow for calling the question. Okay.
Speaker 2: All right. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So that was your question. All right. So sorry. I'm sorry. I apologize if I snapped at you, but I'm very mindful of almost 100 people in the audience. So, deep breath. May we have a roll call vote, please, on the coffee question.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG. I know her, Spencer. And no knocks like High Villa High Mayor as Ash Carter I.
Speaker 0: All right. Do I? Thank you. That motion passes. Thank you, Madam Clerk. May I have a motion on the adoption of item five I? Adoption of resolution continue has been moved by the vice mayor. I see Councilmember Knox White's hand up. All right. And there's no further discussions. It's a roll call vote.
Speaker 1: That's my rotation. I agree. Spencer. No. Knox way. Hi. Villa. Hi. Mayor. As the Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: That carries 4 to 1.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. With that, we adjourn. They re closed the consent calendar. Now, this is what I'm going to do. We've already been going almost 3 hours. And you know my zoom rule, we take a break after 2 hours. However, we have got our appointees to the Social Service Human Relations Board waiting. I think they're still waiting to to be voted in, presumably by you and then to be administered the oath of office. So they will be able to attend and participate in the next meeting of the Social Service Human Relations Committee, one of our several , many very important boards and commissions, Vice Mayor Vela.
Speaker 1: I'd like to move for approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And so, madam, do you want to just tell us what we're approving? The the resolutions.
Speaker 1: Adoption of resolutions. Appointing Christian for you to function at the Green Scott means and Diane Yamashiro on the as members of the Social Service Human Relations Board.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Adoption of Resolution Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local Emergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government Code Section 8630(c). (City Manager 2110)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_06152021_2021-1006
|
Speaker 1: Adoption of resolutions. Appointing Christian for you to function at the Green Scott means and Diane Yamashiro on the as members of the Social Service Human Relations Board.
Speaker 0: All right. We've had a motion by Vice Mayor Val and I see Councilmember Knox White has raised his hand to second. May we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG. I followed her, Spencer. I will be allowed to speak on this item.
Speaker 0: You want to speak for 9 minutes? No. No. Yes. So we've had emotion. We've had a second. We will take discussion and then we'll have our vote while we keep our share of members waiting. A potential separate members waiting for. Yes. Councilmember member. Spencer, the floor is yours.
Speaker 1: I did want to say that I appreciate these nominees and I do plan to support them. And many of us may know them from the community and all of their efforts. So I support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Anything further? I agree. They are awesome and it was a really tough field. We've had amazing applications for our boards and commissions. All right, Madam Clerk, may we have that roll call vote now, please.
Speaker 1: Councilor.
Speaker 2: Oh, well, again, I. All right, then, sir.
Speaker 0: Only counts once.
Speaker 1: Not quite. All right. Vice Mayor Vella, I. Mayor, as the Ashcraft I. That carries by five.
Speaker 0: I thank you. And with that do we still have our nominees present?
Speaker 1: We're going to promote and look at that.
Speaker 0: Here is Ms. for Chief Fong. And I'm seeing and apologies, everyone. Sometimes the time gets away from us and that we see Scott means what with your names? We'd love to see them. There you are. Hi. Hi. I see. So good to see you. Diane Yamashiro Omi. I see your name. And then we're just waiting on Samantha Green here.
Speaker 1: And I for her.
Speaker 0: I have to tell you, these are all just superstars. It was a pleasure getting to know them. Well, some I knew from before. Pleasure getting to know them in the interviews. So thank you again for your commitment and welcome aboard. Not seeing Miss Green.
Speaker 1: Looks like Miss Green might not have the most current version of Zoom because we've tried to promote her and we're not able to, which is the problem we run into. But she is here. Okay, maybe.
Speaker 0: Raise your right.
Speaker 1: Hand. Yes.
Speaker 0: All right. With that, Madam Clerk, would you please administer the oath?
Speaker 1: Do you solemnly swear to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California, and that you faithfully discharge the duties upon which you are about to enter?
Speaker 0: And you can just all say, oh, you can unmute and say.
Speaker 2: I do. I do. I do. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And then, you know.
Speaker 1: Really quick answers here now, by the way. Yay!
Speaker 0: Hi, Ms.. Green.
Speaker 2: Right here. Yeah.
Speaker 0: You want to. Have you got your camera? If you want a picture?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Hi. Welcome. And you had your hand up. I just know so really quickly because you know, the hours late, but I'd love to have each one of you just go and I'm going to go in the order I see you on my screen. So Miss Fruity Fine, followed by Ms.. Yamashiro on me, followed by Mr. Meads and Miss Green. Just give us a little thumbnail about you, because you all have amazing skill sets that you bring to this important commission. It's for you to find.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam Mayor and City Council Members. Thank you so much for the kind nomination and the reappointment. I am currently an instructional coach for the Alameda Unified School District. I am based out of Ruby Bridges Elementary School, and so I'm a great big West proponent, a big fan of kids, big fan of teachers. And I'm just really feel very honored to be part of this community and to be able to contribute in any way that I can on behalf of our Social Service Human Relations Board. Thank you so much for this opportunity. Again.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The honor is ours to have you join this board. Ms.. Yamashiro OMI.
Speaker 1: Good evening, everybody. Thank you very much for the nomination. I'm very excited about serving my community and the city of Alameda. I've been a resident for over 35 years. I spent 30 years in the philanthropic field and also has served as a nonprofit administrator for 12 years. I'm retired, but volunteering and on a couple of national boards, including Community Change, just got off the race board, which is an anti-racism organization.
Speaker 2: And just.
Speaker 1: Willing to jump in and do what I can to. I think Alameda is great already, but make it even better. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Everybody. Thank you, Mr. Means.
Speaker 2: Thank you. My name, Scott Means. And in my work life, I'm the aging services manager for Human Services Department in Oakland. And I've been working a lot on age friendly cities in a very inclusive model where we build livable communities for people of all ages. And I'm really excited to be here in Alameda trying to do the same type of work here in this community that I live in. So I look forward to working with you all.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Likewise. In this green.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Samantha Green. And I thank you for the appointment. And I have spent the past decade of working in social research, primarily doing community needs assessments, working on homeless needs assessments, including the point in time counts for the county of Alameda. Largely working with young people 18 to 24 years old are transitioning to youth as well as those in older adults over 55. So I'm very excited to apply the work that I've been doing for the past decade to my own town. I'm a relatively new resident to the city of Alameda. I've just been here for two years but very excited to get involved in my own community and know that we planted roots here. So thank you for having me.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We're excited to have you. Anyway, we are all delighted to have you join Social Service Human Relations Board and thank you so much for your time and your perseverance tonight. Yeah. Welcome and good night. All right. Thank you so much. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so with that council.
Speaker 1: Mayor cliche, I totally blew it earlier. I apologize. The when you're calling do vote to call the question. It does require four votes. And I totally missed that. It was three two. And so that actually motion failed to call the question on item five. And so I apologize for procedurally messing that up so badly. And I just wanted to clarify that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, in any event, we're taking a break now. We will be back in we will be back at ten after ten. So ten. Ten. We'll be back. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Point of order. Well, we'll be circling back.
Speaker 0: We'll come back to that when we get back.
Speaker 2: My turn on. Never quite know.
Speaker 0: Okay. Already. Okay, everyone. We are. Are we all back? Tony, I see you. Sean, I just saw you. There you are. Malia. Trish. Okay, Madam Clerk, are you ready?
Speaker 1: Yes, we're ready.
Speaker 0: All right. Good evening, everyone. We are back from our break. I am going to turn things over to the city attorney, even Shen and the city clerk, Laura Weisinger.
Speaker 2: Mamma mia. Perhaps I'll start on a piece in light of the city clerk's advice earlier. My recommendation to the council would be that you take a vote to reopen the item to given that the motion did not pass, to give the time that's necessary for Councilmember Spencer to complete her comments.
Speaker 0: Okay. So that we take you said a motion to reconsider.
Speaker 2: Yes, that would be my recommendation, assuming the city clerk agrees.
Speaker 1: Yes, I agree with that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. I think in my haste to move things along, I forgot that a call for review takes a 4/5 vote. And I probably talk so fast I was faster than the city clerk, but staff never hesitate to jump in and interrupt me. But anyway, going forward, Councilwoman Knox. What? I think I set your hand up.
Speaker 2: I move. We reopen the item for discussion.
Speaker 0: Do I have a second? Counselor. A desk. Second, any discussion on the item? CNN. May we have a roll call vote, please?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Chase. Yes. Herrera. Spencer. I'm not quite. I well. High mayor as he Ashcraft High that carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. So what's next, Madam Clerk?
Speaker 1: So now we will return to item five, and we will put the 4 minutes back on the clock that Councilmember Herr Spencer had. And I believe everybody else hadn't really spoken much sooner. Just going to round up to five and then start again there. Sure.
Speaker 0: All right. Councilor Harry Spencer.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I would like to thank the city clerk and the city attorney for correcting that error. I think it was extremely unfortunate. That being said, in regards to continuing my comments, I want to share with the community. When you look at the proposed resolution and when the city council started the state of emergency, the language in the resolution is conditions of extreme peril to the health, safety and welfare of persons have arisen in the city of Alameda. And that was back in March of 2020. And so I am not going to support continuing the state of emergency in our city. And when you look at the end of this resolution, it oc the DEC until the deficit, until the state's declaration of emergency related to COVID 19 is rescinded, or sooner shall it be appropriate to lift the local emergency declaration prior to the state action. And Mike, something I wanted to share with the public is that you may or may not know that currently that prior to COVID, the state was already under a state of emergency declaration for a wildfire that started in 2008, when the fire was in 2018 that killed 85 people and destroyed most of the town of Paradise. And while that fire is no longer worrying, the state is still cleaning up and rebuilding. And thus the state is under a state of emergency for that wildfire in 2018. There are things that will happen when the city decides to lift the state of emergency, and there are clocks that start from that point. And so that whenever the city decides that we are at that point where we can do that, then, you know, things will happen from that point. So I just wanted to go back and since. So currently the city we are at 85.1% people vaccinated that are eligible from the age of 12 and up that are partially vaccinated. That means they've received their first vaccine. We have 71.4% that are fully vaccinated. And so I think because of the cooperation from our community members and that sometimes that we know the vaccine, if you're getting it like a couple of weeks after. So these numbers should be jumping even higher. And so this when you already know the vote, I don't expect anyone, any councilmembers to change their vote. However, then it can come back in 60 days. And I think it's important for community members to be thinking, when is it appropriate time to list this? We, of course, know we will not get 100% vaccinated if that's the measure people are looking for. We do have space in the hospital, as I shared the numbers earlier, and I appreciate the opportunity to complete my comments. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any further comments? Members, Councilmember de so great.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you very much. Prior to the meeting, I had asked the city attorney's office to put together bullet points on the way in which the public health emergency has implicated both renters and small mom and pop landlords. And it is a it is an important issue because so long as the state of emergency is in place, then small mom and pop landlords and renters are kind of court and certain policies that we've put into place here, particularly to protect renters. But the reality is, is that small mom and pop landlords, many of them are also affecting the suffering from the economic impacts of this. So I'm going to support this this public extending the public health emergency. But I do want to note, though, that that the that that there are impacts that that continue. And so I think the the bullet points that the city attorney's office put together was certainly welcome. It talked about what would happen if we did not extend the local emergency, what would happen with regard to the repayment of rental debt, with regard to eviction protections? So I think we should extend it. But but I will say, though, you know, small mom and pop landlords are also experiencing difficulties. So while I can't say what will happen in 60 days from now, when we're asked to extend or not extend, you know, it will certainly the concerns of renters and small on the pop landlords will certainly weigh heavily in that decision. But for now, I support this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember de SAC. Other Council comments. Anyone wish to make a motion?
Speaker 2: Councilmember knocks white over purple.
Speaker 0: All right, then move by Councilmember Guisewite, seconded by Councilmember Gay said May we have a roll call vote?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Tasha Herrera Center. No knocks like Vela. May I say, Ashcroft?
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: That carries 4 to 1.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. All right. Are we now safe to close the st calendar?
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you. And my apologies again.
Speaker 0: We're human already. I believe her on six. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 0: All right. Were you introduced at 18? Press, please, Madam Clerk.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Kristin Furuichi Fong, Samantha Green, Scott Means and Dianne Yamashiro-Omi as Members of the Social Service Human Relations Board.
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_03302021_2021-8247
|
Speaker 0: So we are continuing this. We're moving now to hear this regular agenda item that has been continued twice. And this is item six be. And Madam Clerk, would you please introduce that item?
Speaker 2: Recommendation to consider options for the Alameda Police Department's emergency response vehicle.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And who is presenting this staff report this evening?
Speaker 2: We are bringing in the interim police chief right now and his support staff.
Speaker 0: All right. So we are anticipating the imminent arrival of interim police chief Randy Phan. And Rafi, who else is joining us? There is chieftain. Good evening, Chief.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam Mayor.
Speaker 0: And I see we have Captain Jeff Emmett. And is there one more we've got?
Speaker 3: Lieutenant Claus should all be.
Speaker 0: Eric, class is here. Okay. So it's the three of you?
Speaker 3: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, good evening. Hi. We are ready when you are. So please begin.
Speaker 3: Very good. Thank you again. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Randy Phan, your interim police chief. In 2012, the City Council approved the purchase of an emergency response vehicle that replaced a 1997 GMC Armored vehicle that the city owned from 1998 to 2011. In 2013, the city took delivery of a ballistic armored tactical transport vehicle. The acronym of that is a Ford F5 50 truck chassis that is covered with ballistic panels designed to withstand gunfire and fragmentation, including rifle rounds such as those fired by assault weapons. The vehicles used to transport police officers and tactical medics from the fire department to crime scenes where there is an objective risk to the safety of civilians or officers from a person who is armed or as reasonably believed to be armed with a firearm. Is also used to rescue civilians or employees from active shooter situation, acts of terrorism or mass casualty incidents involving acts of violence in places where civilians or officers may be in the line of fire of a suspect. The emergency response vehicle is not used for peaceful protests or demonstrations. Period. The emergency response vehicle is armored, not armed. It is a defensive tool, a de-escalation tool to protect life. It is not an offensive weapon. It does not have its own weapon system like a military tank. These types of vehicles have been used in civilian law enforcement in the US for decades. In our area alone, they are owned and utilized by the cities of Oakland. Berkeley. San Leandro. Hayward. Union City. Fremont. And Livermore. Pleasanton. Much of the criticism of these vehicles comes from seeing them used in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014. Most police professionals in the Bay Area like me could not believe the images from those protests. Using armored vehicles with tactical teams on overwatch during protests is inappropriate. It is not a tactic used by the Alameda Police Department. The discussion about militarization and American policing is an important one and one I frequently engage in as a police chief. It is critical that police officers understand our role as guardians in our communities. We are never to be seen as an occupying force. We are part of the community. It is our duty and our honor to protect it. To ignore, however, the realities of our society and its many guns and the threat that some with those guns pose would be derelict, especially for government which is charged with protecting its citizens. To believe that those things can never happen here is unfortunately wishful thinking. Are we under constant threat? Thankfully, that is a resounding no. We are not immune. Crime and violence on our island. We expect that our police stand ready when the community calls. This vehicle has been safely and appropriately used for almost eight years, and armored vehicles have been used here in Alameda safely for almost 23 years. Reviewing the use of this vehicle and ensuring it's used with care and consistent with community standards is a worthy and important endeavor. There is no reason to believe it won't continue to be used in a responsible manner manner in the future and strictly as a tool for civilian and officer safety. I urge the Council to approve keeping the emergency response vehicle as a safety tool for your community and for your employees. Thank you. And obviously, I'm here for any questions you may have.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Chief. And when Captain Emmett in lieutenant class, did you want to add anything? Okay. So, Counsel and Madam Clerk, I would imagine we have some public figures. Do we?
Speaker 2: So far, just one.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 2: Perhaps there will be more.
Speaker 0: Perhaps. Okay. So before we go to our public speaker or speakers, does anyone on the council have a clarifying question for the chief? Councilmember Herrera Spencer.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you for your report. I have several questions. First of all, in regards to if we if the city were to borrow an armored vehicle from one of those other cities that you visited, what is your estimate of what's a reasonable estimate or probable estimate in your professional opinion of how how long it would take or if we're even confident that one would arrive?
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you for the question. In our estimation, the soonest we could get a vehicle here under ideal circumstances would be probably 20 minutes from the city of Oakland. Now, obviously, it doesn't take 20 minutes to drive from Oakland to Alameda. However, we have to consider the amount of time it takes to make the request. There is no central system for making a mutual aid request like this. We have to individually call cities and ask if the vehicle is available, not only if the vehicle's available, but do they have operators who can get in and get it going and then come to Alameda for it to be used. So we believe that the under, again, ideal circumstances are about 20 minutes. And then, of course, you know, from these other cities and Bay Area traffic being what it is, the number only grows from there.
Speaker 1: Has the city of Alameda borrowed one of these armored vehicles from another city?
Speaker 3: I am going to defer to Captain Emmett or Lieutenant Claus that they have institutional knowledge on that.
Speaker 4: Yes. So.
Speaker 3: First of all, can everyone hear me okay? I've been having.
Speaker 0: Yeah, it's. It's good, Captain.
Speaker 3: So, yes, we have borrowed them in the past. Prior to happening to our own, those were.
Speaker 4: Preplanned events where.
Speaker 3: We had ample time to reach out to local agencies to ask for their assistance.
Speaker 1: So does that mean then that the city of Alameda has not borrowed one on an emergency basis?
Speaker 3: Correct?
Speaker 4: Well, at least during my time, we have not had to make an emergency request to ask an outside agency for assistance with an armored vehicle.
Speaker 3: They've all been preplanned events.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Captain Emmitt, what is it? What is a pre-planned event mean?
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 0: So what were they?
Speaker 4: Sure. So a pre-planned event would be a police incident that we have, you know, maybe five, six or 14 days to plan and prepare for, which most of the time those would end up being what we would consider a high risk.
Speaker 3: Search warrant, high risk arrest warrant.
Speaker 4: Something where we have more control over.
Speaker 3: Dictating when we can actually serve the and handle the incident.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Harry Spencer.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Attached to their were as a council member, a correspondence, if you will. The mayor submitted a policy from Berkeley City in regards to their policy for their armored vehicle. And I'm wondering, in our staff's professional opinion, what they think of that policy compared to the city's policy. And also, in regards to the alternative one, it's offered in the agenda item.
Speaker 3: I have reviewed.
Speaker 0: I was going to say we would probably want to first establish that they've had an opportunity to review that she found. I think you have. Yes, go ahead. You can.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. Them. Yes. I have reviewed the policy as have key staff here. And we do believe it's consistent with how we have used our vehicle. And we would have no problem with expanding our policy to cover the items that are within the Berkeley policy and have that in force here in Alameda.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further clarifying questions, counsel? Okay. I'm not seeing any. So, Madam Clerk, let's take our public speakers, please.
Speaker 2: Okay. Currently we have four, so they do get 3 minutes. The first is Zack Bowling.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Bowling.
Speaker 5: I either cancel. I just sent you guys an email, so I'll keep it brief. In 20 or June 2020, we ask staff to start investigating the cell. And so I was a little surprised to see this item come up that nine months later we're still talking about it. When I originally read this agenda item, I was a little surprised. It it listed just 30 times that it was used with case numbers and it made kind of a good case for why we should keep it and why the investment was worth it. But it wasn't until later the agenda item is updated and it listed the at the actual uses of it. 27 of those times were for mutual aid. They weren't even in Alameda and it's only been used three times in eight years in Alameda. And it seems like two of those times were just as a loudspeaker. So really only once for.
Speaker 3: The tactical purpose of of the the.
Speaker 5: Tanker, the bad or whatever you want to call it. So it seems like the other cities are making far more use of it than we are. I didn't want to say that this item is brought forward, was intentionally trying to be deceptive, but it kind of read that way a little bit with the later update to it that it wasn't very open about the fact that it wasn't used here, and that kind of caught me off guard. It's also interesting to discover that this vehicle was also Berkeley had denied their city from buying one of the or their department from buying one of these in 2012. Instead, they because they didn't want to militarize their police at the time, but instead, in 2016, they bought them instead a bulletproof van, which offered all the defensive capabilities without the offensive platform that the bat has. And I kind of agree with that sentiment, and I will just leave it at that. Thank you, Counsel.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. BOLLING. Our next speaker.
Speaker 2: Janice Anderson.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Ms.. Anderson.
Speaker 2: Hello. Good evening. It's clear why some of this information wasn't.
Speaker 1: Originally included in API's presentation. As Zack mentioned, it details 33 uses, but only three in Alameda.
Speaker 2: In our eight years of ownership.
Speaker 1: Those uses were all for protection or cover instances where it wasn't known if a suspect had a gun or ended without incident. None of these were an active shooter situation, and I'm sure HPD would categorize these as successful uses of the armored vehicle. And they even tonight called it a method of de-escalation. But I personally do not see how arriving with an armored vehicle can be considered de-escalation. Do we have witness accounts of what it's like to have this thing roll into your neighborhood to serve a warrant?
Speaker 2: I'd also like to note that the records.
Speaker 1: APD provided don't even match with one another. Two incidents from 2016 are missing from the more detailed report. It would be nice to know what those actions were and where they took place. Was it for a protest? Eviction? We don't now. What is clear is this vehicle has been overwhelmingly used in other cities. In their presentation, there was mention of tactical medics and APD documents and I.
Speaker 2: Wonder what training those medics undergo and what that costs the city to maintain their certification. And if we have medics training to respond.
Speaker 1: To actively dangerous situations, we should definitely have medics trained to and able to respond to mental health situations as a police reform recommendations outline.
Speaker 2: One of these situations is much more common than the other. The only way I can advocate keeping.
Speaker 1: This vehicle is if it was transitioned to be used in.
Speaker 2: That manner. Lastly, I know some in our community will use recent events.
Speaker 1: Such as the.
Speaker 2: Shooting in Boulder as an example of why we.
Speaker 1: Should have this vehicle on constant standby.
Speaker 2: It should be noted that their SWAT team didn't.
Speaker 1: Arrive with.
Speaker 2: An armored vehicle for 17 minutes, 10 minutes after an officer had already been killed.
Speaker 1: Colorado has some of the most militarized departments because of their frequent mass shootings and open carry laws.
Speaker 2: And even that didn't prevent what happened that day. You would think with all of this possible danger, more cops.
Speaker 1: Would be advocating for better gun control instead. We spend most of our budget on increasing their power. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Our next speaker Michael as. Good evening, Mr.. Of this one.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yeah, just fine. Welcome.
Speaker 3: Thank you. 31 years ago in 31 years ago today and basically September, nearly every available officer was called in to work the shooting at Henry's Pub. I was a Berkeley police reserve officer then, and my assignment was to monitor communications in the mobile command center. The shooter had already killed one victim and was holed up in the bar with 33 other hostages. One of our sergeants was at the hospital with a head wound. I felt there was never a more dedicated and concerned group of uniformed men and women working hard to save those lives at the risk of their own. The seven hour effort to peacefully end the siege failed. The shooter was killed and the hostages freed. The following decades of law enforcement tactics had to adjust to the lessons learned from several mass shootings. Don't wait for overwhelming force before acting, immediately engage the shooter and prevent the wanton shooting of more innocent victims. Timing is everything. This means that if there was a report of an active shooter with an assault rifle in perhaps one of our stores schools with a theater, our patrol officers would have to go and engage. What happens if they fail? And now both the police and we are trapped with the shooter? You will immediately deploy the SWAT team and the bat so that it can be used to get in close to end the shooting and rescue the living. I have seen the activity report concerning the bat. Its limited use here seemed necessary and not frivolous, but it does see more action outside of Alameda than in. And as some suggest, why don't we just sell it and call another department that has one? If we absolutely need the support? Well, first, because our own response is the fastest, which is important if you the one trapped and bleeding out or you're hiding and waiting to be shot. And second, we don't give up losing local control of how this type of equipment and tactics with it are used. Finally, taking away the one piece of equipment that provides reliable protection in the most dangerous of encounters, sending the wrong message to those who have sworn to serve and protect us with their lives. Tighten up the use policy. Hire a new chief who will conform to our community interest and keep the bear out. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Wong. Our next speaker.
Speaker 2: Ryan Fraser.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. Fraser.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Great. On June 14, 2020, the Alameda City Council unanimously voted to sell the ballistic armored vehicle as a measure of racial equity. It was an intentional act made with knowledge of all the relevant facts and after an outpouring of public comments. But now that measure of racial equity has been tested first by the city manager who failed to sell the vehicle, then by the LAPD, who defended the vehicle's continued use. And now the matter comes to you council. Let me be clear. There is no policy that will cleanse the long gun forts or snipers step from the vehicle. So will you have the integrity to do what is right? Will you stand up for racial justice, even in the face of opposition by the police and city manager? Or will you knowingly and intentionally perpetuate the systemic racism of militarized policing against Alameda communities of color? The facts are known. APD has used vehicles three times in eight years, eight and a half years, and two of those incidents were serving warrants. That is situations where the police had time and opportunity to take a less aggressive course of action. In the third incident, the APD used the vehicle to approach the scene of a crime. But there's no evidence to suggest that APD was actually under threat. There was the possibility of a threat, but there was, in fact, no threat because the suspect had fled the scene. So on the one hand, we have a violences symbol of militarized policing and racial injustice. On the other hand, we have three uses in Alameda where the police felt unsafe but in fact did not come under fire or require the use of an armored vehicle. Symbol of injustice versus unfounded fear. To me, the choice is clear which of these competing interests should prevail? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Fraser. Do we have further speakers? Madam Clerk.
Speaker 2: One more Alexia approach.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. Archer.
Speaker 2: Good evening, everyone. Last summer, the council voted to sell the armored vehicle and I'm confused.
Speaker 1: Why it's still here. And further surprise to see why alameda police are able to keep their push to keep it. Why is our.
Speaker 2: City harboring a vehicle that is entirely unnecessary, a waste of taxpayer.
Speaker 1: Dollars.
Speaker 2: And it isn't even used here as intended? The incident reports are clear, though they were questionable.
Speaker 1: Upon first released, as folks have expressed.
Speaker 2: Out of 33 times. It's been used only three.
Speaker 1: Times in Alameda, three, not 33, but three.
Speaker 2: We are essentially loaning out this vehicle to other cities. And for what? If they need an armored vehicle, they should buy ours. But Alameda doesn't need this. The arguments to keep it are irrelevant at this point.
Speaker 1: Since there was already discussion and debate and a vote. Beyond that.
Speaker 2: Where was this supposedly essential vehicle.
Speaker 1: When a white man was waving a gun at peaceful protesters recently?
Speaker 2: Clearly, it's very subjectively used and it's not necessary. Despite the scare.
Speaker 1: Tactics some supporters like to implore.
Speaker 2: Please keep your word and ensure that this will be sought.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Rich. And I believe we have one more speaker.
Speaker 2: Now we have two. So these next two speakers, it's now reached the seven limit and they will get 2 minutes. So the first is Laura Katrina.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Ms.. Katrina.
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel. Madam Mayor, I'm urging you to follow through on the recommendation, unanimous recommendation from June of last year to sell the armored vehicle. Know, I think, as other callers have mentioned, it's it's a symbol and it's a promise to follow through on acts of racial justice. So I think there's a symbolic piece, but there's also the piece that is just not being.
Speaker 1: Used.
Speaker 2: Often. And as Mr. Rosa had previously mentioned, you know, we had an incident that could have ended very tragically happening over the MLK weekend when there was a peaceful protest going on. But that vehicle was nowhere to be found. And so I would implore the city to have actions speak louder than words and to follow.
Speaker 1: Through on this promise when there was so much momentum last summer instead.
Speaker 2: Of kind of bringing it up all these months later. So thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Katrina. Next speaker.
Speaker 2: Ernie Mathews.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Mr. MATTHEWS. Former Chief MATTHEWS. You just need to end user. Chief Mathias, can you unmute? Madam Kirk. Anything you can do on your end? There we go. Here we go.
Speaker 3: How many buttons? I apologize. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I got that. Good evening.
Speaker 3: Madame Mayor. Members of the City Council. I strongly urge you not to sell, but retain the police department's aircraft tactical vehicle, which I understand is being considered put up for sale. Simply stated, the lives of officers and citizens can be saved under extraordinary situations and conditions. For example, should an officer or a citizen be shot and bleeding out during an active shooter situation, this vehicle. Is the only and safest way to attempt rescuing injured victims. Is it often used? No. However, neither are fire home insurance, fire insurance for her homes or fire trucks, for that matter. But they sure are handy when tragedy occurs. This fully this vehicle is fully paid for. Thus, the maintenance costs are minimal. This vehicle is not military surplus equipment and is not indicative of militarization of the Alameda Police Department is simply a tool to be used in violent confrontations to help maximize officer safety as well as our citizens safety. As your former chief of police, with nearly 40 years of law enforcement deportment experience, I beg you to retain this infrequently used but terribly important piece of equipment. Our officers certainly do deserve it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Chief MATTHEWS. And we have one more speaker.
Speaker 2: Eileen Enrich.
Speaker 0: Good evening. This hour, enrich. That evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Just fine.
Speaker 1: Yes. I would like to encourage the council to keep the vehicle. I believe that when you were first discussing, selling this crime wasn't as out of control as it currently is. We have seen a number of shootings. We have seen members of our community being held at gunpoint. I believe there were four just in the last week. We've seen what's happened in Colorado and in Georgia. Our police department needs to understand that we back them 100%. We need them to understand that we want to keep them safe. Selling this vehicle sends a message. It sends a message that we do not care about our police department. We do not care about their safety. I encourage you to keep that vehicle and send another message to our police department and to the community around us that we do care. We are having a difficult time right now recruiting people for a police department because of the message that several members of this council has sent out with the whole defund idea. Well, let's now send a new message showing our police department that we do indeed care about them. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Ana. I believe we have one more speaker f Kenny. Good evening, Miss Kenny.
Speaker 3: Good.
Speaker 1: Good evening. I just wanted to say that one of the things I read in the city staff report is that there is training involved for the operators of this vehicle. And when we had our discussions about police reform, I was repeatedly told that it was too there was not money in the budget to do training when it came to people with disabilities or other types of services that keep our community safe.
Speaker 3: And so I think.
Speaker 1: Where we do have issues with people.
Speaker 3: Experiencing.
Speaker 1: Mental health crisis is much more frequently than we do require a tank to respond. It's a matter of putting our priorities and our funding where it's best.
Speaker 3: It will be best served to serve to keep.
Speaker 1: Our entire population.
Speaker 3: Safe. So I ask that you please.
Speaker 1: Sell the vehicle, put the training and funding for maintenance.
Speaker 3: In ways that can truly, truly serve.
Speaker 1: Our entire community. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Kenney. Madam Clerk, do we have any further public comments?
Speaker 2: We do not.
Speaker 0: All right, then I am going to close public comment on this item at this time, and I am going to open council discussion. And normally the mayor as mayor, I go last, but this time I'm leading the discussion and I will call on the rest of the council after this. So we've heard public speakers, we've gotten lots of correspondence from residents on this item, and we have an important decision to make this evening. As the city council, we always want to make sure that we are making well-reasoned, well-thought out, rational decisions. We don't do things for simply for symbolism. We base our decisions on facts and data. And I do want to speak to something that several speakers raised, that the staff report was modified from the first version to the next with additional information about uses. I had inquired of the city manager wanting additional information, and that additional information was incorporated into subsequent staff reports because this item was continued from the first time it was agenda ized. And so the decision before us tonight is whether the city council should direct the city manager to sell the emergency response vehicle. I want the public to know that there have been no allegations of misuse of the city of Alameda Police Department's emergency use vehicle in all the years that it has been used. We recently heard recommendations and read a very lengthy report from our Police Reform and Racial Justice subcommittees. None of them recommended selling or getting rid of the emergency response vehicle. Every other Bay Area city's police department has an emergency response vehicle, and I won't read the list of them because Chief Phan did so when he gave his staff report as as mayor of this city, I take very seriously the health and safety of our residents, of our people who work in Alameda, who come to visit. And I also pay special heed to the head of the Department of Homeland Security, who has outlined, especially since the January six insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the heightened risk of domestic terror to our cities. Do we know when and where the next incident will happen? We do not. But we can look around to incidents that have happened in other cities. Several. Several emails that we got from residents. Use the analogy of an insurance policy that you hope you never need to use it. But you're sure glad you have it when you do need to use it. And I think that's a that's an apt analogy. And one of the things that I enjoy about my job as mayor is I have a good working relationship and friendships with certainly all 14 other the other 13 mayors in Alameda County. So I reached out to my friend and fellow Mayor Jessie Aragon, who's the mayor of the city of Berkeley, a very progressive city not far from here. And I said, Jesse Gee, does Berkeley have an emergency response vehicle policy? And he said, We sure do. And I helped write it. And I said, Oh, would you share it with me? And he did. And I was very impressed with it. And I asked to have it attached to the staff report. Its attached, as Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted as a council communication. I strongly urge the Council to move forward with retaining this vehicle, but to require the implementation of a use policy just like the city of Berkeley has implemented. Because it it starts out and I won't read the whole thing to you. It's attached. I hope you've read it. But the purpose of the policy is to provide direction for the usage, the training and storage of the Berkeley Police Department Emergency Response Vehicle. And the goal is to safely resolve incidents where there exists an objective risk to the safety of civilians and our officers from person or person or persons who may be considered armed and dangerous. But the use of this vehicle will only be authorized by the Special Response Team or commander or the team leader unless exigent circumstances exist . And there's protocol for that, and it will only anyway. This policy outlines when it should be used, under what circumstances and when it shall not be used. And the. And also it. Requires a vehicle, uses usage log, which may be provided to the Council City Council on an annual basis or any time the City Council requests. There's provisions for operator training and consideration for deployment. And one of the things that I think is very important when selecting a rescue team, the supervisors should consider the special response team members, hostage negotiators, a medic or a tactical emergency medical support personnel. And there's a protocol for when it is to be used by an outside agency. Always must have an operator and someone from Berkeley Police Department to go with the vehicle and then there's storage and maintenance criteria. So I look forward to a robust conversation with the council, but I don't what I want the council to consider is what makes us different from every other Bay Area city that we should not have this tool, not for militaristic use and certainly not for the use of peaceful protest, but in the instance where lives could be saved if we had it. So with that, I will open the floor. I see. Councilmember Harry Spencer has had her hand up. Please.
Speaker 1: Thank you and I appreciate your comments, Mayor. I have additional clarifying questions after listening to the public speakers. First of all, the issue of and I was not on council when this is voted on or direction was given. Is there someone from staff that can speak to that issue in regards to there was a direction and now it's like a do over or something like that. Someone can explain that to the public. What's happening here.
Speaker 0: At City Manager?
Speaker 3: Eric I, I can begin and then captain may be able to add on because he's the one that brought it forward to me after the council, the city council was approving the budget. There was different considerations at the time, including maybe reductions in police department budget, because that was right after many protests that occurred right after Memorial Day or in early June, I guess early to mid June. And so this became a component of the motion in passing the budget. The motion was to pass budget. This was one of the direct or one of the items that was included in that budget motion. The police department. Believing that this is my interpretation. I can be corrected by the police department, believing that not all information had been talked about or considered during this because really the budget was the main focus at that time. I wanted to come back and have the council review this item by itself. The timing of the delay partially was mine and partially was others, but it had to do with timing of agenda items. But I can tell you, Captain, you can add if you would like or Mayor, as the Ashcraft, if I don't know if Captain Nemeth has anything to add to the discussion.
Speaker 0: Captain Emmett. Anything you'd like to add?
Speaker 4: If it's okay with Chief and I have a little bit that.
Speaker 3: I could add to that.
Speaker 0: Okay with you, Chief. Thumbs up. Yes, go ahead, please.
Speaker 4: So when it was initially brought to my attention in mid August when I was the acting chief, I felt that I owed it to the employees of APD to do what I could to present the other side. And that was the decision.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 4: To draft the council report was to explain how important we believe this piece of equipment is not only to our department, but more importantly to the citizens of Alameda, so that we are fully prepared to handle any incident as quickly as we can and as safely.
Speaker 3: As we can for everyone involved.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Harry Spencer thank you.
Speaker 1: There was also a comment in regards to public comment in regards to 33 instances of use, 30 being mutual aid and three apparently here in the city of Alameda. Does any can someone give a professional opinion in regards to then does that have any impact on the recommendation to retain?
Speaker 0: So I'm asking about if the number of times it was used out of town is okay. Who wants to take that? Okay. Captain. Chief? Yeah.
Speaker 3: So it's like a lot of our equipment. It's very similar to the fire department. We need one another. We need the other cities. And to be able to supply them with, whether it be a K-9 that happens to be working or a motorcycle officer with training in an accident investigation or a piece of equipment such as the ERP. That exchange of equipment and personnel between the cities not only has goodwill between the communities, but as it's how we are, it's a force multiplier. It's how we're able to do some of the things we need to do, especially in an emergency situation when we may not have the adequate number of people or the right equipment . So being able to loan this vehicle out, for instance, building that goodwill and knowing that we can call on them if need be, I think is a very important part of how the mutual aid system works, not just here, but in all in all of California. And I'm thankful we don't have to use it very often within the city of Alameda, quite frankly.
Speaker 0: She fan I think my colleague may also want to know if the fact that it hasn't been used the majority of times that the vehicle was used was outside of the city. Does that in any way impact your recommendation about retaining it? It doesn't correct, councilmember. It does.
Speaker 3: It doesn't because, again, in terms of the emergency nature of being here, if we have to deploy it and it's an emergency situation, and again, being in Ireland where it's difficult to get here as it is, literally seconds will count. So our ability to deploy in a hurry, as I've mentioned before, using the metaphor of an insurance policy, especially since it's already paid for, I think is very apt.
Speaker 1: Kelly. Thank you. Okay. And then there were multiple comments in regards to racial equity being subjectively used, racial justice that it is militaristic with could anyone with a law enforcement background speak to that response?
Speaker 0: Even.
Speaker 3: Yes, I. I would absolutely not. This does not get used based on race or anything of that nature. And I know the MLK incident, MLK Day incident was brought up, and I'll be quite frank that when I was called at home because it was a holiday, I was not working. The first question I had was, did we deploy the emergency response vehicle? Sounds like the right circumstance to deploy it. And, you know, the incident had have evolved so rapidly that it was not deployed, but it absolutely was a consideration. So we do not use this vehicle based on just like any of our tactics should not be based at all on race or any other protected class, but on the need to provide public safety.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All for offer you counsel over her, Spencer. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Next step. Well. Are we ready for a motion? No one wants to say anything. Councilmember Desai I saw a councilmember. Not quite, actually. I'm going to say it.
Speaker 3: As he that I'm.
Speaker 4: Happy to wait for Councilmember Desai. I just thought, I just want to make a couple comments.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Knox. Wait.
Speaker 4: Sorry.
Speaker 0: There were if.
Speaker 4: I heard the comment that that the the police inequity committee made no comment on this vehicle. And I think the fact that the council had already unanimously given direction to sell it, it would be an odd place for them to give a recommendation to sell it. So I want to be careful that we don't put too much stock in that specific issue. And I respect the positions that that folks on our council will take tonight. I think if we're going to move forward with maintaining this, I think the compelling argument that we continue to hear is that in the case of an active shooter, that this vehicle may be the the point between life and death. And I think that we should make sure that our policy really limits this to times when there are active shooters and if there are times in which there's the possibility that active shooting could be used. I see that Berkeley has for various time tests staging offsite for quick deployment. I think that that's you know, that could be something that we're talking about. But I think that there's a reason also that this vehicle does not have the city is not painted in the city colors. And we can talk about whether or not it is an actual military vehicle or whether it's just dressed up to look like something that drives through the streets of Fallujah. At the end of the day, it is a very intimidating vehicle that does not look like any other vehicle that the city has. The city of Emeryville has has a Ford Transit vehicle that is armored. It looks like something that a parent would take to the hardware store to get some tools to help work on the deck so that over the weekend, this vehicle is designed to intimidate and scare people. And so I think we need to understand there is an impact of this vehicle as it drives through, through and into and into our communities and into other communities as well. The moms for housing were evicted from the house, their house in West Oakland. The sheriff's department brought one of these vehicles and parked it out in front to evict four moms who were just being evicted. We can't there are impacts. And so I would like to see if we're going to move forward with keeping this vehicle. I would like to see us limit it so that we are actually addressing the specific issues that people say are the concern that we have and not continuing to just loan it out for backup on pre-planned events in other cities that don't necessarily meet the the goals that I think we're hearing are our community outlines. I also just wanted to take one instance. So in at least one of the reported uses, we actually did deploy this vehicle to direct traffic for a parade and a demonstration. And so I want to be I think we need to be clear. We have used this in places where there wasn't the threat of shooting breaking out at any given moment. And I know that our former chief did talk about sending it out for protecting and for engaging in a number of the Oakland protests. And I don't see it on this list, but I do know that that was where that talking point came from, because a former chief, Larry, mentioned multiple times and that was really the only time we ever used the vehicle was when Oakland was having protests and and whatnot. Maybe we didn't. Maybe he was confused. But I did want to just reflect that. So those are my comments. I hope we can narrow the scope and meet with what I hear our community, the former police chief, etc., saying we need for this vehicle. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I thank you. Councilmember Knox White Councilmember de.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you very much. I'll be brief. I think the staff report really says it all in the executive summary. I think this sentence really says it all. And I think it's fair. It bears worth repeating. The emergency response vehicle is a critical tool to assist the police department in keeping the citizens of Alameda safe and end sentence. I think that sentence says it all. Let us hope that we never here in Alameda have a tragic situation that requires the use of such and such a tool. But but if there is a tragic situation unfolding, let us make sure to use the tool in order to safeguard our residents and our police force and anyone involved in that kind of situation. You just never know. It can happen here in Alameda, too. So so I do think we have to reconsider the June vote. I do think we have to keep. I do think we have to keep this vehicle. And I will say, though, in terms of policy, you know, in the fog of of a crisis, you just never know what's going to happen. And and the ability to act swiftly is is absolutely imperative in a fog of a crisis situation. And what I worry is having these policies that amount to basically checklists that might require our police force to wait some moments, minutes, tens of minutes, I don't know, to satisfy their review of the checklists. And I just don't think that that is how it is. You know, I like the way that the current policy reads, and I'll read the portion of the current policy that I find satisfactory. The current policy reads in the paragraph that's labeled one dot Special Response Rescue Vehicle Bat. The second sentence to that paragraph reads It's on page six of 11 reads. The vehicle is. Oh, it's a second paragraph. Permission to utilize a vehicle will come from the commander during SWAT operations or a supervisor in high risk incidents falling outside of the scope of the search operations. So we're really depending on the professional judgment of the staff to interpret what's going on in the fog of a tragic situation. And I think we need to give them that discretion to act quickly. You know what? If we send out the vehicle and we end up not having to use the vehicle? To that, I say. So what? You know, we made into an assessment that it might have been needed and hey, thank God it wasn't needed, but at least we had the vehicles to send out. So I really worry about having this checklist of, well, we got to do this. We've got to make sure is it an active shooter? I mean, you know, if you know that something is going on at Incidental High School or at Alameda High School, if, you know, it's a football game and suddenly all these people are running, scurrying about, you know, maybe someone first had a knife and next thing you know , the night fell 5 minutes later. Turns out to be a gun. You don't want to wait. So I really worry about having this kind of checklist approach. I think the way that the policy currently reads in terms of leaving it to the professional judgment of our police force and particular individuals in it, I think that's the way that we should go. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Dysart, I'm just going to respond that I hope you'll have a chance to read the Berkeley policy. It's just three pages long, but it it's not so much a checklist, but it's it is definitely, you know, the kinds of situations criteria it's based on where there is an objective risk and that's discussed how to assess the situation. I, I think it definitely leaves the use to professionals vetted, but I do think that there needs to be a, a policy a little more spelled out policy. And we heard the acting chief say that he thought that this could easily be implemented in Alameda. Councilmember Vela, vice mayor, L.A., sorry, we haven't heard from you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I mean, I share Councilmember Knox White's concerns. I think, you know. Yes, I think we voted on this. So I. I understand where there's some confusion by the public about when issues come back to council, when there were unanimous votes, and what would trigger that. But I don't think we should be so cavalier with where we deployed it, but we didn't have to use it, because I think that there are it sends a message to have this vehicle deployed in any neighborhood. I think it sends a message to to see this vehicle driving around town. We got that. I'm sure other council members got emails as well when Oakland's tactical vehicle was parked on Park Street getting coffee for a coffee run. Right. So I think we do have to be careful because there is symbolism. This is not a normal vehicle. This is not the ram van that other cities have that's armored, but that is inconspicuous. This is a very different type of vehicle. And I want to be thoughtful about that. I also think that discretion is a tricky thing. It's it's nice to have discretion. It gives people a number of different options. But it also means that there are going to be times where there could be a disagreement about whether or not the vehicle should have been deployed. And I think if this council wants to reverse course of where of what the direction was that, one of the biggest issues in our existing with is with our existing policy. It is with the fact that there is a lot of discretion there. And I think when you're deploying something that is this different, we need to curtail that the amount of discretion available. This council, it's a this council should be very clear about when it should be deployed. And we need to limit it, because I think that there's a lot I'm getting concerned because it seems like there's a bit of fearmongering going on, like there could be any incident when you go out and you're in a crowd, there could be somebody there and all of a sudden now we want to be able to deploy this vehicle. I don't think that that's the intent from the majority of the council. I'm not hearing that. I think that we want to be very critical about when it's deployed and we want to make sure that it's not being deployed for crowd control measures or intimidation of free speech. And that is something, frankly, I think we should all be concerned about because it's part of our code of conduct. We don't want to curtail free speech as a council, and I would hope that we don't want any vehicle. Or being deployed to do. To do the same. So, you know, I just I hope that that were thoughtful and that my colleagues are thoughtful, which I think will be about putting some checks on the use of this
Speaker 3: . Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Vice mayor of L.A. And I will just read to to your point, which I agree with you completely about when the vehicle should not be deployed in the Berkeley Emergency Response Vehicle policy, it says the RV shall not be deployed during nonviolent demonstrations, including for crowd control and crowd management. Absent the specific, articulable objective facts demonstrating a risk of injury or death to police officers and or the public. And so I do think that we need to limit the discretion. But I think that it was well spelled out in the Berkeley policy. I think we could agree that Berkeley City Council is certainly one of the more progressive ones around. And they, you know, they adopted this and and the mayor helped draft it. And anyway, I, I so what, what I would like to add. Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Yes.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you.
Speaker 0: Okay, so let me finish my sentence and then we'll go to you. What I would like to propose is that well and I want to ask another question of Council member Knox White. And actually, of all of you, you mentioned that this isn't you know, it doesn't look like some of the other vehicles. It's true, Berkeley actually bought a mercedes. Their van is a pretty slick looking, high profile Mercedes. And, you know, maybe when this one comes to the end of its shelf, life will buy a mercedes, too. But you did mention councilmember in Knox White consideration that it looks rather, you know, with the camo or whatever the the paint is, it's could be intimidating. Do you want to paint it?
Speaker 4: I don't really personally want to spend a lot of time in that question. To me, I don't want to spend a lot of money on this vehicle. Further, if we're going to keep it, I would rather just keep it not not out inactive and then that the impact is reduced. Personally, if it needs to be repainted, that's great. But I don't want to spend $50,000 painting it blue.
Speaker 0: Okay, fair point. Okay. So I would like to suggest suggest a motion. Councilmember Herrera Spencer, did you want to suggest a motion?
Speaker 1: And I will. And honestly, I wasn't on council back then, so I'm happy to hear from you or someone else first.
Speaker 0: Okay. I would like to move that we retain the vehicle, but that we adopt an emergency response vehicle policy similar to or identical to the Berkeley City Council policy. Councilmember de or anyone.
Speaker 5: I would second that, but I would strip any reference to similar to Berkeley City Council, a man at the time and which we adopted. It might be it might be similar to Berkeley City Council, but.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, I meant to say that the Berkeley Police Department policy that's attached to this.
Speaker 1: This report.
Speaker 3: Is.
Speaker 5: The same thing. I mean, I would second it, but I leave out the part about, you know, making it similar to Berkeley's. I'm not saying that Berkeley's per say upsets me. I'm just saying that, you know, I don't see any at the point in time if if city staff comes back in and it happens to be similar to Berkeley's fine great but but for as part of the motion you know I think reverse a reversing the decision is important to having some kind of policy is fine but but you know you know some people might think that the policy that we have right now is fine. Some people might think that that there should be greater detail to it. I don't know. But I'm not saying I'm not going to buy off on city Berkeley's right now.
Speaker 0: Okay. I am going to need to ask for a motion to extend my speaking time. I would ask for 2 minutes. 3 minutes at most.
Speaker 5: I guess that would go for everybody.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I would.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: I'll move it for everybody.
Speaker 0: Okay. 3 minutes for everyone.
Speaker 5: Two or 3 minutes. 2 minutes.
Speaker 0: 2 minutes. Okay. We have a motion. A second.
Speaker 3: It's not.
Speaker 0: Our second. We have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 2: No invitation for Spencer.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: Not quite so, Bella. No mayor as Ashcroft. I have 2 to 3.
Speaker 1: I'll make a motion to give the mayor 2 minutes.
Speaker 3: I think that's what he just. I just.
Speaker 1: Did. I thought it was for everybody.
Speaker 0: Oh, you're saying just the mayor because I ran out of time.
Speaker 4: Okay, second.
Speaker 3: Time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Roll call. Vote, please.
Speaker 2: It's never daytime.
Speaker 5: That's fine. Yeah.
Speaker 2: First answer.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: All right. But the.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 2: Mayor is the Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 2: That carries for tomorrow.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Okay, I. I want a policy the same or similar to the current Berkeley Police Department policy, but I'm not hearing a second for that. So would someone else like to make a motion? Councilor Brady I'd.
Speaker 5: Like to move that. We reverse our decision of June two, 2020 regarding selling of the armored vehicle.
Speaker 0: Okay. So a second. On Second Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconds.
Speaker 1: Any further declines I'd like to speak to if I just want to say that second so I can continue talking and I have plenty of time.
Speaker 0: So yeah. So discussion. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I do want to come back to the paint issue and intimidation issue of the vehicle. I agree with the public and members of the council that have expressed concerns in regards to that. And I did request pictures and I don't know if it's possible to ask staff to put up some of the pictures of the vehicle next to the other city vehicles.
Speaker 2: I can't put them up. It'll just take me a minute. I've just got to get them ready to go.
Speaker 1: So while I'm waiting for that real quickly, I just want to say so I do think that's an issue. The vehicle, when I tried to figure out the dimensions compared to other vehicles that the city owns, it's actually, I think, smaller than some of the fire department vehicles. I think the paint the green has and I'm happy to actually, I should ask. I'm sorry. Let me ask one of our law enforcement people here. Why is it that color? Why hasn't it been painted? Are you all agreeable to painting it? What suggestion do you have in regards to addressing that issue? The issue of it actually doesn't appear to match any of our vehicles.
Speaker 0: If you had your hand up.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I am happy to direct the painting of this vehicle. I don't think it needs to be green. I don't think the color from our standpoint is is important. And I understand the concerns of the community.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I appreciate the clerk showing the pictures.
Speaker 0: Councilor Fraser.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Just quickly after this motion off, come up with a follow up motion about coming back with policies.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 5: But it's separate.
Speaker 0: Okay. So right now, your motion is simply to reverse the decision to sell with no conditions.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Okay. Maybe n no further discussion. CNN. May we have a roll call vote, please?
Speaker 2: Seven days ago.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Have a. I knocked right over. Well, I know, Mayor, as the Ashcraft know, that motion fails. 2 to 3.
Speaker 0: Okay. Excuse me while I pick up a dropped cell phone. Councilmember decided you have another motion?
Speaker 5: No. It was based upon the first motion passing.
Speaker 0: Okay. Anyone else want to try a motion? Councilmember Harry Spencer.
Speaker 1: So I would like to propose and this would be my motion then that we do. Retain the vehicle but that in regards to and keep the current policy. Temporarily until a staff comes back with its recommendations in regards to looking at both Berkeley policy, our policy, and then a proposal that we can focus on that issue alone separate from whether or not we're going to retain.
Speaker 0: I'll cancel every day, so I'll second that. Okay. Hi, madam. Claire. Could you read the motion back? I'm not sure I understand it completely.
Speaker 2: It's to retain the vehicle and keep the current policy. And so staff comes back looking at Alameda and Berkeley's policy to decide at that time if the vehicle will be retained.
Speaker 0: Councilmember. I think you're shaking your head.
Speaker 1: And I appreciate you having to read it back, because what I meant to say, and I think I said, was that at that time, we can all focus in on the policy, because at this point, honestly, I haven't had the opportunity to, with a fine tooth comb to go remember Mayor Ashcroft's proposal and then De Sox and then finally to hear from our chief announced, you think our public at this point hasn't really zoned in as much as I'd like on the policy? So that time then I and honestly, just as we're doing now, I think at any time council can decide to reverse the decision and not to retain it. But I would like to dispense with this and then come back separately and look at the policies. And that can be other cities too. And other council members can come up with proposals, and so can community members of different policies that other places have. And then we can have that discussion focusing on the policy.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: Oh, Councilman, outside. Did you have your hand up?
Speaker 4: Yeah, just quickly. So I can't support this because we have enough council, unanimous council direction for policies to come back that have been sitting out for up to 18 months. And to me, this is a recipe for basically never seeing the policy again. So I think, you know, we've had nine months. I'm not quite sure why we didn't actually, if there was the idea that we were going to have a policy, you know, propose some policies for doing this, why they're not before us tonight. But quite honestly, I think we've had nine months to think about this. And tonight, if we're going to approve, if we're going to reverse the council's last June direction, then I think we should give clarity as to what our intentions are, even if it is to give guidance for what the policy should come back with and a date for when that policy should return.
Speaker 0: So Councilmember Herrera Spence, are you.
Speaker 1: Okay in that respect? And an attorney may need to weigh in. There have been a motion that I have voted against and I supported from the mayor. And what I'm hearing now is that we can staff can come back if I'm if I'm hearing from member knocks correctly.
Speaker 5: I don't think.
Speaker 1: The staff can come back with that proposal and then at that time we can pencil out or whatever and as a community. But then but you want at least something currently. And so if I'm understanding then yes. And I would make a motion that we.
Speaker 0: Amend your motion.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Thank you for the amendment of my motion of amendment. That's what I think is proposing. And then what Mayor Ashcraft has already suggested of starting the next starting point, and that would be workplace policy, but that we retain the vehicle, come back and then we're nice. You feel free to help me on this whenever you want. That I think is I think you're asking that we use the Berkeley policy. You want something in place currently and then it will come back. But so we would not be keeping the city's current policy in place. But when it comes back, then we can have a discussion if we wanted to make any changes.
Speaker 0: And I think perhaps a date certain for it to come back, which would be.
Speaker 4: I would say council member Herb Spencer actually came up with something even cleaner, which is just Dr. Berkeley's policy tonight. And if there are changes that going to be made, it can come back.
Speaker 0: I. How does that sound? Councilmember Her answer is that.
Speaker 1: My preference would be to have it come back in a couple of meetings or something. So honestly, at that point, the public and all of us can focus more clearly on what's in workdays. So I would prefer.
Speaker 0: So yeah. So I think what maybe is the best of both worlds for the two of you is to move forward with training the vehicle, adopting the Berkeley policy. But having this the policy come back in, I don't know, a month or whatever for further review and any. Modifications or refinements.
Speaker 1: Yes. So that could be my emotion.
Speaker 0: Is it? Yes. All right. And Councilmember decide, do you still second that?
Speaker 5: I don't agree with the phrase adopting the Berkeley policy. I.
Speaker 1: It's what it is. Okay. It's policy. 706 Berkeley Police Department. I'm hearing all my council members. There are not three votes to keep the current policy in place from based on that motion failing. So I'm saying, you know, I'm trying to accommodate all the comments I'm hearing. Right.
Speaker 0: Okay. So if conservative side doesn't want to second, let's see, what's anybody wanting to do? I have one of the accounts, but redux. I'll get changes made. But if one of the city attorneys want to chime in, councilmember talks let you go ahead.
Speaker 4: And so I would be willing to second the motion if we could add direction to come back with some form of active shooter. But I don't think we have three votes. It doesn't sound like we have three votes for the Berkeley four for Berkeley tonight. But some sort of focusing in on the active shooter aspect of this. I think to me, we've heard from our community. That is what everybody is concerned about. Well, I'd like to have that more and more. I don't see that Berkeley's I don't think Berkeley's policy really changes how we've been using this vehicle very much. A little bit. We won't be doing warrior sprints with Newmark, but they have to win again for that to happen anyway.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: So but the reference to the Berkeley policy still remains correct. And you want to make sure that they're back.
Speaker 4: I would like them to come back with some proposed language for for for narrowing down to active shooter.
Speaker 0: With with specific reference adding specific reference to active shooter incident.
Speaker 4: We can adopt or not adopt that at that time, but I would like it at least available for discussion.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Herrera Spencer. So Councilwoman, actually, first we have to make sure that the maker of the motion agrees to that further modification.
Speaker 1: And I just want clarification that that would be in addition to the proposed language of Berkeley police policy. 706.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, it might, it might modify it when it comes back, but that would be for discussion at that time, not tonight.
Speaker 1: Okay. So I'm I am agreeable to accepting that friendly amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then Councilman outside, will you second?
Speaker 4: I will. I will also point out I saw chief friends.
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm so sorry. Thank you. You're. He's my utilized to defend.
Speaker 3: I would just like to submit from a staff perspective. I have looked at it again with my staff, the Berkeley policy, and we are very comfortable with this being the policy of the Alameda Police Department. There's a couple of references to things that are specific to where they store the vehicle that obviously doesn't fly to us, but everything else.
Speaker 0: We want stored historically.
Speaker 3: So other than that, where we are, we are fine with it as it is written.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then, of course, with the additional information from Councilman Knox White and I saw Councilmember de SACS hands out and I saw Councilmember Harry Spencer's hand go up. So council would decide first.
Speaker 5: Well, I think it's important that if the police chief the acting police chief feels that he, in his professional judgment, is satisfied with the Berkeley police policy, you know, I'm not going to second guess the professionals. I mean, he's going to put the life of his men and women on the line. My only my biggest concern, frankly, it boils down to this. I think in a time of of grave crisis, you know, I don't want the police force bogged down in some kind of process questions when they need to get out the vehicle. But if if the if the police force is satisfied that the that the Berkeley policy, if adopted here in Alameda, isn't going to do that, then I'm not going to second guess that the men and women who are going to put their life on the line for us.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Garza, Councilmember Harry Spencer.
Speaker 1: And I just want to clarify that I accepted the friendly amendments. But part of it, why would you want it to come back is to give the public an opportunity to look at other policies and say and there could be other language out there that the public wants to suggest. I want to make sure they have that opportunity.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. See no further handset. Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 2: From member station.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Have Spencer Knox. Right, fella? No.
Speaker 5: And who seconded?
Speaker 2: Mayor as the Ashcraft High that carries 3 to 2.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, everyone. And thank you. Members of the police department, city staff, city attorney's office who were here for this item council. We're going to take a ten minute break and then we're going to come back and start in on our council referrals. So I'll see you at 655, everybody. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. These people. No. To. Well. What? Let's. It. It's. Oh.
Speaker 0: Okay, everybody, I see that it is. Excuse me. 655 Oh, we've got to do those captions again. Okay. So let's see who we've got. We've got Vice Mayor Vella Knox. Right. There's a we got a full house. City manager, city attorney. Laura, are you ready to go as your crew? Larry, your muted.
Speaker 2: We are ready.
Speaker 0: Okay, if you're ready, we're ready. Everybody. Yes. All right, let's do it. Okay. Welcome back, everyone. We have just finished our regular agenda item and now we are moving to item seven, which is City Manager Communications, Mr. Leavitt.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Consider Options for the Alameda Police Department's Emergency Response Vehicle. (Police) [Not heard on March 2, 2021; continued from March 16 to March 30, 2021]
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_01192021_2021-8245
|
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 0: May or as he Ashcraft I that carries 4 to 1.
Speaker 2: All right, thank you.
Speaker 3: Then we move on to item five, see? And then, of course, you introduced that one.
Speaker 0: Recommendation to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute a purchase agreement or in the alternative, a lease agreement for a new security camera system. From I see you technologies for the police administration building an offsite property storage facilities in an amount not to exceed 274,000 7597.
Speaker 3: Okay. And, Councilman, that's why you were the one who who pulled this. Did you want a staff reporter? Do you just want to.
Speaker 1: I'm okay without a staff report. I mean, maybe I can mention why. And then if we want a staff report after, we can get maybe more questions. So I appreciate all the information. I appreciate Chief Fenton and City Manager Levitt providing some information earlier today about this. I question why six weeks before we are actually hearing back from our community about how we want to prioritize funding and services with regard to our our police department. We are voting tonight to to extend or I'm sorry, increase the budget for the department with very little with an unknown general fund impacts as stated in the in the staff report. To me I think it would be better to have this come back as a part of a budget. It's a ten year old system. It was clearly not a priority two years ago. I do understand that there was an issue with some vandalism that's mentioned in the staff report that was not we weren't able to prosecute the vandals. But at this time, I'm not confident that this is actually rising to the to to increasing public safety. We have an item Councilmember Spencer has put on nine be at the end of the item, end of the agenda for us to discuss safety and whatnot in the future. And I think we should hear through the rest of our policy process before we start spending a quarter million dollars on a video system to catch folks vandalizing the police department.
Speaker 3: So I think, Councilmember, I see that we have joining us interim chief police chief Randy Shin. Captain Jeffrey Emmett, apologies. I don't know. Mark in Fresno, is that a member of the department or a madam?
Speaker 1: Madame Mayor? Yes. Dynamic representative from ICU Technologies.
Speaker 3: Got it. Okay. And before I call on either of you. City manager level. Did you. Are you fine? How would you like us to proceed?
Speaker 7: I could start off from my perspective. Or actually, maybe I'll let Captain Emmett first start off with the reason I was requested. And then I can add on to why. Why move this forward to the council? It actually came forward initially in August. I waited till late in the year to move it forward, basically because of the budget concerns that I. Councilmember Knox White had mentioned. But I'll let Captain Emmett first discuss it and then I can add to that.
Speaker 3: Okay. So I will note that I just heard from the city clerk that there are four public speakers on this item, but I am going to treat this like the staff report. And then we will come to the public speakers and we'll see if there are any clarifying questions from the council and then we'll go to our staff reports. So I'm Chief and if we could go to you first.
Speaker 1: Thank you for having me. I'd like to defer to Captain Emmett, who wrote the staff report.
Speaker 3: It's kind of where we started. Okay. Captain Emmett, back to you.
Speaker 1: Madam Mayor and members of the council and city staff. Thank you. So the security system that we currently have at the police department is is outdated. It's about ten years old. Its primary function is not to catch criminal acts. It is to help protect and to provide situational awareness to the employees that work in the building and for the citizens during normal times outside of COVID that would visit our building. And basically one of the issues that came up that was alluded to earlier, we did have a vandalism that occurred back in November of 2019. And the footage that was obtained from that vandalism was very poor quality. The cameras are old, and it did take some time to search through the DVR system that we have that records, all of the the motion activated footage. So that was one of the challenges. One of the other challenges that we have in that we're trying to increase is the offsite storage facilities that we use for our property and evidence. We do have two of those locations within the city that does house evidence that sometimes needs to be maintained for forever, whether it's a homicide investigation, sexual assault kits that we need to maintain. And we just don't have the space in our police administration building that allows us to keep it all in-house. We do have cameras at some of those locations. We would like to add a layer of security and add cameras in those locations to help to help us keep those safe. And if something were to happen at those locations, to be able to provide us some better quality footage that we can go back and look at at a later time if we needed to. Also, looking into the future, the city is has been working on a keycard access system for some of its buildings here. And the camera system that we are currently looking at does have the capability of being built into and working with those keycard access systems, which would also help to add a layer of security not only to our building but to our employees as well. So that that's. That's the reason we're looking at it at this moment. And to the city manager's comment, we did submit this back in August after a lengthy process with the vendors.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Captain. And Mr. Levin, is your hand up?
Speaker 7: Yes. If I could just add quickly and the reason we are bringing it outside the budget process, even though it wasn't budget, is because this is a replacement of a system that I was convinced is not functioning properly. If it was to ask for a new system and we didn't have a system in place, then I would be bringing it back with the budget. I held it because obviously with COVID expenses and COVID revenues and uncertainty, I wasn't sure if I felt I wasn't sure where we were economically. So that's why I held it for 4 to 5 months. I feel better economically today than I did four or five months ago, and I felt that we could handle it, although I can't guarantee where that money would necessarily come from because we have had salary costs that we that were, I assume just because COVID has hit us in certain ways, there's created salary issues in a variety of departments.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Levitt. Chief ended. You want to add anything to that?
Speaker 1: I think it was well covered. Again, just providing for the security of our employees and again, the citizens who use our facility, I think is of paramount concern here.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. City council members. Any questions? Clarifying questions from the report. Vice Mayor Vella.
Speaker 5: So a few questions. One is a camera to which it would cover public parking. What's the the the. I guess my question is how far into that parking lot is actually being covered? Because that parking lot is shared with City Hall.
Speaker 1: Vice mayors, that camera that would be on the the southeast corner that would also capture the vehicle gate that our patrol vehicles come out of. I know in speaking with the vendor there, there is a way that we can angle the camera as such not to capture parts of the parking lot. That would be concerning. We also do have that storage garage that's in the city hall parking lot where that camera could also help to capture the comings and goings from that area as well. But it would. Which is. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I mean, I think that there's I was going to that was my next question. Was that camera. But specifically because.
Speaker 3: I just would say I would ask that we let one speaker finish before we pose our questions. Captain, I think you were finishing a sentence and then back to the vice mayor. About your property storage area there at the edge of the parking lot. So. So, were you saying that the camera.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It would help us to keep an eye on that location. And I think that we could work with the vendor to position the camera in such a way that we were not capturing parts of the parking lot that were not intended with the security camera purpose.
Speaker 5: So I'd like to confirm because are you talking about camera five, garage b two.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 5: So we're garage May one.
Speaker 1: Those would be cameras that were more focused on the doors to those locations and inside of the building.
Speaker 5: Okay. So you're talking about the camera that's out that's mounted outside of the motor cage.
Speaker 1: Yes. And I can.
Speaker 3: Do you want to do a screen share check?
Speaker 1: So confirming camera two is, though, is that one on the southeast corner there that would capture part of the public parking lot in between the police department and city hall. More directed towards our vehicle pedestrian or vehicle gate where the patrol cars and.
Speaker 5: Is there a reason we would need to capture the vehicle gate?
Speaker 1: It would be a security concern because that gate is pressure activated from the inside and does remain open. If someone was to walk in behind a vehicle that was exiting, it would allow us to view that.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 3: Councilmember I mean Vice Mayor Avila.
Speaker 5: For the and yeah I think it's hard to understand based off of has the has the vendor provided. You've said that there's ways to to angle the cameras. Has the vendor provided any diagrams or anything like that that would show what areas would actually be filmed in these in these public spaces?
Speaker 1: No. Just the locations of where they would be mounted.
Speaker 5: Okay. So potentially things that could be captured if mounted incorrectly or if the amounts change would include councilmember parking spots. Correct. As well as some public parking spots in the city hall parking lot.
Speaker 1: But it's not our intention to capture those spots. And we would do everything that we could to prevent that from happening. We are focusing on the the paving and the the security of the.
Speaker 3: The police the police administrative building for.
Speaker 1: Those I'm sorry, the police administration building. And the reasoning for that camera in that position is to capture the vehicle gate and the pedestrian gate that's along that side of the police administration building.
Speaker 3: And I'm just going to interject that we will certainly have our council discussion about what direction we want to take. I want to hold out the consideration also that there may be security concerns for people who work late at night and come to their cars in the evening when it's dark, like I do oftentimes and oftentimes, even when I'm leaving in the evening with dark or cleaning, ladies who work late into the night are coming and they work into the early morning hours often. So we'll we'll have that discussion. But what other clarifying questions do we have?
Speaker 5: Did you have work? I still. Yes, I did. And so how long will the video be maintained?
Speaker 1: So video is maintained per state law and I believe it's in the report for any recordings for up to a year.
Speaker 5: Is that in compliance with our our data retention and privacy policies?
Speaker 1: I believe so.
Speaker 5: And who will have access to the footage? Is that subject to a public request for information?
Speaker 1: So one of the nice things about this system compared to the system that we currently have is the the access to our current system is extremely limited. We have one maybe to two people who can actually access the system. This system here does allow us to provide more access to employees. We can limit what their accessibility is. As I stated in the report, the the custodian of records will will do their yearly purge when it when we start that in about November. And they're the only ones that can actually delete information or or purge it. But it would give, say, a police officer at 3:00 in the morning who typically does not have access to our current system to be able to live view the cameras. If, say, there was a concern with something happening around the building or somebody at the front counter that needed assistance.
Speaker 5: Okay. And. In terms of changing the location that the cameras are focused on. What's the process for that?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I understand your question.
Speaker 5: Can once mounted, can the cameras. The direction of the cameras be changed? And what is the process for that?
Speaker 1: Well, once the cameras are mounted, we want them in a certain location. If they were to move, it would it wouldn't be. What we intended for them to do. So we would have to call the vendor out, or we would have to call for a repair service to come in and reposition them.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 5: And what this is a question for the city manager. Do we have other another video surveillance system for other city buildings that we use? Or is this the vendor that we use?
Speaker 7: For surveillance. We have limited surveillance systems in other buildings. I think this is the only vendor we use. Can you. We do have the key card system that is currently getting implemented. I think that's a separate vendor bound deferred to the assistant city manager on that.
Speaker 6: Our public parking garage also has a video recording system. It's not working very well, and when it comes time to replace, it will likely look to the vendor that we've been working with, with the police department.
Speaker 3: I think the vice mayor's question and I don't want to speak for her is that is this vendor currently providing surveillance at any other city buildings or property? I need an audible answer.
Speaker 6: Sorry about that. Not at this time.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Okay. Okay. And so to follow up to that, and this is my final question. Other than the city. The parking garage for like where we keep our fleet or at other buildings. Do we have video surveillance? Or do we use other other technology? I don't need to know what that technology is. I'm just asking. We use the video technology.
Speaker 6: We have video cameras in the parking garage and at our maintenance service center currently, in addition to the police department cameras that are being.
Speaker 1: That the request is coming forward to.
Speaker 2: Replace. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Also, just one other location, Alameda point. We do have some cameras at Alameda Point as well.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: The. The Civic Center parking garage, Mr. Bowden. The Army to plan. What was the. The second one you mentioned?
Speaker 7: Maintenance. The maintenance facility.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 6: And our Alameda Point location, just so folks are aware, is it's a vacant building. And it's just to make sure that we are keeping an eye on things when we don't really have people around. And then inside city hall, folks know of the camera system that's outside of the city manager's office and the city attorney's office. So that's the that's the list.
Speaker 3: Q Thank you for the questions. Counsel before we get our public speakers, Councilmember Spencer. Add one more and mute.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Okay. So I'm not sure if you all answered this already, but this looks like the geography included in our fiscal year budget. And why was it not included? Was there some incident that recently occurred? Or was it just, you know, they had the money and city manager or any of these.
Speaker 7: I'll defer to the captain if it's okay, Mary. I defer to Captain. Captain to discuss why it wasn't submitted. It was the same as a proposal in the. In their two year budget.
Speaker 2: But.
Speaker 3: Kevin.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So initially, this project started back in November of 2019 when we had that first vandalism where our operator phone was ripped out of the wall. In looking through that footage, it was very clear that we needed to upgrade our system, which started the process of reaching out to vendors. As we were reaching out to vendors, COVID 19 hit, which put somewhat of a delay. I was not sure at the time if we were going to be able to move forward with the project. I fortunately came across the ICU technologies who is able to work with us during the COVID 19 issues that we were all having and experiencing. And by the time we went through that process and had reports completed, it was late August. So it wasn't it wasn't planned. And it was just a need that we came up, that we came across. And, you know, the project just kind of wrapped up at the time that it did.
Speaker 2: All right, so there was. I just want make sure we're talking about one incident in 2019.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And we've actually had two recent vandalism that have occurred in the last three weeks. We had some graffiti that was that occurred on the front bricks of the the front steps of the police department. And then last week, we had we had someone break one of the windows to our front doors. And, you know, those incidents were were captured on our current system. And again, the quality of the footage is, in my opinion, insufficient.
Speaker 2: All right. So if we don't. Yes, yes. Thank you. So if we don't approve it tonight, does this come back? When does it come back? I guess it's going to be in a mid-year budget or something. When when would we see that?
Speaker 7: It would. The mayor. Mary, can I have two things? It would either come back in either the mid-year budget or come back as far as the next two year budget, which is coming this spring.
Speaker 2: Okay. So how soon is the mid-year budget coming to us?
Speaker 7: The mid-year is scheduled to come on February 16th.
Speaker 2: So you're bringing this now. Otherwise it's going to come February 16th.
Speaker 7: We? That would be an option. You could come forward in on February 16th.
Speaker 2: So other departments will be bringing their additional requests February 16th.
Speaker 7: That. That would be correct.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. Any further questions? Clarifying questions. Okay. Let's hear our public speakers. How many public speakers do we have, Madam Clerk?
Speaker 0: We have six.
Speaker 3: Okay, so with six.
Speaker 0: They get 3 minutes.
Speaker 3: Each, so get 3 minutes. Okay. If another speaker comes up, please let us know, because the time will change. Okay.
Speaker 0: With the razor.
Speaker 3: Hello, Mr. Fraser.
Speaker 1: Hello again. I have to.
Speaker 7: Say, it makes me so happy to go first. I'm a middle child. I'm always.
Speaker 1: Overlooked. So being first three times.
Speaker 7: In one night, this is like my night. Anyway, I agree with everything Councilmember Knox said, and I believe that the.
Speaker 1: City manager knows his stuff.
Speaker 7: And so if he says you can't pay employees or you can't find money to pay employees, I would listen to that and not buy.
Speaker 1: A security camera system. I might add that I have a security.
Speaker 7: Camera system and watched my truck roll out of my front driveway. APD has that footage too, and I haven't heard anything back, so I'm not sure footage would help. At least it doesn't sit with citizens. So I would encourage you to wait on that item. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Fraser, your next speaker.
Speaker 0: We now have seven additional speakers, so we go to.
Speaker 3: Typically get 2.
Speaker 0: Minutes and Grover Wieman Brown.
Speaker 3: Good evening again.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Please do not spend any more of.
Speaker 5: Our public.
Speaker 4: Dollars on. Surveillance of our community that would just go directly into the police department. Security cameras don't prevent crime. And for me, my personal experience is that they don't keep me safe. They make me feel anxious and worried about privacy and who's watching me. And specifically, they don't prevent crime. They just.
Speaker 5: Record crime. If crime happens.
Speaker 4: As it's happening. And so. I just really this is a lot of money and it was put on consent, which worried me. And I just ask you to put on the brakes. And if this is really important to the upkeep, let us have a community debate about it as part of the budget. It's a lot of money to spend to surveil us as we walk around the sidewalks and come to protests outside of the police department for what has been mentioned as graffiti or a phone being pulled out of the.
Speaker 5: Wall.
Speaker 4: At a time when so many people in our community need desperate help and funds to keep their businesses open, to feed their children and to stay housed. How many people could stay housed with that amount of money that's being proposed? If we were to shift those funds outside of a police camera to support our actual community members that need it badly right now. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker. Madam Clerk.
Speaker 0: Like the Abbey.
Speaker 3: All right. Good evening. This abbey.
Speaker 5: Good evening. I strongly urge you all to vote no on approving the new security cameras for APD. I can't help but continuously think of what almost $275,000 from the general fund can do for this city, for the folks that have lost jobs or housing due to COVID. For the public services on this island that already have an astronomically lowered budget than APD. Or maybe we could hire proper mental health workers to respond to mental health calls instead of cops or basically tons of things. It's also concerning that all of a sudden, after protests and rallies that have transpired over the past year, protests that often pass by or are outside of APD or nearby at City Hall, they've happened. And now all of a sudden there was a pressing need for security cameras. APD already gets almost 40% of the city's budget. There are current committees looking at and bundling services, and it doesn't make sense for them to take this almost $275,000 from the city's general fund. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Ginny Sanderson.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. Anderson.
Speaker 5: Good evening again. I just want to I kind of echo and I agree maybe it's for the first time and only time ever with Councilmember Herrera Spencer on asking why this isn't part of the regular budget process, which is coming up in less than a month, apparently. I you know, we had this whole debate over the summer about police accountability and racism, and we were told nothing can be done until these steering committees come back with their recommendations. And now the steering committees are starting to come back with their recommendations. And we're doing all of this budgeting stuff for APD in the interim. You know, and then I'm curious. City manager Levitt said that he was convinced this system doesn't work or it or doesn't work. And then Officer Mean says that it does work right now. So I feel like, you know, if it does work, it can work for another month until we address this budget in the regular budget. I also, you know, there's a lot of departments that are going to be cutting funds because of COVID. And as other speakers mentioned, there's a lot of needs in the community. So I'm just wondering what APD would be willing to cut in exchange for almost $275,000, maybe some trainings, which we've been told is incredibly expensive by APD themselves, perhaps some overtime, one or two officer positions or maybe an armored vehicle. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank. Thank you. Mr. Anderson. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Laura Katrina.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Miss Katrina.
Speaker 5: Good evening again. Council Members and Madam Mayor. As an Alameda resident, I ask that you do not approve these new security cameras for APD. The request is for almost $275,000, and it states that it would come from the city's general fund. And it seems like this upgraded system is a nice to have not need to have all the cameras. I'm just also curious, are the cameras being replacements entirely or that we adding to the system? The cost of replacing an operator full on removing graffiti and replacing glass seems like it would cost a lot less than $275,000. And I agree with the comments that have already been made around waiting to see where we go with the recommendations from the committees formed this summer so that we don't make that investment now. But it's our moral documents and how we spend money as a city demonstrates what we value as we continue to fight a pandemic. And citizens needs increase due to economic hardships exacerbated by COVID, that $275,000 from the general fund to be used elsewhere. I know that the FT Alameda program just launched, and if we were to take that $275,000, that would be the same as 11,000 meals that can be delivered to folks who are hungry during this pandemic, especially when APD budget is almost 40% of the city's budget. I think we need to defer this decision. And if APD wants new cameras, they need to allocate that in their own budget and not coming from the city's general fund.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Ms.. Couture. And our next.
Speaker 0: Speaker, Melody Montgomery.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Miss Montgomery.
Speaker 4: Hi. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I think that most of you all know that we're doing the committees. We're working hard out here with the reforming and the unbundling. And we we believe that you're all city council and city manager on our side and believing that this is a thing to be done. And if this is true, I'm asking that you respect the committee's work. Wait until we turn in our.
Speaker 2: Reports.
Speaker 4: And then see if this money can be found through unbundling services some place else rather than just try to throw it in early on.
Speaker 6: Something that we all know.
Speaker 4: The community said we didn't want to spend more money on police right now. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Miss Montgomery. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Isobel Sullivan.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. Sullivan.
Speaker 0: Hi. I urge you.
Speaker 4: To not approve.
Speaker 0: This new security camera system for the Alameda Police Department. This new system would cost nearly $275,000 coming out of the general fund at a time when many people are experiencing experiencing economic hardship due to COVID 19 and are without jobs and housing. And when many of your constituents are demanding a divestment from policing and a reinvestment in communities. Those $275,000 must be spent where the public.
Speaker 4: Is in need.
Speaker 0: A PD's budget accounts for nearly 40%.
Speaker 5: Of the city of Alameda. Total budget. If if.
Speaker 4: APD needs.
Speaker 0: A new camera system, APD should pay for it out of its own budget. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Miss Sullivan. Our next speaker at bowling. Good evening, Mr. BOLLING.
Speaker 6: Hi there. Yeah, I'm just a little concerned with that. This was brought up in in concern item and that in I respect like the LAPD may have done some research into finding vendors but this isn't a open bidding process to potentially look for something that may be cheaper. I just kind of cursorily Googling the vendor here and not to speak to all of them, but it looks as if they're a reseller of just algun camera products, Motorola along camera products. And if there's other vendors that sell those for cheaper or what their value add is on top of that, I'm curious to hear or if there's other products in this space. This seems like a a lot of money to spend on cameras and camera systems that I would like to see, like if there's any competitive bids out there. That's mostly what I've got. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Bowling, our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Steve Peres.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. Peres. Just you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Here we go. Hi. I'm just a mute. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak. I just would like to echo what my fellow Americans have said, and just I would like to encourage the council to look into the process for acquiring the cameras, maybe have a more thorough review process as part of the annual budgeting process as well. And also would echo the fact that we at the city spend what I think is an inordinate amount on policing. And I would encourage all of you to take a look at how we spend our funds. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next speaker at Cali State of new.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Yes. Hello. Good evening.
Speaker 5: Again. So I would also like to echo my fellow constituents that this budget request should be denied. People are hungry, they can't pay their bills, they're losing housing. And this request just seems so out of touch with this reality. And I would rather see this money used towards under funding, underfunded city services that are proven to increase community safety like health care, food security and housing security. I'm also very concerned with these cameras would be used to surveil protesters, especially given the timing of this request after a summer of protests in front of APD. And I believe that this request was first made in August 2020, right at the end of that summer. I also don't understand why we're considering this request right before the committees come back with their recommendations, just out of respect for the committees and also for the public. We should have an opportunity to weigh in on this before it's considered. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Just for clarification, either, Captain Ed, Mr. Levitt, I. I don't think it was first came first came to us in August 2020. Didn't I hear date?
Speaker 7: It didn't come to the city council. It came to me for as a request and then through my review and look.
Speaker 3: When was that? Mr..
Speaker 7: That was that was in August is when the police submitted it to me. But I didn't move it forward because I had concerns with the budget based on covert COVID at that time.
Speaker 3: Okay. I must have imagined hearing in November of 2019 was that not date night.
Speaker 1: That Madame Mayor.
Speaker 3: Kept captain?
Speaker 1: That was when I initiated looking into replacing our current system.
Speaker 3: Right, right, right. I did hear that. Okay. But I understand. So we're all correct. All right. Our next public speaker, Madam Kirk.
Speaker 0: Meredith Hoskin.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Ms.. Hoskin.
Speaker 4: Hello. Good evening, everyone. I also want to express my opposition to granting additional city funding to the Alameda Police Department at this time. I feel the 275 K in city funds would better support our community, particularly amidst the financial crisis many are facing during the COVID 19 pandemic. As the police department already has nearly 40% of the city's budget, I'd recommend they use those funds for their technical needs. Additionally, with the recent violence at our nation's capital on Wednesday, January six, and knowing some reports that representatives from police departments and public agencies from around the country were among the culprits involved in these attacks. The city of Alameda should not grant any additional funding to APD or other city departments until confirmed whether or not any of its officers and administrators were among the group of individuals who participated in the violent attack, violating their oath to uphold the Constitution and responsibilities to protect and serve. So please take that into consideration as we head into a mid-year budget.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Hoskin. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Vinny Camera.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. Camarillo.
Speaker 2: Hello.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You're right.
Speaker 2: On. Hello. Good evening. I actually serve on the Unbundling.
Speaker 6: Police Services Committee, and I am here in opposition of giving almost $275,000 to the police department when they already get 40% of city funding. They could use their own funding to pay for this absurd amount of money that would come from the general fund. And I believe that this is.
Speaker 2: Such bad.
Speaker 6: Timing when we are about to.
Speaker 2: Bring out.
Speaker 6: Our recommendations just six weeks from now. And when I heard that it was brought to city manager Eric Levitt in August, right after the major protests that me and a few others.
Speaker 2: Had organized it. The timing just seemed really off, and I'm concerned about.
Speaker 6: If protesters faces will be.
Speaker 2: Shown and their idea.
Speaker 6: I want their identities to be protected. And I just hope that you.
Speaker 2: Vote against this. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Camarillo. May we have a next speaker, Madam Clerk?
Speaker 0: Morgan Bellinger.
Speaker 3: Good evening.
Speaker 1: Good evening. I just. I just like to say that vandalism is cheap to fix. Terrorism is not. I don't understand how this can possibly be a focus of the police department when there's a white terrorist on the loose. Let's give the kids a wall to spray paint if they need a wall to spray paint. But let's let's find our terrorist first before we worry about kids vandalizing buildings.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Bell. And to our next speaker.
Speaker 0: That was our last speaker. We have no more speakers.
Speaker 3: All right. With that, I will close public comment and we will open it up to counsel discussion. I am going to just throw out a suggestion and you can see what you think. Counsel, I'm thinking maybe this isn't the right time to take this up for a number of the reasons stated and also the fact that we are coming up on budget hearings just next month. But I also want us to keep a couple of things in mind. I do think the timing is unfortunate for a number of reasons. There are a lot of issues that get conflated. However, I also take seriously the need to protect buildings where evidence of crimes, evidence that will be used to hopefully convict people of very serious crimes are stored. So whatever we do, let's make sure we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there are other ways to go about this funding to reexamine the scope and the nature of this request in the not too distant future, I think that that is something the Council might want to consider. But I, I actually look forward to hearing from everybody on the screen. Our representatives from our police department. City manager. Assistant city manager. And my council colleagues. So who wants to go first? Councilmember Desai I think I saw your hand up. Then I saw Councilmember Knox White and I think I saw the vice mayor said, okay, so does that not take Vela in that order, please?
Speaker 6: Very well. Thank you very much. I have to believe that when our city manager and his department heads along with staff people who are charged with preparing reports, I have to believe that when they prepare a report with a recommendation that they're they're doing so for serious reasons. And so the recommendation is to move forward with these cameras. And it's occurring tonight on on January 19th, 2021. There has to be a reason. Otherwise, no doubt that they would among themselves have talked about, you know, holding it back until February, if not May or June, when we do the two year. So so from that vantage point, I'm inclined to support the staff recommendation. I don't think there's support for the staff recommendation. I think there's support more for holding it off for several weeks. And I respect that. I understand that. You know, but from my vantage point, though, I think what what I'm weighing heavily is, is that that a recommendation is being made tonight for us to deliberate over and make a decision. And I have to believe that it was a serious. There is a reason that that our our staff made that kind of recommendation. There have been some issues that have been raised with regard to the equipment itself, issues regarding privacy. But in reading the staff report, clearly the staff report indicates that the equipment, if and when implemented, would be consistent with our city's privacy data collection and facial recognition policies. So so I think that issue is taken care of. But I do think, though, that that the need is there. I mean, given the number of of of of vandalism against the police department building, I think there's certainly a need for it. I think certainly there's there is debate among ourselves tonight whether the need should be decided on tonight or perhaps in three weeks in the context of other mid-year items, or perhaps deliberated in several months in May. But but I'm going to go with the staff's recommendation and supporting this for tonight. So I do think that we should move ahead with this, and that will be my suggestion.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember Desai. Councilmember knocks way.
Speaker 1: So assuming that's not a motion, I'll make a motion that we can discuss, which would be to continue this item until the mid-year budget cycle. But I would like to include direction that we wait until after we have heard from the community groups about the work we asked them to do back here that they were asked to do back in July of last year before making decisions about how we're prioritizing funding moving forward. So I think it's up to the city manager whether he wants to do it as part of the two year budget that comes to us in April and May and is approved in June and available in July. We've waited ten years. We were able to wait over a year for this to start being thought about to come into here. My guess is we can wait another four months without it. We've not heard that this is a major public safety issue. And so I would like to remember.
Speaker 3: KNOX Well, if I could ask you to make your motion and we'll get a second and then we'll do the further discussion, please.
Speaker 1: Sure. I'm just explaining my motion. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. That was the direction to staff right now with the Times, with your motion. Yes. Okay. So do you have a second to Councilmember? Not why motion? Vice Mayor.
Speaker 5: L.A.. I'll second it for the sake of discussion.
Speaker 3: Okay, so we've got 2 seconds. So.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Knox. Wait, I.
Speaker 3: Was just trying to get that second in there a bit. STAFF Did you get the direction from Councilmember? That's what they want to find out if there was any more. And City manager. Do you want to chime in on whether because I think there was a possible choice offered as to whether you want to roll this into the two year budget or can be for us on February 16th pending obviously council approval.
Speaker 2: Which go through your.
Speaker 3: You're you're muted.
Speaker 7: I think. I think it was that it as I understood the motion and you can correct me if I misunderstood was that it could come either in the mid-year or as part of the two year cycle, but not to be implemented. It would not go forward or be implemented until after the police committees had come forward to the city council in March to give their recommendations. If approved by the council, obviously. Is that correct or something?
Speaker 1: That is a fair summation. Okay.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 7: So I would likely probably bring in the two year budget just because that would be coming closer to the committees, because the two year would probably come forward for council. Discussion in May is what I'm guessing.
Speaker 3: So you would bring it back. Did I hear you say in March?
Speaker 7: No, I probably bring it in the May budget because by the time they close.
Speaker 3: The committee report in March. Is that correct? Okay. And I had heard quite a bit of commentary with a preference for finding the funding in the police budget as opposed to the general fund. COUNCILMEMBER That's why it is that part of your staff direction.
Speaker 1: That would certainly be my preference. Again, I definitely believe that if we're going to spend money, we should. When we're going dipping into the general fund, we are not competing against Paks, against all the unbundled or additional things that we have been saying we want to do, homeless response, etc.. So I would like to know how we have prioritized this for additional general fund funding. As the city manager and many of our speakers also pointed out, the police department is funded by our general fund so that their budget is the general fund. So I don't want to say.
Speaker 3: Yes, there is the budget is the general fund. But there is also a separate segment that is specifically the police budget. You're you're giving the director I was just trying to understand it for clarification sake.
Speaker 1: So they went to the city manager to make the case.
Speaker 3: Okay, fair enough. And did you have any further direction you want to add?
Speaker 1: No, I think that's okay then.
Speaker 3: Vice Mayor Mel, vice mayor of L.A., you're the next speaker.
Speaker 5: So I mean, I have a few concerns. This is the second time there's been a presentations since I've joined the Council with a request from our police department to purchase surveillance equipment that was not you know, did not go through an open bidding process. So that's that's something that concerns me, that there's a lot of staff time being put in, and I appreciate the staff time, but typically the way that we see things is, hey, we like this technology. Then it comes to council, we approve a budget for it based off of some like early estimates. And then and then we go out to bid so that that process concerns me. But I'm not putting that on on anyone in particular. There were different people involved with each one. It's just that's the process that we use in for for a number of other things. I would like to see that used relative to surveillance equipment. The second thing is I, I have concerns about some of the areas that that want that there is a desire to film. I have I have concerns based off of whether or not surveillance of those areas creates free speech issues. I certainly I understand safety concerns. However, I also have concerns about who has access to the to the footage, what exactly is being kept. It seems like we want very clear footage of everything, the fact that we're filming the public parking lot. Well, you know, where we don't have diagrams of what's particularly being filmed in the areas in question, just the mounting pictures. I think that's you know, I would need more information about like what's the what what areas are we filming? I'm personally not comfortable with it. I think it's it's problematic for me, especially in light of the fact that we've had a number of demonstrations and people gathering in these areas. We have not had any issues to date of break ins that I've heard of. So it seems like we're spending or proposing the ask us to spend a lot of money for something that has not been a problem. I'm not saying that that's always the approach. Sometimes we want to be proactive, but I think the scope of what the request is is pretty extensive. And I also just wonder if we have or we know we're going to have other requests. We have technology. The reason I was asking the questions about what else or do we have video surveillance of, you know, it seems like we do this very piecemeal throughout the city where we acquire technology here and there and we do it segmented as opposed to kind of across the board upgrades. So that also is just something that seems odd that we would do it that way rather than have a coherent system. So that that is just another thing that I would like us to look at. I'm actually based off of the current proposal as is we can move this. I'm not prepared to support it. I think the expenditure is fairly high. I'd like to have the conversation relative to the two year budget. I would also like to hear from our committees. I wonder if this was presented to the committees or contemplated by them. I also think that the scope of what we're trying to film is fairly extensive and beyond what I feel comfortable with. And whenever we're surveilling members of the public, I'd like to balance the privacy concerns and the overreach concerns with the safety concerns, and I just don't see that being met here. Thanks.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilmember Spencer, did you have anything you wanted to add?
Speaker 2: Yes, I could go ahead and take my turn now. First, I want to thank members not like for pulling this item. I'm glad we're having this discussion. In regards to the motion, I actually well, my concern goes to the subcommittees apparently are not going to come back until March. The Molly Watkins incident was May 23rd. And I really have a problem with the secret meetings. I'm sorry. They're happening behind closed doors. The public is not part of it. And this is really a public incident. It's a public issue. We have many speakers tonight speak in regards to our police. So personally, I have concerns about the ongoing subcommittees happening in private. I actually think it skirts the Brown Act and it definitely skirts the purpose of the Brown Act in regards to this is government. And I think they should be meeting publicly just like we are and to the public in calling, we've heard from many speakers tonight that have been have not been given that opportunity throughout the course of it. So I personally would like to hear from the subcommittee sooner rather than later. I, I do want to also hear from our police and I think and then our public so that we are having actually a public conversation dialog of where we are going as a city in regards to policing. But honestly, in regards to March, I don't understand why it takes so long incident with May 23rd. I think that needs to come back immediately because that is going to be a robust conversation. Rest assured, we've had probably ten speakers for each item that has anything to do with policing tonight, including the public comment early on. I expect many participants from across the you know, across the political spectrum on every issue of it. So I personally would like to hear from the subcommittee soon, immediately. So I don't I'm not going to be able to support it. So I have concerns about supporting the motion that waits until March and then April alone. Like not the let's focus on the direction of our police. Make that decision needs to be made council. It needs to come to council. Council needs to make the decision and then we need to move forward with it, whatever it is that's so personally, I. I don't know if there's any way to get the subcommittee to go public soon and we can hear from them. But then honestly, at some point it does come back to council councilors from our police, and then we decide what direction we're taking on all these items. And in regards to the police request from APD. What I was looking for was in regards to the public, the safety of the officers, the safety of the public, things like that. And I didn't hear that. I don't think many of us are installing masks or whatnot, whether we are calling cameras in our homes because we're concerned about safety. To rest assured, we're not spending $275,000 to do it. And it is my understanding that the quality of the film we're getting can be used as it's good enough for vandalism and assault. I didn't hear the concern that really low as to why we need to spend it now especially and when I heard a lot of things like that for incidents that happen. Sounds like November 2019 or something like that. So and so personally and I would say this was sitting out here, a few thought that this was urgent or whatnot. Then the money we should have found the money. If this is an urgent request, it was very is it really that level back when the issues came? This is not that I would actually be looking for a different motion. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Harry Spencer. So we had a motion in the second and I'm going to add my comments before we move on, although we did have a couple of questions. City Manager Leavitt, can you remind us? I do think there's some public forums having to do with the police reform process and subcommittees and seeking the public's input. Can you remind us when that is or assistant city manager and whoever has that information?
Speaker 7: I don't have all the specifics in from it, but I think that starting this week, reports from the committees are being released with a series of different surveys as well as public meetings. I think the first public meeting may be this Friday, if I remember correctly, or I think there's a different series as well as them going to the different commissions. I think they're going to be going to the Transportation Commission and Srgb, for instance. So I think they're going to a variety of different public bodies to report, as well as trying to get input and feedback from the public in different forums.
Speaker 3: And actually, like magic, I have heard from our our city public information officer, Sara Henry, who says the forum is this Friday, January the 22nd, this Thursday, January 21st. The reports and surveys will be released live. They'll be made live on the city's website, I guess. And what time is the forum?
Speaker 6: 6:30 p.m..
Speaker 3: Thank you, Jerry. And so it's a Zoom forum like this one and. Okay. Yes.
Speaker 6: So if you go to if you search for police reform and racial equity, city of Alameda, okay, you land on the Web page and the Zoom information is there.
Speaker 3: Perfect. Thursday, the reports and the survey will be live. Okay. So the public survey has been out for a while.
Speaker 7: No. It's going out this week, I believe.
Speaker 3: Oh, okay. Got it. That's the reports will be released and the survey will be released. So this is the beginning of the public process just for members of the public who who are interested. And I hope and I am sure that there are many so that there's that housekeeping detail. And then we have a participant to the police department representatives. There has been there have been a couple of comments about the open bidding process. Was it was it followed that this was a single source or in any way it wasn't put out to public bid? Can either she Sen or Capt Emmett or. I think I'd start with you and this city manager. Assistant City Manager. Want to chime in? Captain Emmett and muted. So, yes, you're up. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I see you. Technologies as a GSA approved company which says.
Speaker 3: General Services Administration of the state of California.
Speaker 1: Correct. So they had to go through a vetting process to obtain that. That title. And what that typically means is that they are going to come in at or below the lowest bid that you would receive during an RFP process.
Speaker 3: Okay. All right. Did anyone want to comment on that? Councilmember Natalie. No. Okay. Okay. Thank you for that. And. And then just talk to us about the concern that has been expressed about the facial recognition capabilities of any surveillance cameras. And the concern, I think, about people exercising their First Amendment rights, possibly outside the police department. Yeah. You're kind of on the hot seat, I think, unless who. Who kept an idea from you? I think it sounds like you're closest to this equipment, if that's correct.
Speaker 1: So even if the vigilant cameras do have facial recognition is it is not our intention to use that. We would we would not we would not use the cameras in that fashion. We would not use that technology. As far as the the concern for recording folks that are walking in around our building, whether it be for protest or just day to day moving in and about, it's it's not our intention to to have those folks recorded on security camera systems. Our intention, as is with our current system, is to help one, keep our employees safe, to provide situational awareness to the folks that work in our building and to help her protect or at least have a starting point of being able to go back and investigate if our property and evidence rooms were tampered with. And same thing with our access to our building. You know, even though it may not have, even though it hasn't happened, I think there's the whether the potential is smaller. Great. We would not want folks getting into our building when they weren't allowed to to be there. And the the new system would help again, to give us some situational awareness where we could live stream to certain parts of our department where they are staff 24 seven like our communication center, our records clerks. You know, right now during COVID, they do need to verify if people come to the building for a service. And this would help to readily identify those those folks and who they're meeting, meeting with prior to walking out the doors. And again, our intention is not to record peaceful protests. Any type of protest that happens in and around our building. It is to help secure the safety of our employees and our property and evidence that we do maintain.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you for that explanation. So we've had a motion. We've had a second, I would add, with the permission of the maker of the motion, with your consent, if you agree. I would also like to add direction to staff to come back with a refined use policy for this equipment that would address, say, the the concerns about the facial recognition aspect of the of this equipment.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I'm happy to do that. Your comment, actually, if I may, reminds me, we have a surveillance policy that requires such a report to accommodate such a request for purchase of the equipment. So actually, while I appreciated that the staff report says this is consistent with all the policies, it didn't actually bring that. Councilmember Vela's comments in your request to remind me that it didn't actually come with that report. And so I would imagine that when it comes forward in the future that that required report that accompanied it.
Speaker 3: Was and that would maybe satisfy the concerns raised by myself and the vice mayor. That's not what.
Speaker 1: I would be happy to give that direction.
Speaker 3: Okay. And Vice Mayor, would you still be happy to second that?
Speaker 5: With with that direction. I also I still have the question of I get that they're GSA approved, but that GSA approved just means they're approved for a specific type of technology. And pursuant to the report that's required, making sure that they're compliant with that, I do still think that there needs to be some sort of process. So I do have a concern with saying this is the vendor that we are are in fact going to use. I'm just going to put that out there.
Speaker 3: So are you asking for this to go out to bid or again or.
Speaker 5: I just think that there could potentially be issues being compliant with the existing policy if this vendor does not meet the requirements that we previously set forth.
Speaker 3: Okay. I think that.
Speaker 5: If the technology or if the technology is not so, I don't know how to address that in the motion. I see.
Speaker 3: I see that right now. Right. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Can I just recommend that we just ask staff when they come back to show us how to to confirm with whoever vendor they are recommending, whether through the GSA or through an RFP, that they understand the requirements of our surveillance facial recognition ban and other ordinances. What that what has to be turned on and off in order for this to be a compliant system and that they can meet that.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: You know, personally, I don't have a problem with that using the GSA process. It has its pros and cons, but in government, if we require an RFP, it's going to be another year and a half before we see we see this come back. And if it's deemed a priority, I don't want to set this back another 18 months.
Speaker 3: Okay. So okay, Stephanie, look into that. Okay. We've had a motion. We've had a subcommittee. We have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 0: Not quite.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 0: Spencer.
Speaker 2: So I had a clarifying question. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. I just. Real quick, I just wanted to confirm that we would, in fact, hear from the subcommittee prior to the mid-year budget.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's what this is. Do you want to run that by us again?
Speaker 7: You would hear from the subcommittee prior to this item being approved. The mid-year budget is actually coming, the second meeting of February, which is before the subcommittees come in March. But I would move this to the regular budget in May for you so that you'd have the subcommittees before you heard it.
Speaker 2: All right. So if if APD has any other financial request at the mid-year, then we won't be hearing them. Is that what I'm hearing? Say.
Speaker 3: You know what? Let's just stick to this particular item. So we're talking about the motion in front of it. Thank you. Okay. So where were we on the roll call vote? Madam Clerk.
Speaker 0: Spencer?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 0: Villa. I may or as the Ashcroft high that carries 3 to 2.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. I'm Captain Emmett, especially interim chief fan and Mr. Levitt and Mr. Burton, for all your input and counsel, for your good discussion. Okay. Moving right along. It has taken us a while to get out of a consent calendar. Is it okay? We have finished. I didn't quite see. So we move down to item five I and that was pulled by Councilmember Desert, correct? Yes. Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 6: Great. Well, thank you very much. This item has to do with a density bonus residential project around the intersection of Broadway and Santa Clara Avenue for the residents who are watching tonight and. It's it's the site of the old for those tennis tennis enthusiasts in Alameda, the old site of the drumline tennis instructions, the Murphey site.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Purchase Agreement, or in the Alternative a Lease Agreement, for a New Security Camera System from ICU Technologies for the Police Administration Building and Off-Site Property Storage Facilities in an Amount Not to Exceed $274,075.97. (Police 3116)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_01192021_2021-8564
|
Speaker 6: So yeah and you know for a forever the late Mr. Murphy was certainly concerned about measure a so I think having this project move forward, I would I would think that that he's probably looking down and saying finally. But, you know, that perspective on this project notwithstanding, I do have some concerns about this project. And the concern is this is that this this project is taking advantage of what's called the density bonus ordinance, which is understandable. But I think it's taking advantage of a density bonus ordinance in ways at least the way that the project is currently characterized is taking advantage of the density bonus ordinance in ways that don't meet. The reason why we have the density bonus ordinance in the first place and we have that in the first place, is because the the idea behind the density bonus law is that the building, the construction of affordable housing is so exorbitant such that in order to assist, in order to encourage the development of affordable housing and this project would have a to very low income housing housing in order to encourage that. State law and local law, which has accepted the state law, allows developers to build an additional amount of units on top of what non density local rules allow. So but, but when I look at this project though, there are not the way that is characterized right now. They're not building, they're not constructing very low income housing. What they're doing is they're saying because the Murphy area, the project area has 22 existing residential units right now there are 22 existing residential units. So what they're doing is saying is that two of the existing units will be designated as very low income housing units. And so they're not building two very low income housing units. They're rather designating two units that are already there. So there is no actual costs that are being borne by the by the the developer. Certainly they want to build nine market rate unit houses. So so I understand that. But in order to qualify from my reading of things, in order to qualify for the density bonus, they would have had to have experienced the triggering event that requires them to to, to, requires them to experience before having the getting the bonus and the triggering events is experiencing some kind of costs that's associated with the building of of affordable housing. But because they're not building affordable housing, rather the rather they're designating two units that already exist as very low income housing. I don't see how the project as currently characterized meets the density bonus. Now that's the first part of it, but if you do it in another way, you can actually do the project where you can still come out while my math is 11 actually. But, but let's just accept that nine you can still build nine units if you just simply have the two very low income units as part of the new construction. So two out of the nine oh could be very low income. They have to be newly constructed. My my math is that they're actually eligible for 11, but if they want to go for nine. Okay, that's fine. So if they went that route, I think I think the density bonus law would certainly kick out.
Speaker 3: So, Mr. Desai, I can remember dislike I, I can see why you pulled this. I'm thinking what might be useful to the entire council and the public who's trying to follow along is to get a brief staff report. I see that we have magically on screen have appeared are planning building and transportation director Andrew Thomas in the fabulous related Tampa Bay City Attorney's office have been working on this project. Let's have for the benefit of all of us that staff report it can be abbreviated and then we will come back to your clarifying questions and probably those of other council members in any public comments we have. But before you go too far into your concerns, I wanted to just have a chance to to allow staff to give their report. Yes.
Speaker 6: If I could just say for 10 seconds, though, and I also have apprized staff of my concerns also. So they're they're very well aware of how I'm framing my concerns.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 3: That is only one of my concerns. But you've got nine more seconds. Go ahead, don't you, then? Very economical. You've got 5 seconds left now. We have more time of your clock. Okay, Mr. Thomas, may we hear from you and Ms.. Chan? Chime in whenever. Whenever you deem appropriate. So please.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mayor. As the Ashcraft. Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's. That's good.
Speaker 1: Here you go. It's a 1.29 acre parcel. It has 22 units already on the land occupied within 11 buildings under state density bonus. This project could actually get up to 35 units. In this case, they are only asking to build nine for a total of 31, the nine plus the 22 that already exist under state density bonus . If the developer makes two units available for very low income households. And what that means is a permanent deed restriction. So essentially what they're doing is council member they Saugus. Correct. They're taking two existing housing units that already exist but are market rate with no caps on on permissible rent. And they will be they will be deed restricted to be affordable to very low income households in perpetuity. And that will be managed and supervised by the Alameda Housing Authority. So they could actually do as Councilmember de Sau correctly pointed out, they could do more than nine units, but in this case, they've chosen only to do nine . So they do qualify for the density bonus and you don't have to build new units for those very low, you just have to make.
Speaker 6: The two units available to. Very well with that I'll.
Speaker 1: If I'm available to answer any questions I think Selena chan would like to add.
Speaker 3: Is Ms.. Chen. Just go ahead and mute. Thank you. See you.
Speaker 5: You as well. Good evening, Mayor. Council members. I just wanted to clarify. State law requires a deed restriction for the two units for a minimum of 55 years. Andrew, are you aware? I can't remember off the top of my head what our inclusionary ordinance requires. But if it's longer than 55 years, then obviously it would be that that longer term. But yeah, I just wanted to make that clarification.
Speaker 1: I can't.
Speaker 3: Hear. What was the clarification, Andrew? Is our city. So state law requires a 55 year?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Under state law, it's a 55 year deed restriction. The which of course, they will have. The way it works here in Alameda is that it's a rolls. So essentially when the when whenever it changes hands or the tenant changes, it goes for another 55 years. So essentially an Alameda ends up being sort of in perpetuity.
Speaker 3: Okay. I see how you're using in perpetuity. Okay. So so every time there's a new tenant, we just set the clock back.
Speaker 1: The. The. But in this case, I mean, the key point here just in response to Councilmember De Sox question, state law does not require that it be than two new units. It can be provision of just two units. Examples under state law, for example, you can get a density bonus under state law, even for a condominium conversion of an existing apartment building. So the concept of making existing units affordable to very low or low income households is something that's embedded in the state law itself.
Speaker 3: And I might observe that it is one of the most economical ways around to provide housing to very low income category because it doesn't require any construction.
Speaker 1: From from SAP's perspective, we also like this approach because it's to two units immediately into our affordable housing. Cool. We don't have to wait for them to be constructed. It's also in this case. So an effort was made to identify existing tenants who were already in the units who already qualified. So we will not be displacing anyone as what as well. So it's in this in this particular case, it's working out quite nicely.
Speaker 3: Will these units count toward our Rina requirements?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Back to you, Councilmember De. So did you have further concerns? Okay. I'm sorry, what did you say?
Speaker 2: I just said let others matter.
Speaker 3: Okay. Very good. Okay. Does anyone, madam, click. Do we have any public comment?
Speaker 0: We have one speaker.
Speaker 3: When? Speaker. Okay, before we hear our public speaker, did we have any other clarifying questions from the council? Councilmember Spencer.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Dr. Thomas, could you clarify the two existing units where the tenants are going to carry through what those units are like? How old are they for? Are they one bedroom? Can you describe the two sustained units?
Speaker 1: Yes, I believe they're both one bedroom units. The final the way this the way that the entitlements are structured, the property developers and owners need to execute an affordable housing agreement with the city of Alameda before they do the final map or pull a building permit. So all the details have not been fully negotiated yet, which is standard at this stage of the game. But I believe and I can get confirmation on that during before hopefully somebody will text me the answer to that question. But I believe it's to single family homes. I mean, excuse me, two, one bedroom units that are being proposed.
Speaker 2: All right. And could you also speak to the parking of it's going to be at this development. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Founded the the the applicant in this case was eligible for. Yes. It's two one bedroom. I the magic of text just arrived. So there's two one bedroom units. In this case, the developers were eligible to waive the parking requirements under state density bonus, but they chose to provide two parking split and maintain existing parking for all the 22 units. The existing parking supply of the exists for the existing and then for the new nine units provide two spaces per unit.
Speaker 2: Okay. And were there any concerns from the neighbors, any letters from the neighbors or opposition from the neighbors?
Speaker 1: I believe we received at the planning board, we received a letter from one of the existing tenants who was concerned about the. Who is concerned about the loss of the tennis courts as far as areas for recreating the nine units are being built on basically on land that had been developed by the former property owners, the Murphys as well for two tennis courts and and a basketball court. So that's where the nine units are going there in the interior of the block. They're not facing the street, so they're behind the existing homes. And one of the tenants was concerned about the loss of those tennis courts. The planning board and the applicants work together to make the new common open space. There are some internal courtyards and and and common areas for tenants to to recreate and have outdoor space. And that space will be available to the tenants of the existing units as well.
Speaker 2: And do you know if any of the new units will have balconies or outside space for just their family?
Speaker 1: Yes, they will.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. Any further? No. Okay. So if there are no further clarifying questions from council, we have one public speaker, is that correct? Ms. WEISBERGER.
Speaker 0: Now we have to.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 3: We have two adjacent public speakers have to attend a bid of 3 minutes each. So let's have our first public speaker.
Speaker 0: Zach BOLLING.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. BOLLING.
Speaker 6: I just quickly now, I followed this project through a planning board, and I like this proposal a little bit better than some of the earlier designs that were put up, and that.
Speaker 1: It's a great use of some underutilized space, these two.
Speaker 6: Tennis courts underutilized. And to put housing, there is a good boon for us, especially with our our arena allocation that we have to deal with, which is something that is staring us in the face that we have to deal with. These units are going to help in any way possible and the two affordable units will are greatly appreciated. And that's what I think.
Speaker 3: You and Speaker.
Speaker 0: Jay Garfinkel.
Speaker 3: Mr. Garfinkel.
Speaker 6: Hello. I would ask you to clarify. Are all of the existing units owned by a single party? Well, the they are. And so the developer doesn't have to specifically buy or pay for the two units that are going to be converted to low income. That's one question. The other is, will this count as nine market rate and too affordable for the Reno County? Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Chris, this is public comment, not Q&A. But I think the.
Speaker 6: Answer.
Speaker 3: Is, well, if you Mr. Thomas, if you wanted.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Just real quick. Yes, we will get for the arena. We'll get nine new units plus two new. Not they're not new units, but two affordable units which were not affordable prior to approving the project. So. And then the applicant all the all the the 22 existing units in the 11 existing buildings are all sitting on one large parcel. This is a tentative map. So what this is doing is it's creating 11 parcels for the 11 existing buildings and then a 12th parcel, which is the tennis courts parcel, which will be the nine. The nine townhomes will be on the 12th parcel.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. All right. We've had public comment. We've had, I think, council questions. Do we have a motion? Councilmember Knox.
Speaker 1: Slate I'm going to make a motion and I'm going to watch his head when he starts shaking his head. No, I'm going off. So I'm going to make one comment as I'm making my motion. My motion. My understanding is we are approving a tentative map of the density bonus application, and neither of these are tied to the development plan that was made that has been approved. And that actually we can't say we don't like what the project looks like in denying either one of these things that they are a separate thing. So given that this is almost ministerial, we just have to find that our staff, professional staff, legal and planning have reviewed the density bonus application correctly and come to the proper thing. I'm going to move approval to density bonus application and the tentative map as proposed by Salkeld.
Speaker 3: All right. We have a motion to have a second. Vice Mayor. Bill, I see your second. All right, we've had a motion, a second matter of May. We have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 0: Not quite.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Spencer.
Speaker 2: Do we get to discuss the motion after they make the motion?
Speaker 3: Oh, sure we do. Okay, let's. Yes, the motion is the same one that's been before as it hasn't been amended. But let's discuss. Why don't we start with you, council member Spencer.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Going back to Director Tallman, while I understand the motion. I just want it it sounds like there are already plans to add it to include some sort of balconies or outside areas per house. And as much as I appreciate that, that may not be enough. So so I'm I plan to support this if that is happening, because for me, here we are in a pandemic. I think it is important that people have some sort of private areas for their family. And I think it's so. So that's what I'm looking for. And then I do and I also appreciate the during the parking spaces and then that the neighbors seem to be supportive.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilor Spencer. Any further discussion? Okay. So hearing no further discussion and I'll just throw in I think this is a great project as well and it adds more well needed housing as has been noted. So I think that you got partway through the the roll call. Madam Clerk, I know you know where you are.
Speaker 0: Here, Spencer.
Speaker 2: Yes. Because that's where it is.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Bella. I may or as the Ashcroft I that carries by four eyes one now.
Speaker 3: Wonderful. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Thank you so much, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chan, nice to see you. Okay, so moving on, we have we come to item five our.
Speaker 0: Final passage of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute lease amendments for rent relief programs to Rockwall Winery and St George Spirits to the Loan Conversion Assistance Program for rent relief in response to the COVID 19 pandemic.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Adoption of Resolution Approving Tentative Map Tract 8534 and Density Bonus Application PLN19-0448 to Subdivide a 1.29-Acre Property into Twelve Lots Located at 2607 to 2619 Santa Clara Avenue and 1514 to 1518 Broadway. (Planning, Building and Transportation 481001)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_01192021_2021-8337
|
Speaker 0: The introduction of ordinance amending the missile code by amending Article 15 rent control, limitations on evictions and relocation payments to certain displaced tenants to adapt and incorporate provisions concerning capital improvement plans for rental units in the city of Alameda. And we are promoting the other staff.
Speaker 3: As the safe.
Speaker 0: Right now.
Speaker 3: All right. And counsel, you know, this is all a matter of time management. We will get as far as we possibly can. We don't have to feel that we we don't have to take our entire 9 minutes that are allocated to us. But if you do, it just means we probably get less and less territory covered. So who is presenting this item?
Speaker 0: I believe. Michael Roche.
Speaker 3: Michael Roche, there he is. Good evening. There he is. Hi.
Speaker 6: Nice to be here in council. How are you? I've been with you all. All evening. You know, rather than be here.
Speaker 1: We had a slide presentation. But I think in.
Speaker 6: Light of where the council is, why don't we just open it up to questions? And if the questions become more complex, we can either refer to the slides. But I think the council's generally aware of the of the issues with rent control, etc..
Speaker 1: So unless the council objects. Why don't we jump.
Speaker 6: Into clarifying questions?
Speaker 3: You know what I'd like to ask you? What I would like to ask you do Mr. Roush is just give a brief overview for members of the public. So they just bring them along with us and then we'll go into our clarifying questions.
Speaker 6: The the issue is a capital improvement plan policy. And what this would allow landlords to do would be to make certain improvements to their property. These improvements have to be substantial. They can't just be routine repairs or maintenance. They would be they would have to be a total of $25,000 and the overall amount and 20 $500 per unit in terms of the improvement. But if they make those improvements, then they would be allowed to pass through those costs to the tenants. So that's the that's the overarching principles of this. And the goal is to encourage landlords to improve the housing stock of the community. But the ordinance is set up in such a way that tenants will not be displaced because of this, which I think is an important aspect. They won't be displaced temporarily during this. The work cannot be done with the tenants safely in the building. And the other part of it is that tenants will know what the pass through amount is upfront, and so they can make an informed decision whether they want to pay that when the work is done or else they can tell the landlord, No, I'm not willing to pay that. And the landlord then has the option of not imposing the pass through on the tenant or having the tenant find alternative housing, in which case the landlord would have to pay permanent relocation payments. But the idea is to keep tenants in place, have landlords, make improvements of a substantial nature.
Speaker 1: Have that cost amortized over a.
Speaker 6: 15 year period in order to increase the housing stock, yet keep the tenants in place.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Roush, and nice to see the rest of staff there on screen. Okay, Counsel, any clarifying questions before we get to our public speakers? Councilmember Spencer and then Councilmember Knox Way.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Um, Tony Roush. We received, uh, I think opposition to this from the Alameda local, um, the realtors group and I. And part of their concern was that the number I guess is too high, the 25,000 to do a lot of the work that they think they need to do to cover most of the eligible major capital improvements and whatnot. I assume you got this letter. Can you discuss, you know, why we're here to support this or how this makes sense? Where you came by the 25,000 or so that they can keep the units that are good enough condition.
Speaker 6: Certainly the.
Speaker 1: $25,000.
Speaker 6: Was sort of a staff driven number, thinking that the improvements ought to be so substantial that it's that most of the improvements that we have listed there in the ordinance are such that it's likely to cost that much. You're talking typically about, say, new utilities, new new plumbing, new electrical, new h-back for the whole the whole building you're talking about typically painting the whole outside of the building. Often we are we also added converting the the gas to electrical. All of those things we believe would probably be $25,000. But if the council is not comfortable with that number. It certainly could reduce that number, say 25 to 15 or something else. We just felt that that was a a good solid number that would warrant the kind of capital improvement that the list contemplates.
Speaker 3: Grandpa Spencer.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you. So was there outreach to the these groups or this group to find out what is the number that they would be comfortable with?
Speaker 6: We met with the we met with the group in August and we did discuss the number with them. At that time, the number was was certainly higher than that. And as a result of that, we did reduce the number. But again, I understand the concern that that some of the landlord community has, that the number is still too high. But we feel if, for example, if a new group was only 15 or $20,000, that perhaps there would be other capital improvements that could be undertaken at the same time in order to get to the $25,000 threshold
Speaker 2: . Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay, counselor. Did you like your Heather?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do. So, you guys, there's nothing I. I'm asking just. Just so that there's awareness of my thinking before the public comment, but there would be nothing from prohibiting us from actually delaying the implementation of the pass through till later in the year given the COVID crisis. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Thank you. And can you just add sorry, the question, how is how is a new roof, which is a you need to do it every 20 to 30 years. So it's actually just maintenance. Can you describe can you talk about how the how this process identifies what's just routine maintenance and what's a large capital project?
Speaker 6: Well, the the way it's set up, it's talking about a new roof that I think, as you suggest, isn't going to occur every four or five years. It's going to be a 15 or 20 or 25 year before a new roof is on. The amortization period for these proposed improvements is 15 years, which we feel is a reasonable amount given all the various improvements. So again, you know, we kind of looked at all of the items generically, felt that if we took it out to say 20 or 25 years, it probably wouldn't result in a a very high or not a high enough pass through to encourage landlords to make the improvements now. And by by doing the 15 years, we felt that that would be more encouragement to make these kind of capital improvements as they are needed.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Any other clarifying questions? Council counts over Spencer.
Speaker 2: Thank you. One more. So my understanding is that Oakland, for instance, has a CSP program modeled after Santa monica that has a whole list of approved a list of approved improvements that can be amortized over different periods. Why aren't we seeing after that?
Speaker 6: The Santa monica ordinance. And Mr. Shane can certainly Chip can chime in on this. It is not the same kind of of a capital improvement plan provisions that we're suggesting in the Santa monica situation. It's done as part of what's called a fair return process so that the amortized cost becomes a an operating expense against the revenue that a landlord then uses to determine whether or not the landlord is getting a fair return. So it's a much different process. And we felt we felt that this process that we're suggesting really is more is more beneficial in terms of encouraging landlords to make the improvements rather than through a fair return process, which might be seen as discouraging landlords from undertaking that process.
Speaker 1: Also under a fair return process. And this process that we're suggesting.
Speaker 6: Here can be done administratively through the program administrator. If we go to a fair return process for capital improvements, it will require petitions, hearings by a hearing officer. And again, that's going to just be more difficulty, we think, for most landlords, especially landlords with have to have fewer units. And that's why we're suggesting that it be a more simplified process as set forth in the ordinance.
Speaker 3: Okay. Any further clarifying questions? Then I understand we have. Oh, I'm sorry. Vice President's your hand up by square villa.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I did have a question about why we're moving. Moving away from the net, operating the A.I. to this new structure. What would staff's reasoning for that? For making that proposal.
Speaker 6: We're not moving away from it. Right now, it is a stand alone item in itself and in fact, the way it is set up right now. If a person had gone through the capital improvement plan process, they would have added that amount not as a pass through, but it actually would be added to the tenant's rent as a rent increase. And therefore the annual general adjustments would be based on a higher number than what's been suggested here. So we're not moving we're not we're not moving away from the fair return process. The fair return process is a separate way. And certainly if the council is interested in in in having that, we could come back with that. But we're not changing the matter. We're just sort of fine tuning, as it were, the current policy.
Speaker 3: And for you. Yes. Okay. So with that, we're going to go to our public speakers. How many do we have?
Speaker 0: We have two public speakers already.
Speaker 3: Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Tony Grim.
Speaker 3: Good evening. This Grim.
Speaker 4: But evening, everyone. I hope the City Council will take a serious look at the concept of past rules and the effect they have on rent increases. This may not be the only pass to request that you will receive. In my opinion, passives has the potential to destroy the protection of the Rent Cap Council Pass Ordinance 32 safety. After hearing from two consultant reports that the disparity of income between renters and property owners was increasing, as well as the rise in the percentage of income that renters have to use just for rent. What good does it do to establish a rent cap and then add on to it with pass rules? It clearly goes against the intention of the rent cap ordinance. In this particular case, the proposed department ordinances looking at amateur possession theories of 15 to 30 years for a continued pass through in addition to an increase every year . This is a heavy burden, and I completely disagree with Attorney Ross respectfully that it won't lead to displacement. I think it will lead to displacement. One more point that I'd like to make since I have more time. I do not believe that guaranteeing a fair rate of return will discourage a landlord from making property improvements. Why should it? It really shouldn't. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Greer. My next speaker.
Speaker 0: Aaron Pauling.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Ms.. Pauling. Just mute. Miss Pauline. Are you able to mute? Madam Clerk.
Speaker 4: Oh, there you are.
Speaker 3: There you.
Speaker 4: Are. So sorry. So. Good evening, Council. The Alameda Renters Coalition believes strongly that City Council should not implement a new capital improvement plan in pass through during the local emergency period. The City Council has already passed an emergency ordinance for this same period to protect renters against the economic hardship of rent increases and displacement. If you do choose to proceed, our request that the changes not begin until after the time period renters are given to pay back rent due to COVID. And we strongly, strongly oppose the pass through. And I agree and agree strongly with Tony Graham on how can guaranteeing landlords a fair return somehow prevent them from this process. Having these kind of automatic pass through is a way that most large complexes and investors basically undo the work of having a rent or rent cap. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And that was our last public speaker.
Speaker 2: Yes, that was.
Speaker 3: So with that, we we closed public comment. Councilmember Knox White. Remind me for you, was that a motion you were making in the beginning?
Speaker 1: No, but I'd be happy to make one just for discussion.
Speaker 3: Sure. Well, I'm going to be lovely for.
Speaker 1: The staff recommendation with the following adjustment that while the well the capital improvement program can, people can start applying for it, no pass through. Payments will be allowed to start until January 1st of 2021.
Speaker 3: Okay. Do we have a choice?
Speaker 0: You said 2021. I think you mean 22.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That's what Michael. Michael as well. Yeah. 20, 22.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: It sounded right to me. Do we have a second for that? For the for council. And that's why it's motion. Vice Mayor Vella.
Speaker 5: All second for the sake of discussion.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's have a discussion. Let's have a expeditious discussion. Who wants to lead? Councilmember Daisuke.
Speaker 6: Great. Well, thank you. You know, I'm just going to quickly comment this way. I think we really should be working closely with the small mom and pop landlords in understanding what the right number is. It sounds to me the 25,000 threshold is is a number that's generated in city hall. And I'm not frankly sure that city hall is is the right place to generate the number. I think we we have the experience and capacity to evaluate numbers. But but I think we really should be working with smaller mom and pop landlords on that. And for that reason, I won't be supporting the motion. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember de SAC. Other comments? Okay. I will go. I think I am comfortable with the vice mayors, vice mayor or the former vice mayors. Motion seconded by the current vice mayor. Because I do worry about the condition of our rental housing stock, and I think that it is very reasonable to delay any implementation in the applications until January of 2022. And I think that I am satisfied with the the analysis and the thought that staff has put into this. So by spirit, did you want to. You seconded the motion that we have heard from you?
Speaker 5: Yeah. My my only concern was a couple of concerns, but one is, is that I am concerned about it the starting faster than the 12 months beyond the period of the state of emergency. So I don't know if the maker of the motion is amenable to changing it to that.
Speaker 3: Okay. Just words that are sent that you want to throw something out.
Speaker 5: But just to amend the motion to have it not go into effect until 12 months from the end of the declaration of the state of emergency.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I support that.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: And I. This is a council policy. It's an ordinance or an ordinance. Ordinances obviously can be amended. I do think that there potentially are problems with the calculation of the pass through and the duration of time potentially. But I for the sake of this motion and trying to start addressing some of the concerns relative, I'd be amenable to voting for this tonight.
Speaker 3: Okay. So I believe we've all had a chance to speak. Madam, quick, may we have the motion and the roll call vote?
Speaker 0: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 0: Not quite.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 0: Spencer.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 0: Velma. I may or as the Ashcroft I. That carries 3 to 2.
Speaker 3: Thank you. All right. With that, we move quickly. Thank you very much for your time and your perseverance, waiting to get to this item. And with that, we move to item six, see.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Sorry.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article XV (Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions and Relocation Payments to Certain Displaced Tenants) to Adopt and Incorporate Provisions Concerning Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for Rental Units in the City of Alameda. (Community Development 265)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_01192021_2021-8379
|
Speaker 0: Sorry.
Speaker 3: Lieutenant. I appreciate the quick.
Speaker 0: The adoption resolution requiring a project stabilization agreement for certain construction projects.
Speaker 3: All right. Is that you? Assistant City Manager Burton?
Speaker 6: It is. Good evening, Mayor. As the Ashcraft vice mayor. Bela, members of the city council. I'm Jerry Bowden, your assistant city manager. And I'm here tonight with a recommendation that essentially it's to consider adopting a resolution for a policy that would require the negotiation of a project stabilization agreement for certain types of construction projects in the city of Alameda. Just very quickly, as you all know, we do have we have all been working with project stabilization agreements. These are essentially what usually amount to agreements entered into by project owners or developers with members of the building trade unions. We do have a PowerPoint. I'm not sure how helpful it is. I could just very quickly. Okay, I'm seeing the city head shake now. We're going to work right through.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm actually I'm going to just jump in, Mr. Burton, because I know you're aware of some of the conversations that have been going on today. But I my comment is that when I read this item, I was concerned that we are seeking a policy that would require adoption of this resolution. If we pass this resolution, as is, it requires adoption by applicants. Owners and developers are only focuses on the concerns of the building and construction industry in the in the language in the terms that would be in this project labor agreement. And so what I and also I was concerned when I learned that staff in putting this proposal together didn't actually consult beyond the the building trades construction group. And you know, it's that's a that's a great place to start, but not to finish. My concern is that.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Think, you know, that I am all about housing. We need to build housing. We need to finish projects. They need to be efficient, economical. It says as much in the staff report, but an effective play has to be more than just an agreement not to strike. It has to address the concerns of all the parties to the agreement. So I did some research and I discovered that in fact there are good examples of just some additional language that I would want added to the proposal that staff has come up with and which I could support. And, and this actually comes from and it was attached as council correspondence in your packet this afternoon. It is a successor project labor agreement to the Mission Bay South Development in San Francisco was known as a very successful construction project. The developer was could tell us it was entered into by the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, the AFL-CIO and affiliated unions. And the major items that I would want to see is the the inclusion of a requirement to to negotiate with women owned business enterprises, minority owned business enterprises, small local business enterprises. And then also that we added section, which is found on pages four and five of the correspondence that was attached. And it is titled Management Rights. And, and it's, you know, it's there the language is there for you to read. But it is just important to recognize the perspective of the owners, the perspective of the developers in getting these projects together. It's a it is a three legged stool that is going to fall if all the the the legs are not stable and strong and so on. Today, I had several conversations with Andrea Cleaver of the Alameda County Building Trades Council. And yes.
Speaker 1: We are public speakers. We haven't entered comment yet.
Speaker 3: Okay. I just want to just want to say that this is a direction that I would like to see us head in. So any other questions about Mr. Bowden Springs Park before we launch into public comment and then our deliberation? Councilmember Spencer. I think I saw your hand up first and then de and then not quite.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I have seen this same resolution attached to a referral by a member of ODY and members hour earlier, and then it was withdrawn. It didn't show up. Right. It sometimes removed from the agenda. And now this is coming forward by the city manager and I'm really not sure what happened there. And so can anyone address what happened to the referral and why do I have a staff member bringing this? And that just seems weird to me. I don't know how and I've actually heard that there have been discussions going on for 18 months and yet as far as I know, council has never approved a referral for staff to be working on this.
Speaker 3: Mr. Burden or Mr. Levitt, do you want to give the history on this?
Speaker 7: Sure, I can. I can give part of the history on this. So the city council has had, as part of agreements, as far as development agreements, going back before I was even city manager, where there's been some projects that plays were on development agreements. There's been different points in time where it's been concerning to different parties or to developers. And so a strategy that occurred back in December of 2019, I want to say November, December 2019, was that we should move forward and try to create a a I feel or create a situation where people that are coming in and are looking at city land or city development projects, if there was an expectation of a play or a play that be negotiated, that that would.
Speaker 3: Have it just in the interest of time. I think Councilmember Spencer is asking, how did this go from being a council referral to a staff item? Was it?
Speaker 7: Well, that's what I'm explaining. And so in 2019, so this part, this has been being discussed with the Labor Council and being something that we've been looking at as staff, it was planned to come forward in the fall. We were holding out for the new council and I think the referral came forward because it was already in place. So it didn't turn from a referral to this. This was something being worked on by staff and then the referral was asking that it come forward in November or December. I can't remember whether it's November or December.
Speaker 2: Okay. My next question. Yeah. My next question in the Executive summary, the last sentence is that the applicant owner developer will work with the Building and Trades Council of Alameda County. Can you explain why staff is naming one trade? And member on the mayor has spoken a little bit about this. So can you explain why staff is only name calling out as one building and trees council of Alameda County.
Speaker 3: For clarification, they are the umbrella organization over all the building trades except the carpenters, which are separate.
Speaker 2: In Alameda County. So. So. Yeah. So. Okay. So can you explain that the why why this one as opposed to if they wanted to work with them, if the developer wants to work with the union out of a different county or this other one. Right. Or even. Okay. So I wanted to make that. But also in regards to what I'd like to hear from you on that first.
Speaker 7: So I would. Oh.
Speaker 3: Vice Mayor, were you wanting to come in?
Speaker 5: Just that the the Carpenters are also an affiliate of the Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council. It's an affiliated organization with a number of different local sorts.
Speaker 3: Okay. Okay. But they're not I mean, traditionally they have. And apart. But but the question is then why? Why not when an agreement with other why limits Alameda County.
Speaker 7: So I would say the perspective from staff was the trades count. Alameda County Trades Council would be the representative of the trades in Alameda County and that's why we were discussing specifically with that Trades Council.
Speaker 2: Okay. And my next question is, so we have minority owned businesses that are not part of the trades, right. We women owned, minority owned. And how do they fit in? How do the staff recommendation, how do they fit in? Can the developer hire minority owned businesses, not part of the trade there under this? They cannot.
Speaker 7: Well, I think there's three and three parts to that answering that. One is that there's flexibility in here for the city council. And the city council doesn't believe for some reason that there can be an agreement with a specific development. The Council can. This policy had a lot of latitude where the Council has the option with three votes to not require a play. So that's one. A second is I think we had some provisions, which I think the mayor's proposal is even strengthened that regarding many minority owned businesses. So I think I think there's some language in there to strengthen that. So that's a second part to it. And then the third part is that they would negotiate, but they don't necessarily negotiate the same level for all the trades. They try to do it collectively, but if there are some unique circumstances, other businesses could be be involved.
Speaker 2: Okay. And this is on. So staff works for the city. So I'm trying to figure out why this is in the city's best interest, why staff think this is so important that they're going to bring this reform, that they're going to bring this forward as opposed to having a council member bring it forward.
Speaker 7: So I can going back to the initial and part of the slides, we're going to address this. But going back to the initial statement I had. It had to do with the history of plays and how they been connected to the city developments. And so we were trying to create a playing field where the developer would understand what what the expectations are as far as negotiations. And then that there's always an opportunity that the council feels a specific project should be not held to this. The Council can waive this requirement on a specific project if they feel that it cannot be worked out after that negotiation has started.
Speaker 2: All right. But this also applies to someone leasing property from the city. And if there's a lot of work to be done. Can they they they can't just hire whomever they want. They just can't do the work themselves. If they've received so much over $5,000 credit from the city.
Speaker 7: I believe it is the property. I believe it's 5 million in construction or seven. It's either seven or eight that they'd have to.
Speaker 6: Pay 5 million for construction projects. Sorry, Eric, I'll just help this with these numbers. And it's it's seven and a half million if it's a nonprofit entity who's improving leasing city owned property so that we set the thresholds fairly high so that it had to be a substantial amount of work and up to a up to a7a minimum of a seven year lease term as well to make sure that there's going to be a significant investment before this this requirement is triggered.
Speaker 2: So does the city have any current tenants that would have fallen under this?
Speaker 1: It's a good question.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm trying to figure out, I think, something that isn't really relevant, that we don't have any situations or we do, and so we have some character would have changed their ability in the past of how they develop their property or how they make the improvements.
Speaker 6: I think that there's there's four there's four parts to the to the recommendation. The one is related to improving city owned properties or city owned leases. But there are also affordable housing projects which which would trigger that threshold fairly readily. It's the measure one a excuse me, the yeah, the one a bond for for the county housing that was approved in 2016. The county has a requirement that that labor be involved for when when that bond money does go to an affordable housing project. So those would certainly trigger the requirement with or without this. But it just makes it clear that here in Alameda, that is the expectation. And then for other projects where there might be a city contribution to a project, whether it's land or otherwise, that totals that kind of that kind of value for a developer, it would also trigger the requirement. And when we look at Alameda Point and Site A, that's certainly another example of a project in in recent memory where the requirement did would have triggered and did trigger because we entered into a legislative agreement with development agreement or a disposition and development agreement. So certainly there are examples in recent memory. Greenway Golf, Alameda Point Site A are examples where developers have done that. And then on the the the outside of this agreement and something else where in recent history the city has worked on labor agreements or project stabilization agreements as with our our public construction projects related to CIP. So we have a $1 million trigger there. If there's a contract over $1,000,000, then there is an agreement there as well. So kind of a there is a recent history of PSA play discussions and agreements with the city about with projects and development in the city of Alameda.
Speaker 2: But that's on a project by project basis.
Speaker 6: It has been. And that's, I think, what city manager Levitt was was was talking about in terms of adding that certainty or clarity to the process, which is why we thought this would be an opportunity to consider this for the city council. It just it really just clarifies the city council's expectations and the city's expectations with respect to labor agreements.
Speaker 2: And do you know of other cities in the Bay Area that have this language?
Speaker 6: There are there are other entities that have tackled this in a more comprehensive way. BART has a similar policy in place with respect to their their projects in other cities.
Speaker 2: Sorry, my question on cities.
Speaker 6: Yet there are cities that have done this on a more project by project basis. And I think the trades folks are actually talking with other cities now about this approach, which creates that clarity for developers.
Speaker 7: Yeah, to expand on what the assistant city manager saying, BART has a more global policy but other cities don't have. It's more on an individual project by project basis.
Speaker 3: And I think just that I mean, Councilmember Spencer, let me just make make a suggestion. We have four public speakers that have been waiting all evening to speak. And I'm wondering whether we should hear our public speakers at least get through that. And then we can pick this discussion up because presumably finish hearing public speakers come back to the discussion, go as far as we can, and then continue this at the next meeting. But I, I hate to leave public speakers out there waiting. Councilmember Spencer, would you would you allow us to circle. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So, Madam Clerk, if we could have our first public speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Yes, the first public speaker is Joe Lewis.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. Lewis.
Speaker 2: Good evening.
Speaker 1: My name is Joe Lewis. I am a Bay Area resident and also a member of the Alameda County Taxpayers Association. I am here tonight.
Speaker 2: Seward's Lou and the.
Speaker 1: Council to vote against the proposed project stabilization agreement for certain construction projects in the.
Speaker 2: City.
Speaker 1: Traditionally, pieces include a variety of provisions that actually discourage many local construction.
Speaker 2: Firms from bidding. In short.
Speaker 1: Local workers and.
Speaker 2: Businesses being.
Speaker 1: Generally smaller and nonunion may not apply. Also. Various polls of contractors have shown that PSA can deter folks from bidding. For example, the Admiral Sir survey of contractors said 64% of respondents. Said such agreements are a disincentive to bid and 100% said that they increased costs.
Speaker 2: This is we are living in a critical time when it's not limits. Who can bid, who.
Speaker 1: Cannot bid and admiral restrictions that we need to do. An example of restrictions that have occurred was last year in the city of Concord, in neighboring Contra Costa County.
Speaker 2: The metro crew that had a very reasonable approach to redeveloping the naval weapons station. All same of local unions.
Speaker 1: Delayed and ultimately stalled the said proposal by demanding a project labor agreement. We don't want that similar situation to happen here.
Speaker 2: Another thing, there are a couple of local cases.
Speaker 1: Where project labor agreements have increased costs. For example, in the Alameda Unified School District, the historic.
Speaker 2: Alameda High School Modernization Project, it's had.
Speaker 1: A contract initially a 45,000,000.5. They had 21 change orders that increased the price of the project to 58 million. The only community college district.
Speaker 2: In three months.
Speaker 1: They had their project aim.
Speaker 2: Academic for buildings is 3.6 million, though they've had that started there. Now they've had eight revisions that increased the price to 6.6 million.
Speaker 1: We would encourage you, though, if you are going to do a project stabilization agreement.
Speaker 2: Please have one that includes local.
Speaker 1: Workers and companies to build quality projects built to last. Thank you.
Speaker 2: And that's all.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is Doug BLOCK.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Sorry, I was muted. Good evening, Mr. Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Doug BLOCK. I live on Bay Farm Island with my family.
Speaker 6: And I'm proud that our city has a long history of supporting working families and that this resolution is before you this evening. My day job. I'm also with the Teamsters Union. I represent the hard working men and women who pick up our garbage and recycling from a C.I. who deliver the food to our island's grocery stores, your local UPS.
Speaker 1: Drivers and more. As a member of the city's Economic Recovery Task Force, I joined.
Speaker 6: With my fellow islanders to ensure.
Speaker 1: That our economy stays strong and our children have bright futures in front of you. Tonight is a well thought out and.
Speaker 6: Negotiated agreement, which I believe will help us accomplish these goals. This gives.
Speaker 1: Us a real opportunity to use our resources to.
Speaker 6: Put our needs to work and to promote local businesses and deliver projects on time, efficient and well-built. Please support the adoption of this resolution. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. BLOCK. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Jay Garfinkle.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. Garfinkle.
Speaker 6: Excuse me. Good evening. I. I understand that the people who do the labor want to make a fair living. I have no problem with that. I've never really understood some of the language that stabilization legislation or agreements. I read me code, but I'm always a little suspicious when. I never understood why government makes these deals that create safe harbors or tip the balance in favor of unions. I know that the building trades organizations donated a considerable amount of money to the Z A Measure Z campaign. I know that they contribute considerable amount of money to the state legislators, such as The Winner and Bonta and several others who have been supportive of them. And so I can understand why politicians would support them. But I don't see that the city.
Speaker 1: Gets anything out of.
Speaker 6: Creating these kinds of contracts. And I say, I don't understand them. But I don't see that the city gets anything out of it. I know that the project that was going to be at the Carnegie Building went under because the city enforced some kind of labor agreement. I know that the housing excuse me, the school district did the pay raise for the teachers was so exorbitant because the unions have made two contracts so that teachers are getting a raise while the janitors get raises, too. So I think it would be more responsible for the city to not enter in these protective kinds of agreements that so strongly favored the labor unions. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Garfinkle. Our next speaker, Andreas Cleaver. Good evening, Mr. Cleaver.
Speaker 1: Hello. I hope folks can hear me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's just fine.
Speaker 1: Okay. I've been jumping on the Internet. My name is Secretary Fried with the Alameda County Building Trades Council. And first of all, I would also like to thank this city and the city council for standing up for working people and the relationship we've had with the building trades, having project labor agreements with the city around the Naval Air Station and also with the school district. And we'd also really appreciate your consideration for what I think is a very innovative policy around the public lands play policy in this policy that is not just a win for working people, that this policy will ensure that they'll be making sustainable wages and getting good benefits and working in safe conditions. This is also a win for for everybody involved. It's actually a win for developers or really leveled the playing field so developers know what's required of them coming in. And if you ask most developers, that is that is most important so that the goalposts don't change in the middle of the game. It also ensures a continuation of a skilled and trained workforce, especially the of housing, to make sure that there are workers that are.
Speaker 2: There to build.
Speaker 1: These types of projects. Are the public wins. You're ensuring that there's good, good contractors doing these projects for a good quality. And also there's language to ensure that we're going to have local workforce working on these. And with the amendment that the mayor proposed around minority women owned and small local businesses, we can actually put that language , strong language in our agreements where the city can't because of Prop two nine. So we can do that. Also, the, you know, the city administration and governance wins because instead of coming every time, as every single project's coming, it comes up and having this discussion, every single project where we are putting a policy forward. And as was said earlier, this city council can always reverse that policy on any given project. So you're not locking yourself into this requirement. But it's it's a policy that everybody understands what's expected of them. I will say that I think, you know, the two amendments that I think have been presented by the mayor, we are totally open to, we are always encouraging the use of minority women owned and small local contractors. And we can we can build that into our agreements. And also in terms of management rights language, we're comfortable with that language. I think that is would be similar to I think the mayor raised the Mission Bay Agreement in San Francisco. We always have management rights language in our agreement, so we're definitely open to that. With that, again, thank you. And I also want to thank all the staff that work with us putting this resolution together.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Cleaver, and thank you for your time today. And we have one more story here, I'm told.
Speaker 5: Nicole Goring.
Speaker 3: Good evening was goring.
Speaker 4: Good evening, mayor ashcraft and members of the Alameda City Council. Nicole Garing with Associated Builders and Contractors. We have been in the Alameda County community for over 45 years training a skilled and trained workforce. And our apprentices are working in our communities daily. And unfortunately, with what is being presented here, the young men and women of minority veterans are not going to be able to work under these projects, under these types of conditions. They are specifically excluded because we are not part of the the union apprenticeship programs. We offer apprenticeship programs that are of high quality. And we would like to have the opportunity to work on projects in this community. And we believe our our workers are not going to be able to work due to only being able to use the workers out of the union hiring hall. So this definitely is an agreement that is not going to allow the contractors who have been working here on projects that are built to last, they're not no longer going to be able to to do these quality projects for you. The current play that is in place. Has there been any data about that on the citywide projects? Have the projects been coming in under budget? Over budget? What is the data? Where is the explanation on how many people have gone into the trades in regards to the current play? That is actually as far as what I read in the agreement. It looks to me like it's up this month. It's a three year agreement, so I wanted to know what the status is of that and what the status is.
Speaker 3: Recently we have reached 1159, which is the time that we said this meeting would adjourn. So I'm so sorry to cut you off in mid-sentence, Ms.. Gori, but we have to do that. So with that counted, that's.
Speaker 0: If council wants to vote to continue this item or you can even maybe extend to just let Nicole and then you could close pending comment and continue it. Perhaps if you wanted to just do that.
Speaker 3: A vice mayor, a village. Raise your hand. Go up.
Speaker 5: I was just going to ask if we could extend the meeting for 15 minutes, take you to just hear this item out. I would like to hear the rest of the public comment and then deliberate tonight.
Speaker 3: This is our last speaker. Okay. That would take a vote of four. Councilmember Knox White has a standing.
Speaker 1: Assuming that was a motion i will second that I feel it's in the spirit of what we told the community back in December.
Speaker 3: To go 15 more minutes to hear this last public speaker then do council deliberations if we can finish. Okay. We've had a motion, we've had a second. It will take four votes to continue. I think it would be a nice courtesy to miss scoring because she did have she was within her time with a little over a minute left. Madam took me. We have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 0: Knox White.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 0: Spencer.
Speaker 4: No Villa I.
Speaker 0: Mayor as the Ashcraft.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: That required four votes.
Speaker 3: So. Okay. That feels like.
Speaker 2: I'd like to make another motion.
Speaker 3: A cancer risk sensor.
Speaker 2: To allow the speaker to finish your comment and then concludes the meeting.
Speaker 3: And then close public comment.
Speaker 2: And I closed the meeting. We had so much more discussion. I don't think so. Yeah, I.
Speaker 3: All right. There's a motion to continue it just a minute and a half to let Ms.. GREENE complete her comments and then close public comment. And we'll continue this item to as soon as we can to add a second to that. I'll second that. I think it's very simple. Okay. Well, I will. Let's. That gets very nuts. Wait a second. The city attorney has a name? Yes.
Speaker 1: Madam Mayor, if you wish to continue this item to a future date, you would need to set up for a date and time. Certain or this or this item would at the end of tonight.
Speaker 3: You're right. Thank you for that. So Councilmember Spencer or OC Councilmember says is the maker of the motion bird counts very ducks why did you want to.
Speaker 1: My friendly amendment would be that we continue this to the February 6th item at 659. Before the before the regular item. And we finished this out.
Speaker 3: Would you would you be amenable to that amendment? Councilmember Spencer.
Speaker 2: Said February 2nd.
Speaker 1: Or February 2nd, is that it? Sorry. Yes, whatever the next council.
Speaker 3: It's just a trick question. Yeah. Okay. All right. Is that good? So usually that would suffice. Okay, great. So we've had a motion by Councilmember Spencer Bean, seconded by Councilmember Knox, by me. We have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 0: Not quite.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Spencer.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Vela. No mayor as the Ashcraft I. That also fails.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: I'd like to make a motion to continue this item to the second at 659.
Speaker 3: Mayor. Madam Vice Mayor. Would you consider the courtesy of letting the scoring finish the minute in some seconds she had left closing public speaker speaking and then doing that. Because I would really like to do public speaking.
Speaker 5: I feel like there's there's day I. No, because I don't know if there's other people that would like to speak. And I, I feel like we've we basically held this item to the very end. So I don't I actually don't want to close public comment if we're going to hear the item. I think I would rather just note who's spoken and if there's going to be more public speakers.
Speaker 3: Okay. Mr. City Attorney, if we can't come to an agreement on continuing and what happens to this, I want to hear from the city attorney. We'll come back to you, Madam Vice Mayor.
Speaker 1: If the council cannot continue this item, it's considered no action taken and staff.
Speaker 6: Would have to bring it back.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: Can I. Can I finish?
Speaker 3: You may.
Speaker 5: So I'm fine letting Ms.. Goring speak. Provided that when we continue this item, public comment is not closed, which was not clear on the last motion. If we can continue it, keep public comment open. What I heard on the last motion was that we would let her be our last speaker and finish her minute and 30 seconds out. I would just like to make sure that when we continue this to the to the next meeting, that public comment is not, in fact, closed.
Speaker 1: People won't be able to speak. So can I ask a question?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Second, that just with the clarification, people won't be able to see speak a second time. But if the.
Speaker 5: New. Correct? I correct.
Speaker 1: I second the motion.
Speaker 3: Okay. Discussion. My concern is if we open up to, first of all, five people stayed long enough to speak on this item and we had good representation. If we open it at this again, we are just making our agendas longer and harder to finish. But let's we have let's see. So both has made a motion to allow is going to finish speaking continue to a date certain February six but reopen public comment and I think because we're I have did you second. You did. Okay. All right. May we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: And I just want to clarify the it's continuing to February 2nd at 6:59 p.m..
Speaker 3: Second, why do I say it's okay?
Speaker 0: Councilmember de Thug.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 0: Knox, right. Hi, Spencer.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 0: Vela. I may or as the Ashcroft.
Speaker 3: I but that was futile. Okay I so.
Speaker 5: I'll reconsider on the earlier motion. I just think that what we've done that.
Speaker 3: Would be lovely that.
Speaker 5: We've basically filibustered. And I'm I mean, we're now curtailing this.
Speaker 3: Okay. So you would reconsider the motion that Councilmember Spencer made. Correct?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. All right. So just so that motion, as I recall, was continued to February 2nd here, the balance of miss scoring time and close public speakers. And we'll be back on this at the top of the agenda on February 2nd.
Speaker 2: Yes. I just want to clarify. I don't believe there's any other speakers waiting to speak tonight, is that correct? She is correct. And yes, I think that's an appropriate motion. Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. So we still have the motion. Same second.
Speaker 2: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 3: All right, let's try this one more time with Asta.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 6: Nope.
Speaker 0: Next flight? Yes. Spencer.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Vella. Yes. Mayor. As he. Ashcraft.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: That carries 4 to 1.
Speaker 3: We did it. Thank you. Miss Goring, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Why don't you pick up right where you left off? I see.
Speaker 4: Or am I? Am I? Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yes. Are you? And I'll bet our amazing city clerk knows how much time you have left. Because she knows everything.
Speaker 0: She has a minute and 20 seconds.
Speaker 3: I told you.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you for letting me continue. But I am confused as to why I would not be able to speak during public comment on the second, but that can be clarified and answered later. I just wanted to give some examples of what's been going on with project labor agreements in Alameda County and how they have not been inclusive of the entire workforce. A continuance of L.A. academic core buildings. The 61258 project had 29 change orders and the contract was increased from 126 million to 134 million, with an engineer's estimate of 120 million. It looks like the contractor there has got the job is continuing to.
Speaker 5: Make it longer and and have.
Speaker 4: Change orders. Alameda Hamlet Hall of justice project was delayed and over budget is this during this time is this going to benefit Alameda taxpayers and the Alameda hard working workers who are now not going to be eligible for these projects? So I just wanted to get some updates on the current situation with the public works. Play at 1 million and want to learn more why we want to expand into the private side, especially in some of these contracts that are really deep within companies use of their work.
Speaker 3: This scoring your time is now open. Just for clarification. The reason people have spoken tonight do not speak again is that we we have closed the public comment item and we would never have people get to speak twice on the same item. But so with that, we we are a few minutes, 10 minutes past the time that we designated. So I am going to adjourn this meeting and I am going to adjourn this meeting in memory of the Americans in this country, residents of this country who have died of COVID 19 since the beginning of this pandemic. As you may know, there was a memorial this evening at the Capitol. That number is now over 400,000. And so we remember, we mourn, we acknowledge the grief of their family and friends, and we look forward to moving past this dark time. So with that, thank you all for your perseverance, for staying with us. Remember to tune into the inauguration at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. My guests this morning get a little sleep before then and we will see you soon. Take care. Stay safe. Wear your masks whenever you leave your house. There is a more contagious variant of the coronavirus out there. Take care. Thank you. Good night. Meeting is.
Speaker 2: Adjourned.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Adoption of Resolution Requiring a Project Stabilization Agreement for Certain Construction Projects. (City Manager) [Continued from January 19, 2021; Public Comment Closed]
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_01052021_2021-8482
|
Speaker 4: A loan of a maximum of six.
Speaker 3: Months of rent. Again, attempting to help these tenants out in a.
Speaker 1: Challenging COVID.
Speaker 4: Environment, the tenants are required to meet specific.
Speaker 3: Requirements in order to qualify for this.
Speaker 4: Program. Namely, the.
Speaker 3: Tenants. Business operations had to be consistent with the long term land use and development plan for Alameda Point.
Speaker 4: They had to have 25 or more full time.
Speaker 3: Employees or generate significant.
Speaker 4: Sales tax. And then thirdly, they had to demonstrate to the city that there.
Speaker 3: Was a significant loss of income of 30% or greater since March.
Speaker 4: 17th of 2020. So these, to qualify, have qualified for that program. And in addition, if they then meet certain negotiated.
Speaker 3: Performance milestones that are set out in each of the respective amendments, they would have the opportunity to have some or.
Speaker 4: All of the.
Speaker 3: Deferred rent converted from the loan into a grant. So they would be forgiven to some degree for a portion of it if they met certain requirements that are spelled out in those amendments.
Speaker 4: And that that is what I have to share on this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Mercado.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I just wanted to add a little context, because we do have a new council member who was not here when the council approved and created this program. So just a little bit of gist, just a little bit of meat on the bones for you. Councilmember Herrera Spencer.
Speaker 0: Well, it's also good for members of the public, too.
Speaker 4: That's right. So the council had been grappling with how to provide some assistance to our tenants since March. And we have we've considered, I think, this program at least three times since March, just trying to get it right. And we initially came up with this program because we scoured around to look at what other landlords were doing. And what we discovered is that a lot of landlords were not really knowing what to do. And then there was this program where the landlords were landlord said, Hey, we can like share a little bit of the pain with you. And it was a little bit crafted after the Federal Government's PGP program, which, as you recall, gave businesses grants and if they met certain qualifications, the grants could or they were loans which if they met certain qualifications, they would convert into a grant and would need to be repaid. So we crafted our own program to look similar to that. We we think that we captured the large employers of our tenants. The reason we we pegged it to 25 was because there was, as you might know, another program for business assistance citywide for four businesses that had under 25 employees. So this was to supplement that and to hit that larger number. In addition, we knew that there were some some of our tenants, the larger tenants really needed help. So the council created this program. And then in October, they added that they after grappling with what this program would look like in October, the Council actually offered $1.5 million to fund this program. So we had eight applicants and and then three of them did not meet the qualifications. And then three of them went to go to. Also in October, we created the program that you considered just earlier tonight, the 933 program. That's what I call it. Nine month deferral paid over three years and you could have up to three months deferred. So I call it 933. So three of the tenants decided to go with that program instead of the loan conversion program. So then we're left with these two tenants who who were offered the opportunity to do the 933, but really wanted to stay with this loan conversion and negotiate some milestones and really wanted to try to get the six months of abated rent. And the last thing I would just add is that when we negotiated these milestones for the tenants to meet, we really took into consideration the direction that the Council and the spirit that the Council had at the time. The Council was very specific that they wanted to to give some credit to that, for lack of a better description. Two tenants who have been community spirited and community minded, not necessarily just during COVID, but in general. And so you will see some of those milestones that are pegged for, you know, offering for providing programs or offering their space and things like that. And also the big one is the hand sanitizer, creating the hand sanitizer and distributing it citywide and a region wide, really. And then the council also really, you know, grappled with, you know, trying to be all things to all people and and realizing that we couldn't just give things away. And so they really wanted the the tenants to show that they had a hardship. And so that that that we looked at, we kind of worked over the financials of the tenants a great deal. We we think that we came up with some creative things. They're not perfect. But we thought that we captured the spirit of what the council wanted. The other thing that I think the council there was a some division, but the council really were they were saying if you if they can't open, we need to be able to help them. And there were some. Some council members went as far as saying we want to give them one month for every month that they're unable to open. And we couldn't do that. And so we kind of came to a happy medium. And that's what you see in front of you tonight. It's not perfect, but nothing about COVID is perfect. And we've been so we're we're trying to capture something that offers help but feels fair.
Speaker 0: Great indignation, Ms.. Mercado. And who is that? Just. I missed you.
Speaker 4: I just.
Speaker 0: Know. I'm sorry, Miss MAXINE. Sorry.
Speaker 4: No, no.
Speaker 3: Problem. I just wanted to jump in and say. And when we.
Speaker 4: Talk about not being able to be open, I think we really are meaning not being able to be open in the robust, full way.
Speaker 3: They were pre-COVID. They may.
Speaker 4: Be able to be open in some limited ways, but it certainly isn't.
Speaker 3: Providing.
Speaker 1: Them the.
Speaker 3: Income that they were used.
Speaker 1: To in the pre-COVID.
Speaker 3: Days.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you for that clarification. And the reference to hand sanitizer, just for people listening and who might not know is that is our own St George spirits. And very quickly, at the beginning of this pandemic, Lance Winters, the he's got a a title that's more clever than CEO, but whatever it is.
Speaker 4: Like creative genius or.
Speaker 0: Something like that. Anyway, he pivoted because they already had all the FDA approvals for what they were producing in terms of spirits. He pivoted to producing hand sanitizer and I mean for Alameda County Health Systems, the Highland Hospital Center and for public safety departments around the region, what I did not know is they were giving all that away. They weren't charging anyone anything. I did not realize that. So not only did they help their production of spirits, but they started producing hand sanitizer and donating it. So that is just kind of carrying out the community spirit that we've seen from this and in other businesses, too. So thank you so much for for the explanations. And then let me ask two questions. If staff has any clarifying questions about the staff report, and then I'll ask the city clerk, do we have public speakers on this item?
Speaker 2: We do not have any public speakers.
Speaker 0: Okay. Clarifying questions. Or if we don't have public speakers, we can actually just launch into our council discussions, I think. I think Councilmember de SAC, I saw your hand go up. Then I saw Councilmember Spencer. So let me take you in that order.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, thank you. You know that that break was very helpful. It allowed me to kind of reflect on on and reflect more on kind of the concerns that Councilmember Herrera Spencer had raised, because I think they are there. They apply here as well. So what I'm kind of concerned about is and I'm concerned about that now retrospectively from the previous issue, but I think it applies here is is coming up with a policy after the lease agreement has already been agreed to or not the lease agreement, but the agreement for the program has already been agreed to. So so, you know, is there and the question that I have for staff is, you know, is there anything about now where we can. Deal with, you know, the policy issues regarding how to guard against overreach. Is there anything about how we can deal with those policy issues now? Because I'm realizing that and the previous issue, I realized that, well, maybe we should have dealt with the policy issues before agreeing. So so so that's the question that I have.
Speaker 4: Well. Well, any.
Speaker 0: Party. I, I think I see. Vice Mayor Vella, did you want to comment on that or. I'm a conservative.
Speaker 4: I guess I just I have a concern about what's been agenda is specifically in terms of what we're talking about. I hear the concerns, but the main goal, my understanding is that we are trying to give financial assistance to some of our tenants. So I guess this this kind of I just I'm trying to understand how a conversation about overreach comes in when when we're how it comes in relative to what's been agenda ized. And I feel like we keep going. We're talking about something that's not really before us.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. I'm a.
Speaker 4: Little concerned about.
Speaker 0: Mom. Okay. And before I go back to Mrs. Spencer, did I hear Ms.. Maxwell start to address that concern? No.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Spencer, I'm your muted.
Speaker 4: Right. Thank you. And I wanted to go back to I did have clarifying questions. And once again, I wasn't I haven't been involved in all these meetings that you all have and staff member McConnell she raised this issue of a described and thank you very much. I thought that was very helpful for me this 933 that there if I have it correctly after each year that one year then is that one month is abated. So a tenant pays 11 month, one month is abated. And then I look at this and I think that maybe I'm mistaken about the 933. And so I thought that was what I heard three years, three months end up getting abated after like that. So with this, my understanding is that it's.
Speaker 3: Up to.
Speaker 4: Six months that can be abated and that's about maximum figure is and that's why it's different for each tenant. But but I was trying to figure out how do they get especially like when you're talking about the hand sanitizer, which is wonderful that they did it, but do they get the abatement right up at the front so that at six months it was taken away that they owe from the beginning? Or is it each year that they pay 11 months and then one month? So after six years they then get one month abated. How how does that connect?
Speaker 0: This. Nelson Who wants to take that?
Speaker 4: I don't care. At least if you want to answer, that's fine. Yeah. I mean, as the event, as they met the event is, they provided the evidence.
Speaker 3: Associated with the particular event and they would get the opportunity to abate that amount of time and it would be applied thereafter. Does that respond to your question?
Speaker 4: So can I just add a couple of things? All right. So you are correct. Councilmember Spencer, these are two separate programs. So the 933 was the one that was discussed prior and that prior action. And this is the loan conversion program. And for example, the the I believe that at the time we, I negotiated the, um, the agreement for lone conversion. They were not near the number that we put in there for hand sanitizer. So it was a goal for them to, to meet. And when they meet that goal, then they would provide proof to the city that they've done it and then would say, thank you very much, that's one month's rent abated. And then let's say they did something else and they they provide evidence that they reached that. We would say, thank you very much. That's two months, you know, so it's ongoing for a three year period of time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Maxwell, that you have?
Speaker 4: No, I think.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 4: We got it collectively.
Speaker 0: Teamwork on Mr. Spencer. Council member. Spencer.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So, going back to the hand sanitizer, have they already performed the amount of hand sanitizer being distributed so that they've already earned the stream up to three months, I believe it was. Or what? What are you looking for on that? So I believe that I, I don't I'm not recalling off the top of my head, but I think we had like a 3500 or something like that in the agreement. And I believe that they were at like 2000 when we negotiated. So they have they have more to go.
Speaker 0: And I'll just add a little spoiler alert. The Mr. Lance Winters is waiting to be one of our public speakers. So as soon as we finish clarifying questions, we can hear when we can learn what his title is that's escaping me. So Councilmember Spencer.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So yeah, it is the 3600 from the report at least. And so I don't know the relationship between if they do 12 and then they get a certain dollar amount. So and then they like that or or so so it feels like and this is where now I from member datacom I feel like this has already been negotiated. You have a candidate that's already been performing and now it's coming to us essentially for ratification is what I'm hearing. Which I am. Is it my concern? So we were responding to the spirit of the conversation in which the council had when we created the program. And so, yes, they are they are producing hand sanitizer. The big bulk of it has been done. But we wanted to encourage that. They continue to do that and continue to be a community partner. So we set a goal for them. I mean, the the point of this program is to create performance measures. And so from the 2000 where they were to the 3600, we thought that that was worth something to us and to our community and should be rewarded with with an abatement. And so while I understand what you're saying, it feels like it's like they're getting credit for things they've already done, but it's not it's things that they're doing that the council said, Hey, we want to acknowledge people who are doing things in our community to help and to that, that's why that measure was created. But if I have it correctly, it's 115, $118,000 that we're being asked not to have them pay to offset 3600 gallons. So is there some did someone put a value on 3600 gallons? Because as we all know, we have many and we're fortunate we have many members in our community that are stepping up and not necessarily receiving $118,000 value to offset their donations to the community.
Speaker 0: And your question was, how did they reach the calculation? That my calculation.
Speaker 4: And we didn't do that. We didn't do the value of each gallon of hand sanitizer for the rent. I mean, we were being responsive to the council's direction, which was help these people help the community and let's acknowledge them so that we can help them. And I mean, so none of these tie back to, you know, a mathematical equation that says, you know, 1000 gallons of hand sanitizer equals this X amount of dollars, which then is applied. If the council wants to do that, then we just need to figure out what a gallon of hand sanitizer is worth and then do that math. But we were following the spirit and the direction and which the council had given us when they created the program, which was acknowledge that they're doing something. I mean, because we were at the point where there was some council conversation which was give them one month for every month that they're closed. And that would have been way more than what we're discussing right now.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Mercado. I also just note that there is a reason that the term unprecedented is used over and over when describing the events of the last ten, almost 11 months as Sandy, how it's over. The food bank says, This is my first pandemic. It's mine, too. But I do want to commend staff for, I think, doing a Herculean effort at trying to interpret staff and counsels direction and wishes. So any further clarifying questions, Councilmember Spencer, you still have the floor.
Speaker 4: Yes, thank you. So when I look at the agreement here, it has year one, two and three. So is this really a three year lease? But during the payments over three years, they will have the opportunity to have six months. So essentially abated. So essentially two months per year. Whereas the prior one we were looking at was one month per year. And the city is also, you know, landlords for residential. We have renters. All right. Is this something that we're offering to those trying to figure out how we choose which tenants we're helping?
Speaker 0: And again, I would just maybe channeling the city attorney. I just make sure that we are talking about the specific item before us.
Speaker 4: Also, I would just say the previous one was three months per year because that's how you three, three and three, they get to the nine months. And so this one is a shorter one. And then, I mean, if I may answer a little bit, the residential tenants are receiving what every residential tenant is receiving citywide. We did not do a special program for them. They are under the city's residential agreement. So while so we're following that edict, the city is subject to what every other landlord in the city is subject to. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further clarifying questions? Council. Yes. Sorry.
Speaker 4: So I heard. I'm sorry. So it was three, three, three. So it's three months per year. That was the date after being abated on the other contract. Right. And this is two months per year then. So the first one is nine months within the between March of last year and June of this year can be abate. It can be deferred. Then they have three years. They pay it back three months over a three year period of time. So so for the next three years, they're paying back at least three months of those nine months that were deferred. And if they pay back early, if they have a banner year this year and they pay back everything, then they get a they get an abatement for every year early that they pay. So if they pay back three years early, they're going to get three months abated rent. So essentially, they're going to get. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I just want to clarify that the maximum is one month per year, though, because they have three months for three years. But when I look at this one, it looks like the maximum is two months per year. There is been offered to be abated and not paid by the tenants. No, there and they have the same thing. They have six months between March of last year and June of this year. So they can pay they can abate six months within that same time period. And then they have three years to meet those those milestones to to get to the abatement. But that six months evaded, if I'm hearing you correctly, that is six months. That's correct. That's three years or three years per year for the other program. One month per year? I think that's correct. Well, I don't think they were thinking of it as that per year, because what if they meet all their milestones in one year, then they'll get all six months abated. But what if it if it takes them three years to meet all their milestones, then they will have had their six months abated. So we're not unlike the other program, which requires them to pay at least three months per year to get to the nine month repayment. This one doesn't have that requirement. This just says meet these milestones. In whatever order you can. So they could receive the credit for six months immediately and then at some point unfortunately not be able to continue paying rent in years two and three, whereas the other programs they pay 11 months, they get one month abated, they pay 11 months, they get one month abated. This is what it sounds like. They could get abatement for six months upfront, not pay rent for six months, and then at some point not finish the balance and be unable to pay back. Well, I mean, that that's correct. There's a default risk with each of these with each program. I mean, the first program could get nine months deferred rent and then be able to make the three month payment in the next year. I mean, so there's a risk there as well. And then they won't get any abatement. We won't get any rent. So there is there is a risk of default in both programs. There's the first program. There's there could be a risk of a nine month default. And in this program, there could be a risk of a six month default. Thank you. Sure.
Speaker 0: All for now, Miss Spencer. Yeah. Okay. So then any other clarifying questions before we go to our public speakers? All right, Madam Clerk, our first public speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Lance Winters.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. Winters. Happy New Year. Welcome.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Happy New Year, Madam Mayor. Council City of Alameda Council Staff. Everyone, thank you for your your careful stewardship of the city and for considering all this. We find ourselves at a strange place after nearly a year. And I just want to come back and point out that at the beginning of this whole thing, I don't think any of us had any idea how long it was going to last. And we exchanged words. Spirits knew that we needed to do something, and we invested thousands of dollars in the additional ingredients that we would need to manufacturing hand sanitizer. And those were those were things like glycerin and hydrogen peroxide and packaging supplies, because we don't typically package things like this. A number of small distilleries across the country pivoted to make hand sanitizer, to make up for losses in sales of their products and charge astronomical fees to. To address Councilmember Spencer's questions about the cost and value of hand sanitizer. We were seeing it go for upwards of $50 a gallon in bulk rates. And so that's it's a significant amount of money. We spent thousands of dollars to be able to make this without the intention of ever selling it. We wanted to be good members of our community. We wanted to help support people who were in need. This seemed like a time when everybody was in need and we had the ability to make this. We had the bulk of the ingredients already on hand. So we didn't we didn't sit and labor over who deserved it, who who should be paying what. We just said, let's make this and let's put it out there to our community because our community needed it and that was it. And and I think that's the I think that's the spirit that we should all be operating under during these trying times is looking out for one another. We would have been doing this regardless of any sort of programs the city would put in place. And honestly, you know, if you don't take it into account, that's totally understandable as well. And if we don't get if we don't get the the rent abatement passed, we will continue making and giving sanitizer away because it would be criminal not to. But I do appreciate the council taking the time to to be able to consider this abatement for us. And thank you all for that.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Winters. And do you have another speaker, Madam Kirk?
Speaker 2: That was our only speaker.
Speaker 0: Our only speaker. Okay.
Speaker 2: So another person has raised in Lord their hand, but I think I'm listening.
Speaker 0: Okay. So if anyone would like to speak now on this item six B, please indicate the way you need to do that. Otherwise, I am closing public comment and so we will go to council discussion. Who would like to lead council everyday?
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 1: Great. Well, thank you very much. You know, let me start by a kind of overarching view of the ordinance process and and the way in which these agreements have come up this evening for me, since I kind of like stumbled into the first one, kind of really implicates that process. So the way in which ordinances are adopted or passed in the city of Alameda and I suspect a lot of other places, is that there are two readings. There is the first reading. And then 30 days after there's another reading, there's a final passage. And then and then 30 days after the final passage, the ordinances is is or an agreement is adopted. So I think the reason why we have that is because we want to be in a position that if there is new questions or new information that comes to light, if there are new ways of seeing things that that we perhaps missed on the first go around, that we can catch it on the second go around. I'm. And I think it's it's the fact that new member or returning member actually returning member council member Herrera Spencer had pointed out concerns about the way in which COVID 19 enforcement violations might be pursued by staff. It's a new for me, it's a new information. And I didn't grasp it as quickly when we were first discussing this matter about 45 minutes ago. But as I look at number four of the agreement, Section four is about COVID 19 enforcement violations. I think the new lens with which.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai, excuse the interruption, please hold is time. Could everyone who's not speaking please mute your microphone? We are getting some background noise and I'm not sure where it's coming from. So if you're not the speaker, please mute. Thank you. Sorry. No problem.
Speaker 1: Okay. So. So I appreciate the the point that I believe Councilmember Herrera Spencer was getting at in terms of guarding against overreach, because I'm looking at for section four, I, Double-A, Triple IV. And it does seem a little cut and dry. Now I get that. Earlier tonight, we talked about a framework by which we might deal with guarding against overreach and that framework which is coming up with policy language. But the question I still have is. Might we adopt policy guidance language offline first? Before we adopt the the agreement or if the city attorney has other suggestions to how we might deal with policy guidance now or offline. I'd certainly be all ears because because I do think that, you know, taking the points that were raised previously, because they're applicable now, right now, I do think that we need to hammer that out for us. We need to hammer out guarding against the overreach issue that was raised earlier. And I think it still is still an issue because I'm looking now with a new fresh set of eyes asked for. And and I'm realizing that, okay, I think there are some good points that were raised. And I think we should we should discuss it. So I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor Vella, I'd say you're having good.
Speaker 4: I actually think that we laid the foundation for addressing that issue and doing it in a way that comports with and complies with the Brown Act in terms of agenda, using it properly and allowing for a thorough discussion. So I'm actually not interested in having something transpire in a way that would be pausing this meeting to try to circumvent the Brown out to do something in a nontransparent way. That would be a concern of mine. The other thing is we heard from Lance Winters, who is, you know, literally one of the one of the two parties that would be entering into this agreement with the city. And this issue was not raised by him and he was paying attention to this meeting and the previous meeting. So I'm wondering if we aren't jumping down a rabbit hole that's of our own creation, as opposed to addressing the issues brought forth by the businesses that we're actually trying to help. And I don't want to lose sight of the bigger picture, which is providing that financial assistance to businesses who have been good community members, who have risen to the occasion during this pandemic to not only be good businesses and trying to keep people employed, but also being stewards to the community in terms of providing services. And so I, I, I really want to focus on that. I think the path that we laid out on the previous agenda item is going to apply to all of these different things. I think that it's a red herring to say that we're overreaching when in fact what we are trying to do is provide a benefit to to the businesses and keep them afloat. They're not raising this issue. And I think we've gotten really off topic and off path. And I think we've laid the foundation will have that conversation. If there is a concern for this hypothetical overreach, which again, I want to remind my colleagues is a hypothetical that's been created by us. It's not something that's actually occurring or an issue that's actually been raised by any of these businesses. So I am inclined to support what's been put before us tonight. I think that we need to focus on that, making sure that we address the immediate hurdles that lay before our businesses to keep them afloat. And then we can deal with this issue. It's going to come back to us on the issue of a potential hypothetical. Maybe it will happen, overreach will come back to us in February and we can have a robust and transparent public conversation that's been agenda ized pursuant to the Brown Act in our Sunshine Ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Anyone we haven't heard from yet? COUNCILMEMBER That's why, before I go back to Councilmember Spencer.
Speaker 3: No, I think so. For Councilmember Baysox benefit, because it wasn't at the at the earlier thing. I do think that there is some consistency that needs to happen between these, even though these are different contracts. I think having different sets of expectations in different contracts is problematic. And I do agree with Councilman Vice Mayor Bell. Now I'm going to start calling you Councilmember Vice Mayor Avella. You know, I agree with that. I think we have addressed this issue. The businesses that have signed on to that have already we've already approved their contracts, signed on to a very vaguely worded thing that said one. One violation is a problem and would cause them to to lose their funding. I think, you know, I raised some concerns about about the vagaries of that. And we we took some action. Councilmember her Spencer has highlighted that she has some further concerns about that. And I think we can address those as a part of the policy. It's how it's being addressed now, and it is actually after the fact adding additional protections to an agreement that these businesses have already said they are comfortable with. And therefore, I'm comfortable moving forward and I hope that we can do so. I appreciated the email we received in December from Saint George Spirits asking us to please take action as fast as possible. And the idea of putting a halt on this and waiting a month or a month and a half to to really hammer something out just does not seem wise. We've been through this whole thing saying we need to act fast. We need to act when people need the help so that they don't get to a place where we are taking action after it's already too late. And I think that we're getting to some places where we're at risk of that. So I'm happy to support the staff recommendation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Knox White Councilmember Spencer Tracy and. You might still be muted.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I was. Appreciate that. One of my concerns in regards to asking about the rent being abated is that these are monies that then would go to the base reuse fund by city money. And I feel like there needs to be some balancing act between what is being abated and what someone in the city is receiving or somehow a council has determined. It connects, right, that there's some relationship. And because this money is not our money is and we're talking about approximately, I think, 300,000 that we're talking about abating, which would be money that the city has not received. So I want to put that in the context as much as I want to help these businesses. I also want to be able to provide services and whatnot for our community and do the. Repairs and whatnot at the bay so that we can continue to support all of our tenants and our community members out there, including those that live out there. Right. So this is this is, as I see it, as honestly, a big ask. We have many and I appreciate the program of up to 7500 for a certain tenant, I mean, across our town. But here we're actually talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars, not 7500. So that I think it is important to be clear on what the ask is. And then in regards to the paragraph, I appreciate member day for expediency that the language is actually very specific in the contract. The city may. Upon the written approval by the city manager and city attorney in their sole and complete discretion, impose some or all of the remedies, including the tenant shall immediately owe and pay to the landlord. All unpaid deferred base rent together with late charges interest do a reason to me that is not just loose language at all. It's actually extremely precise. And that's why I have the concerns that it does not allow for the discretion. It actually says any. It doesn't say anything about the type of violation. So that's why I see that as a concern. And I think it is important to balance that regardless of what my other colleagues have done in the past. I think it just and I, I do appreciate the memory. So I have read this and I think it is an important issue to be addressed. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And Councilmember Spencer, just so that we don't mislead anyone in the public who doesn't have the benefit of having this agreement in front of them, I continue reading where you left off because it does say that the city may opine that the written approval of both the city of Alameda City Manager and city attorney in their sole and complete discretion, impose some or all of the following remedies. And yes, Tenet, one of them might be that the tenant shall immediately owe and pay the landlord all unpaid deferred deferred base rent together with bank charges and interest. And the next option, though, is that the possibility is the tenant shall return to landlord within ten days of the date of the written notice from the city, all previously earned rent credits defined below or the tenant another option. The tenant shall not be entitled to any further benefits established by and described in this amendment or the fourth possibility. Tenant shall timely and fully comply with the remedies imposed by the set the city under this subsection. If they and and again this is after they've met with been warned had a chance to cure. But it also, as the vice mayor reminded us, is coming back to the council for further refinement of policy by this council. So it's there's a lot of permissive language. And it and again, I want us to all keep in mind the reason we're doing this is to stem the spread of COVID 19 so our businesses can reopen again, our kids can go back to school. But you raised a good point about the base reuse fund. And I want you, if I can, call on city manager Eric Levitt to just tell us what you've addressed before. When we've discussed the base reuse fund, it is true that this money would come from it. But what's the what's the condition of the base reuse fund and how will this impact it?
Speaker 1: I think in the short term, definitely it puts pressure on the base reuse fund in the short term. I think we're looking at the long term as far as the business is out there and we're trying to make sure that we keep attractive tenants out there and that we have strong tenants out there. And I think we're trying to help them work through this time so that long term we continue to have these tenants out there and then that would replenish those funds that would be lost in the short term. So that's what we're trying to do. But this is a difficult financial time for the city as well as for for the tenants, for sure.
Speaker 0: Death to quote from the. Thank you, Mr. Levitt, and to quote from the financial impact paragraph on page four of the staff refer staff report fund eight five, which is the base for use fund received 16.6 million on a revenue budget of $14.2 million, which and that was in fiscal year 2019, 2020. So it received $16.6 million on a revenue budget of 14.2 million, which added over 2.4 million to the fund balance. So the reduction of $393,140 is unlikely to adversely affect the health of the fund in fiscal year 2021, but 20 and then 2021. But I think the other point is that we don't know where this when this is all going to end. I'm really hopeful that the vaccines get here in a timely manner. We get people vaccinated that 80% to get our herd immunity. But how long that will take, we don't know at this point in time. So that's why it is really important to make sure that in addition to our largesse to our business community, we make sure that the very logical and sensible orders of the public health officer are being followed. And it's not that we try to play gotcha, but we don't want to be creating problems for other businesses or specific businesses by ignoring the public health officers orders. And I will say that in all of Alameda, I think we had very few businesses cited for for violations. So anyway, I thought. Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, I don't see myself supporting this agreement until we have the protected policy, the language regarding protecting against overreach, I'm not going to support this.
Speaker 0: And notwithstanding the policy agreement that's coming back to us in February.
Speaker 1: No, no. You know, that was a lesson that I had learned on the first go around, as if I had to do it over again. I would have I would have said, let's get the policy, hammer out the policy first guard against overreach. I think it's a real issue. Other people might not think it's a real issue. I think it's a real issue. So I'm not going to support this until I see it.
Speaker 0: Garrett Thank you. Visalia Villa.
Speaker 4: So we heard twice from one of the business owners asking for aid. And I just want to understand, my colleagues that you want to withhold aid to these businesses, you want to withhold financial aid to our businesses. You would rather see our businesses suffer financially. Because of a hypothetical issue that we are going to address before the contract is even even going to be enforced. I'm just trying to understand where the issue is, because the business owners themselves have not raise these issues. They're not expressing a concern about an overreach. And we have an opportunity to actually address it because of the timeline. This is the first reading. There would be a second reading and there's a 30 day period. Correct after that. Madam Mayor.
Speaker 0: Yes, according to his staff, has told us so.
Speaker 4: So ultimately we have time to enact the policy, but we're going to withhold. Your plan is to withhold financial aid to businesses that are struggling. We'd rather see our businesses go under or struggle financially. And we'd we'd we'd rather see people lose their jobs. I'm just I'm trying to understand.
Speaker 0: How a council member decide they want to address.
Speaker 1: I think I said my piece.
Speaker 0: I right.
Speaker 1: We need to guard against overreach.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Spencer.
Speaker 4: Thank you. You know, I really do appreciate the vice mayor's comments. And I was going to put it in perspective. I think there is a compromise here that removing the paragraph regarding the COVID 19 enforcement violations that I think she so eloquently describes is hypothetical. So I think I would be very comfortable moving forward if we remove that paragraph that honestly, I would agree. It's a hypothetical, apparently these differences and I think they truly are good, solid basis and we don't have that issue with these businesses. So I don't even know why it was added. I actually don't. I think it was overreach to add it. I think we can trust our businesses, work with our businesses like every other business in town that they don't need a hammer on them. I mean, so I say this is why in the world was it even admits a hypothetical, so let's remove it in its entirety and then I'm more than happy to support that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor Valet.
Speaker 4: Because as my learned colleague so eloquently pointed out earlier in this meeting, we are giving them substantially more financial help than all of the other businesses in town, and we're giving it from an account that she expressed concerns over. So I think that there is a give and take. There is agency on the part of the businesses in question. They have had an opportunity to raise these issues. And I frankly find this whole conversation to be a distraction from what the real issue is. And I found us going veering so far off topic that it seems as though we're willing to kill a deal that's been agreed to. And that's a frustration that I I'm sure the business owners share. I think it's disappointing.
Speaker 0: I thank you for your comments. City manager, address your hand up.
Speaker 1: Yes. And so I can clarify a little bit more on the finances. So I actually just received on Friday of last week or Thursday of last week, I just received the initial estimate of what the revenues and expenditures were for the end of last year, not for this year, but to June 30th, 2020. And we did end up with a net positive balance of $6 million in this particular fund. Some of it may have been from sales, but a lot of it is because we did reduce certain expenses. So we had about 14 million in lease revenue, about 2 million in revenue last year, which is the 16 million you referred to. And then we were able to reduce expenses. We still have major capital expenses out there and that all of this also goes to the capital expenses. But we do have that access and I feel very comfortable. I want to make sure everyone is aware we recommended these lease because we feel that the long term viability of that area and the Spirits Alley, that these lease agreements would help keep these businesses afloat right now in a time of need and then have them be able to come out of it stronger, which I think in reverse. In in the end would make the city of Alameda stronger by having these strong leases out there. So I want to make sure and clarify I didn't fully answer that question earlier.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. 11 is Max. So I see you hand.
Speaker 4: Up and building on Mr. Lovett's point, we don't expect.
Speaker 3: Any further applications.
Speaker 4: For this program.
Speaker 3: And it was $1.5 million allocated for it, and we will have spent approximately one half of that and anticipate that's about what we will spend.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Mansoor. Miss Spencer.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to approve this, but strike the provision of the COVID 19 enforcement violations.
Speaker 0: Certainly, we have a motion to have a second. No second. So that motion fails for lack of a second. I am going to just ask us all to take a deep breath, take a step back. Let's look at this from a number of different perspectives.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: Rarely in political life do we come to an agreement that everyone thinks is absolutely perfect, and we like it just the way it is. But at the end of the day, as elected representatives, and not just any elected representatives, we are governing at a very precarious time for our residents, for our businesses, for city government. None of us knows exactly where this all ends. Hopefully it ends well. And I truly believe, as I have said many times, that time and science are on our side. If we can just hold out until enough vaccine is out there to get us past this terrible scourge that we have lived through. And again, while we are all impacted by COVID 19, not everyone is impacted equally. And when we think of these businesses, it's not just the business owners, it's the people that work there that they employ. And so are there other ways that we can achieve the same objectives? I think, you know, Councilmember Desai, Councilmember Spencer, I think your concerns are valid. I don't disagree with you, but I feel that we have already in the previous item over which we spent a great deal of time in discussion, we came up with something that would satisfy the concern about overreaching. In fact, I, you know, implored that I would love to put together an ad hoc committee to advise exactly precisely what kind of language you would want to see in there to to guard against this overreaching that you've both referenced. And, in fact, I'll make my offer once again that I would be delighted if the two of you would agree to be that ad hoc committee to work with the city attorney's office and city manager and community development and come up with that language that you think addresses any deficiencies. But we we stand here at a crossroads where we can just walk away and say, okay, you two legacy building businesses that have been added alameda point a long long time we have helped other businesses out here you we are turning your back our back on because we just couldn't agree on the precise wording i'm asking you to stop and consider are there other ways to achieve almost all of what you want? Because I don't think any of us is going to walk away with everything we want. So, okay, before I hear from one of you, I see Councilmember Knox White's hand.
Speaker 3: So I just want to know, we developed this program early. In November, I believe, early November and December. We've been negotiating with these with these companies for six weeks. We've heard from them. They've sent us emails asking us, please, to do this. I guess I, I do feel that we have come up with a solution that addresses the issue, an issue that none of the businesses who already agreed to these contracts and are aware of the issue have raised. And I think that in fairness to all the businesses that we have already signed agreements with, the idea that we would, at the end of the day, sign two agreements with different terms seems really odd and off putting. And I guess I'm a little concerned, I guess, that that my colleagues are suggesting that the three three people on this council are going to somehow turn around and change the policy in order to start pulling the rent out from under some of the businesses that we're trying to help, which really at the end of the day is kind of the intimation of what's happening with this policy. And I would like to just make the make make the one case that we just we move forward with this. We fix the issue through the policy at the end of February. And then we and then we, you know, in future ones, I will be happy to work to make sure that we don't get into this situation. Again, it's you know, this is one of those things is we're somewhat sometimes building the airplane as we're flying it , trying to address issues and needs. And, you know, we clearly could have done this. And by we I mean the council, because this is actually something the council inserted in at the end at the last minute, which is why I'm nervous about making changes at the last minute after an entire negotiation that has completed. And and this is not an issue in which we are actually putting the city at risk around this. This is an issue in which we're now making the case that we want to actually provide more more protection to businesses themselves than than to the city, who we are actually negotiating. We're negotiating against ourselves a little bit here. I think it's all in good faith, and I'm not arguing against that. But I just want to say, like, we're not with this issue that we're talking about is not one where the city is going to somehow be on the hook for things because of a mistake. We're actually trying to make sure that we're clearer to our tourist folks. So I'd like to make a motion, quite honestly, to approve the staff recommendation with the hope that we can honor the negotiations and the work that our staff has done at the direction of a unanimous city council about six weeks ago.
Speaker 0: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Vice mayor.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 0: Then seconded by Vice Mayor of L.A. Discussion Councilmember Spencer. I think I saw a hand up.
Speaker 4: So I did watch the meeting when this was discussed and it was this paragraph is injected at the end and I believe by the mayor because she had this concern and I appreciate that. But honestly, the discussion that this has been going on and on and on, that is correct. And I am not right. But if the last at the end when I watched the middle of all this was an objective and added. And so honestly, I don't believe that this actually was part of the discussion from day one of these discussions. So that's why I feel like it is a good compromise. Just remove that paragraph then if we can't reach it and come back later, or the policy of how we're going to enforce all of that does apply to all of them. But this language, I think it is harsh. When I heard it during the meeting, I was caught off guard, quite honestly, that wow, where it got even come from. It is an extreme. I think it's extreme. I think it's unfortunate that somehow it got included and I and I so I, I don't feel comfortable that the language and the solution is not a real solution if it's not in the contract. And quite honestly, policy can change by a vote of three any time. So I think that is not a real solution to have it. Some document, three people, three council members can change any time. It's not part of the contract.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further discussion? Okay. CNN May we have a roll call vote, please?
Speaker 2: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 4: Nope.
Speaker 2: Not quite.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 4: Spencer at State.
Speaker 2: Villa.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Mayor. As the Ashcraft High that required four votes since there was only three eyes, one now and one abstention, it fails.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. We have dispensed with item six B. And before we move on to item and I do, I just want to say one thing and then I'll call on you. Vice Mayor Elect Elector Council Member. Now, that's why I am very disappointed and I don't like to see us treating different businesses differently and I hope moving forward we can find a way to do better. Perhaps after our policy discussion, Councilmember Knox White and then the city manager.
Speaker 3: So I'll see what that city manager has, but I'd like to make a second motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. Vice versa.
Speaker 1: So as I understand it, the vote failed on the two lease agreement for failure of gain to four votes. So do you want us to try to figure something out and bring another solution back for another first reading for the next council meeting? January 19th. I'm assuming that's what you would like, but I just want to make sure that I'm consistent with the desires.
Speaker 3: Of the Council.
Speaker 0: Back to Councilmember NOx. Wait, please.
Speaker 3: So I will move that. We approved that we remove section four and approve the approved the contracts because I do believe that we need to move these forward with direction to staff to work on a is to work to insert the final policy work into an up lease amendment after the after after we have an approved council lease amendment. I've heard from our from the point of that these two businesses that they really need us to move this forward. And if we don't if we give direction, we're going to be off in two or three months to two months before this thing comes back and is back to being. And I don't want to wait that long.
Speaker 4: I'm having a second thought and discussion.
Speaker 0: I, I have a concern about just suspending any reference to COVID 19 public health order violations. I would mind if you modify the language. I might consider it Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: I have a similar concern also because we had other businesses at Alameda Point completely flouting the health regulations, and these were two businesses that were, in fact, not doing that to the detriment of their business. So I do have those concerns, and I think I'm not in a place to vote for that with that completely being removed , especially when we have the other requirements for the other contracts.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Spencer.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I I'm not sure you all heard. I'm seconding the motion. I think it's a great motion, great compromise, and then we can move forward.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor, do you want to try to suggest some modified language for paragraph four?
Speaker 3: I don't know what I.
Speaker 0: Mr. Knox, wait. We have a new vice mayor, and I was actually.
Speaker 4: Calling about.
Speaker 3: Is the maker of the motion. You were talking to me. My apologies.
Speaker 0: I guess you'll be next.
Speaker 4: You know, I think that we still need to have language in there that references the COVID 19 health and safety ordinances, that if there's an ocean violation related to COVID 19 or a violation of the county health orders such that the county Department of Health takes action, that the contract be suspended pending a review of our legal counsel and coming back to council. Something to that effect.
Speaker 0: And City Attorney Shann, perhaps you could help us out here. I wouldn't mind seeing language that articulates the opportunity for someone who's found to be in violation, to cure that violation within a certain period of time. I mean, I guess if the rave was held, but that's where some discretion would come in anyway.
Speaker 3: If it.
Speaker 4: Didn't fit.
Speaker 3: So what? One one easy fix for the contract that might satisfy the the concerns of the councils are currently it provides that and currently it provides the list of potential remedies but that the decision makers or the city manager and the city attorney would the. What if we just remove that and change the decision makers to the city council? It wouldn't change much of anything else in this agreement other than just to say upon the approval of the city council in its complete sole and complete discretion. I think with that, would that would that typify the Council?
Speaker 0: What about the opportunity to cure.
Speaker 3: And so the council. So number four gives the opportunity to hear, right. So options for the current lease gives the council the discretion to essentially ask for a cure. And so then it puts the decision making back into the council's hands, which I heard is a major concern that staff might overreach. And then the council can elect to go with step four, which is a cure.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Spencer.
Speaker 2: You to vote. Thank you. Give additional time. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: I am sorry. Councilmember Spencer, you're out of time. And I'm almost out of time. I would move that. We give ourselves five additional minutes. This takes four votes.
Speaker 4: I'll second that. Oh.
Speaker 0: We may not have four votes. Okay. It's been moved by the mayor and seconded by Councilmember Spencer that we get five more minutes each. Roll call vote.
Speaker 2: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Not right.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Spencer. I vella know mayor as the Ashcraft. I know that fails because it needed four votes and it was 3 to 2.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I got that calls every day.
Speaker 1: So do the rules allow me to yield time to someone without?
Speaker 0: They do not. But you can keep talking.
Speaker 3: I guess I call it the question.
Speaker 0: That we have. I was just about to call the vice mayor of vice mayor of L.A..
Speaker 4: So I heard a suggestion from the city attorney. My question threw the chair to the maker of the motion. Is, is that something that is amenable to the maker of the motion? To give to replace the city manager and city attorney with a decision by the council, since the issue seems to be discretion to unelected staff.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm not comforted. That's what I've heard the issue is. But. But Councilmember Desai, would that be something you would support?
Speaker 1: You know, it's. I think it's how you frame it. I think were we the city council are not. Playing an administrative role in terms of managing a contract. That's that's not what we do. And if if if what we mean is that. When the city manager or city attorney comes to some kind of decision, they will before executing that decision, they will forward it for ratification by the city council. That's a. You know, frankly, I don't think there's any higher authority when it comes to dealing with overreach than the city council. And it is a public it would be a public it would be a public meeting. So.
Speaker 0: So tell us how you would phrase it so that you would support them. You would want any decision of the city manager and city attorney ratified by. The Council rather than if you tell us.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't know. I think. I think we're moving in the right direction and frankly. I'm probably not as much on my toes to make some kind of policy language on the fly right now. So I still go back. I would rather have a hammer out the policy before they. Like I said before, you know, let's hammer out the policy before we make we make some kind of agreement. And I know what you're saying. Well, as hammer out tonight, I don't I don't know if we can hammer hammer that out tonight.
Speaker 0: So Vice Mayor Villa.
Speaker 4: So Councilmember de SAG, might I propose that we get language in there that just says that the ultimate decision rests with the council with a vote of the council, that there could be a recommendation made by staff. We're going to be developing policy. That policy will be in place before anything actually happens. So we would be guided by our own policy when we make a decision to ratify.
Speaker 0: Cancer every day. So because.
Speaker 4: Of that. Because of the dose or because of the delay in in and acting things that we're going to be making a decision on policy in February. So that policy would then guide our ratification vote?
Speaker 1: Well, I think it is a substantive it is a substantive move to have the city council. The issue is staff overreach. That's the way issue that I'm seeing that I'm agreeing with. Councilmember Herrera Spencer I see articulated in the previous matter and I think it still is still exists here whether or not people believe it's true or not. I mean, it's completely possible that maybe these guys didn't want to raise it as an issue and they caved to language for as harsh it as it is because they didn't want. So I think there's room to say that it's incumbent on us. I think ultimately the decision has to be on the city council when it comes to either one, two, three, one, well, one, two and three are basically penalties for is kind of this kind of very vague due process. So all the things that I'm reading is there's a lot of concern about businesses that they feel across California that they feel are being punished by by government. And so I don't know. I mean, I'm leery of making policy on the fly tonight, that's all. I think we're moving in the right direction. I'll leave it at that. I have 30 seconds.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I guess my concern is, is that if how would there be staff overreach if council ultimately votes on it, but on whether or not we're enforcing that provision?
Speaker 1: I think that's.
Speaker 4: Okay. So. So if we if we added that, would that make. Would that make this something that you would be agreeable to?
Speaker 3: I'm.
Speaker 1: Now I just have to see the language first. So.
Speaker 0: Can we put the language up on the screen and what do you think of that? Councilmember That's why.
Speaker 3: Go through the chair. Attorney Shen Would we be able to in this? So what I've heard is not necessarily just overreach of the city staff, but I've heard an outright essential. I'm going to stop short of saying an accusation, but that three, even three council members cannot be trusted making this decision. And so I'm wondering if we can, because this would not be an ordinance or anything else we could actually, the contract said by a vote of four city council people, I think, for the final determination. Or is that problematic if Councilmember NOx is against that? The Charter makes clear that the council takes three votes to take action. Otherwise, all throughout the charter and the Council taking steps that affect the Council, increase the voting threshold for itself for future items on the charter. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay to my question, because council then Councilmember de SAC said he is not comfortable not seeing the language. Is there something we can put up on the screen? Do we need to take a break?
Speaker 2: I mean, I can put up the ordinance on the street if you just give me 1/2, please.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: And Madam Clerk, if I may suggest that you put up section four on page three on the screen, which is the lease provision that's at issue. I thought.
Speaker 4: Subject.
Speaker 2: Can everybody see that now?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you. But you know what I think? Well, no, it's it's actually the council voted. So I think the that first full paragraph is where. Well, I should probably call Vice Mayor Valley because I think you were suggesting some rewording.
Speaker 4: My, my, my suggestion would be based on the recommendation of the city attorney that we changed that last couple of lines that the city may upon the written recommendation of the city or based upon a vote of the city council. Just replace the city. They'll need a city manager and city attorney with upon a vote of the city council. Or.
Speaker 0: So the city may. And after the comet.
Speaker 4: Mm hmm. It would say upon a vote of the majority of the city council. Seconds.
Speaker 1: You writing?
Speaker 4: I think the problem is that the pdf. Yeah, I.
Speaker 2: Only have a pdf of it. I do not have a word. And I was trying to figure out a way to type or do something and I couldn't do it.
Speaker 4: So I my time my time was running even though I wasn't speaking.
Speaker 2: And I can show it again. But unfortunately, I. I can't figure out a way to tie. Maybe let me try cutting and pasting it into a word document quickly. Just give me 1/2.
Speaker 4: Can someone check the time of where it was when a member of vice mayor was speaking? I believe it was well within the 2 minutes is now out there. Laura. It's Nanette. I just sent it to you in an email. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You know, we're going to do I'm calling a five minute break. It's almost 1035. We're going to come back at 1040, ten four oh. So we'll take a break and take a little pressure off the city clerk. Thank you. Be back at 1040.
Speaker 4: Everyone in the.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Okay, everyone, it is 1041. So we are back in session. Okay. Madam Clerk, did you have the opportunity to. Yeah, look at that.
Speaker 2: And I started. The city attorney had kind of captured some of the changes that he thought he was hearing. So I started to capture those. So they are here, if that is helpful.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: In strikethrough so everybody can see it.
Speaker 0: Do you want to read that for us?
Speaker 2: So it would be changing that section to upon the approval of City Council in its sole and complete discretion, impose some or all of the following remedies. So that was striking the city manager and city attorney part and the written approval just changes to approval.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Desai as your handouts.
Speaker 1: What I would recommend is where it says underlined the City Council. It should be the city council on a 4 to 1 vote. And then I have 20 seconds on number. I replace all unpaid with the phrase some or all unpaid. Number two replace all previously with the phrase some or all previously. And number three 6 seconds. Any further replace with some or all of any further.
Speaker 2: Furthered.
Speaker 1: Number three.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 1: Any further.
Speaker 2: Oh. Some.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Some or all of any further.
Speaker 0: City attorney. Are you finished, Mr. De? Yeah. Yeah. Did you turn the. Please? Yes.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Councilmember, I want to reiterate my concern over increasing the voting threshold, which is not authorized by the city charter.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 4: Oh.
Speaker 1: Okay. That's. That's fine. Remove.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. Are we ready? Well, make of the motion back to you.
Speaker 3: On the assumption that Councilmember De Saag is putting this forth as a motion, I withdraw of the previous motion.
Speaker 0: You're going to have to nod your head or shake your head. Oh, that's a yes. Okay.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. So if I'm understanding correctly. Madam Clerk. Do you want to start the motion for us?
Speaker 2: Yes. So I think the motion has been withdrawn by Councilmember Knox White. And then Councilmember de SAG has made a revised motion to introduce the ordinance with this language added to the leases.
Speaker 0: This modification. So here. Okay. And then do we have second. I see. Councilor remarks. White has seconded any further discussion. Okay, CNN, may we have a roll call vote, please?
Speaker 2: Councilmember de SAG. Mike Knox. Right.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Spencer. You're muted.
Speaker 4: Sorry about that abstain.
Speaker 2: Vella.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Mayor as he Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: This carries by 4 to 1 with one abstention.
Speaker 0: Thank you and thank you to both Councilmember de site and Councilmember Knox Way and Vice Mayor Vella for that for keeping at it a little longer. Much appreciated. Okay. Now another little agenda adjustment. We were able to get the the assembly member. I I'm assuming we still have him. Do we still have the assembly member?
Speaker 2: Yes, we do.
Speaker 0: All right. So before we go to item six C, we are no, not yet 60. But when we get to 60, we are going back to 6 a.m.. And I want to welcome almeida's own resident and this.
Speaker 2: We might have lost him. He was there just a second ago.
Speaker 0: Oh, no. Past his bedtime, probably.
Speaker 2: Oh, shoot. I mean, he was. We just saw him there.
Speaker 4: Oh. Hmm.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what happened.
Speaker 0: Assemblymember Bonta. If you are listening, please come back.
Speaker 2: I can't find him now.
Speaker 4: Oh, shoot.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Too. Well, I'll tell you what. We will work with the Assembly members office, and we will hopefully get him back for our next our next meeting in January, because we'd love to hear from him. So many, so many important issues happening at the state level. Okay. So with that, we're going to go. Are you getting dizzy yet? We are going to go to item six. Madam, quick, would you introduce that item, please?
Speaker 2: Public hearing to consider adoption of resolution, adopting a medicated negative declaration and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to present the property at 23/55 Street from annex mixed use to our four neighborhood residential district to facilitate residential use of the property and introduction of ordinance. Amending the Zoning Map designation for the property at 23/55 Street 1870 4135623. From annex mixed use to our four neighborhood residential district to facilitate residential use of the property as recommended by the City Planning Board.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And who is his presenting this item? Yeah.
Speaker 2: Mayor, I am so sorry. Assembly member Fonda is back now. I don't know me. He must have lost his connection. And I'm so sorry. I don't know what you guys want to do, but I just wanted to give, you know, I.
Speaker 0: And Mr. Thomas and Ms.. Chen, if we could just impose on you a little longer because the Assembly member, I think we're confusing him to now you see it. Now you don't. So if we could just hop. Don't go far. Don't go far. So I think I was starting to introduce someone who needs no introduction. He was actually a member of this body at one time, and he is our friend and neighbor and has represented us in the State Assembly for how many years? He can tell you himself. Hi, Assembly member. Apologies for keeping you up so late, but you are welcome and the floor is yours. Happy New Year too.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Lease Amendments for Rent Relief Programs to Rock Wall Winery and St. George Spirits Through the Loan Conversion Assistance Program for Rent Relief in Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. (Community Development 858)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_12152020_2020-8557
|
Speaker 5: Can I go to the next slide? Thanks. So the purpose tonight is to speak specifically about the proposed moratorium on residential rent increases and exploring additional opportunities for landlord assistance. Next slide, please. By way of background. Several events in September 19, September 2019 have led us to this point from the implementation of rent control to the growing COVID 19 public health pandemic and the resulting shelter in place orders that impacted the physical, economic and mental health of our residents. In addition to Council's actions, the State has also implemented AB 3088, which limited landlords ability to serve an eviction notice for not on payment of rent. Next slide, please. To recap the landlord survey data from this past August, 79% of the landlords in Alameda were receiving close to 100% of their rent. Unfortunately, there were 5% of landlords who are not receiving any rent. In that survey, landlords also acknowledged that their non-mortgage expenses continue to remain due and also rise in some cases. Finally, they asked for assistance with addressing these fixed expenses. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. If. From this. I'm sorry. Thank you. From this survey, we also learned that landlords were experiencing longer vacancies and lower rents. Which begs the question, are our tenants nervous about committing to a year lease? We also learned that landlords with fewer that fewer than five units are most impacted by non or partial payment of rent, since rental income represents a large portion and sometimes all of their income. With that said, landlords who own 5 to 10, 5 to 15 units tended to have the highest percentage of tenants who were paying less than full rent. Next slide, please. That takes us to the emergency rent relief program, recognizing the growing need for assistance. Council approved the Emergency Rent Relief Program, which was designed to assist Alameda tenants who are suffering a temporary financial setback due to the COVID 19 public health emergency and who needed help with rent due. The program launched in August and both tenants and landlords have benefited from this program since. Eligible tenants have some portion of their pass to rent paid directly to the landlord. I would like to point out that applications are currently being accepted and will be accepted through this Sunday, December 20th, and all applicants who have not been awarded a payment in the first round are eligible to apply. Next slide, please. So what is the potential impact on landlords of the proposed ordinance due to the timing of the COVID 19 health pandemic? Landlords have been impacted differently depending on the anniversary date of their rent increase. So for example, if you look at the first row of the table, landlords with an anniversary date between January and March have not been impacted by the current freeze, but will be impacted by the the proposed freeze. By contrast, if you look at the second row, landlords with an anniversary date between April and August have the largest potential impact. Next slide, please. Recognizing that the impact varies by anniversary date, I have prepared an example which assumes the following. First, I've assumed an April anniversary date because, as we saw on the previous slide, the landlords with an anniversary date between April and August are most impacted. Second, I have assumed that the landlord would have otherwise increased rent if not for the COVID 19 health pandemic and the current rent moratorium. Rent Freeze Moratorium. Third, I have assumed that the tenant would have remained in the unit until after the rent was increased. So this table shows that the cumulative projected financial impact of the proposed rent freeze ranges from $301 to $715 for the six month period. The of the most impacted landlord. And I just want to. Point out that that is that one month of vacancy would offset the captured rent increase. Next slide, please. Here we have a chart that shows the rent growth in buildings with three or more units peaked in the first quarter of 2020 and that it also still remains about down about 5% from the peak. It should be noted that ultimately landlords have three financial levers to increase rents, to decrease expenses or to sell their property. Next slide, please. So tonight, staff recommends that council adopt the Oregon ordinance and then recognizing that rents may be falling and that home prices may be rising. Staff also recommends that we explore additional ways to assist impacted landlords. And that concludes my presentation.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Fitz, for your presentation. And while we're waiting to see if we have any public speakers. Counsel Did you have any clarifying questions? Councilor Brody.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thanks for that presentation. On your Slide eight, I mean, would it be also fair to say that, you know, for example, in a studio apartment that somebody that's been a tenant who's been unemployed for, say, six months, you know, also would be financially impacted by, you know, having to pay $301.44 for rent during that six month period. And that there's also a financial impact on tenants of these rent increases. Or not fair to say.
Speaker 5: Guess that seems like a fair statement.
Speaker 0: Thank you for any other clarifying questions, Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This is perhaps a question for the legal staffs, and I kind of submitted the question a little bit earlier, so hopefully I gave them time to think about it. So the thing that's before us contemplates an extension of the rent increase moratorium from the current December 31, 2020 to perhaps June 30th, 2021. So my question is. If a landlord has an anniversary date, i.e. the date when the rent could be increased, if the landlord has an anniversary date of, let's just say hypothetically September 1st. When the June 30th moratorium rent increase moratorium ends. Does that mean that this hypothetical landlord has to wait until September 1st to do all to increase the rents by a cumulative, perhaps potentially 3.8%? Or can they begin to recoup whatever rent that they had foregone? Let's say one day after June 30th by by starting the process of issuing the notice and all that. So so that's that's my question.
Speaker 0: Mr. Ralph, did you want to address that?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember de So what would happen is if the council agrees to extend the moratorium to June 30th of 2021, to the extent that a landlord has not imposed the 2.8% agree that the landlord could have imposed after September of 2019. And again, because the rent freeze for the September 2020 a year has been frozen. A landlord who has that September anniversary date, for example, could raise the rent a tenant to 3.0 an additional 3.8% as of July 1st, 2021. They would need to give proper notice to the tenant, typically 30 days in order to do that. But the July 1st date would be the the operative date for the 3.8%. And then because the the regulation that has been adopted to implement this COVID red freeze ordinance, the way that the regulation has been drafted, the landlord could then raise the rent again come September one by the age that would kick in as of September of 2021. We don't know what that number will be until the April 20, 21 time frame. That's right. So the tenant. But the landlord would be able to increase the rent additionally, again, in the absence of a moratorium, either on the local level or on local level or on a statewide level. If that answers your question. Yes.
Speaker 0: I see your hands still up, Councilmember Day. Yes.
Speaker 4: Just one more follow up question. And yes, that does answer my question. I certainly appreciate that that I also appreciate Ms.. Fitz's presentation. Just my quick follow up question for staff or for for for council members to contemplate. Is there really anything special about June 30th, 2021 as an end date? Because to me, it seems as if we had April 30th, 2021 as an end date. There's kind of an elegance there and that it would have been one full year basically of a rent increase moratorium. So I guess the question is, is there anything special about June 30th as far as our potential and end date for the extension?
Speaker 0: Okay. So that's a question for staff because we haven't got the council's operations yet, but just staff who wanted to address that.
Speaker 5: Sure.
Speaker 0: It fits with.
Speaker 5: I am sure, depending on who you trust or what data you rely on, the vaccinations are expected to be throughout the US. Between June and December. But realistically, it's not expected that every adult over the age of 16 will have access to the vaccine in the United States before the end of June.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, everybody.
Speaker 2: Thanks. I just wanted to follow up on my colleague's question because I think in his hypothetical, it was somebody that had a September 1st anniversary date. So just to say, hypothetically, this goes frozen till June 30th and July 1st. They could only raise it 2.8%. Right. Because their anniversary date for the 1% is not until September.
Speaker 0: Droops. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, the 1%, they would have been able to raise their rent 1% in September of 2020, but that was frozen. So they would be able to raise the rent both by the 2.8. Assuming that they hadn't raised the rent by 2.8% between September of 2019 and the moratorium in April of 2020. If you assume that did not happen, then they would be entitled to imposed a 2.8 plus the 1% that kicked in in September of 2020. So that's where we get 2 to 3.8. But certainly, if they had imposed a 2.8 in September or October of 2019, then the most they could impose in the July time frame of 2021 would be the 1%, the September 20, 28 year.
Speaker 2: Okay. I still think I still think that's a double dip. So that the 2.8. The 2.8. Was that really frozen for this year or was that the 2019 increase?
Speaker 1: The September of 2019 is when the 2.8 could be applied.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: So we are. So we're assuming that the land.
Speaker 0: Sorry. No. Mr.. Mr.. Walsh finished.
Speaker 1: Up with. So we're assuming for the sake of Councilmember de SA's question that the landlord did not impose that 2.8% in September of 2019 all the way through April of 2020. So if we assume that then and then the moratorium kicked in, the landlord could not have raised that 2.8% going forward. And then September of 2020 would have rolled around and the council had the rent freeze moratorium in place so that the landlord could not have the 1% at that time either. So that's where we get the combination of the 2.8 and the 1%. And so that's where they're making up for that, as it were, when the moratorium rent freeze would be lifted.
Speaker 2: Okay. So what I'm not clear is in September of 2019, there was no COVID in September 2019. There was no moratorium. You got to do your 2.8% increase on the anniversary of your tenancy, which, you know, September, October, November, December, whatever. And if you choose not to do that, then and you renew the at least for a year and you're not allowed to do it, my understanding of the rent norms, you're not allowed to do it for another year. You can bank it based on the banking rules and such. But, you know, I think the way that this slide is is presented, it's double, double dipping on the 2.8% because we didn't freeze anything in September 19, October 19, December, on November 19 and December 19. In fact, we didn't freeze January to March either. So I get what you're saying now about the 1% for September to December. But the 2.8% is not this year's number. That's last year's number.
Speaker 1: So I know that what you're saying is true. But the fact is, if the landlord did not take that 2.8% when the landlord landlord was allowed to, the landlord could take that 2.8%, you know, any time. I mean, essentially just because they don't use it, they don't lose it. You know, it can be essentially banked, as it were.
Speaker 2: But think bank on the next anniversary date, not just bank on any random date. Right. Well, we didn't have the banking. That's true. But they have to wait till the next September and say, okay, you know, we were allowed to do this, but we did. And so we're now imposing your your new number for the next year because we're not allowing rent increases, you know, midyear, so to speak.
Speaker 1: Well, during that during that year, between 20 between September 2019 and August of 2020, there's nothing that would have prohibited the the landlord from imposing the 2.8. If the landlord would have done that. You are quite correct. The landlord would have had to wait 12 more months before they then could have have imposed the additional 1%. I don't disagree with that, but I'm saying that for the sake of every day. So I was hypothetical. It wasn't done that way. And so that's why I'm answering the question the way I did that the 3.8 could be applied.
Speaker 2: I just hope that in the future we're clear with the communications that come out of whoever our administrator is, because there was some confusion about that. So thank you for for clarifying.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Jodie, any other clarifying questions before we go to public comment? Okay, let's move to public comment. Madam Clerk, how many members of the public would like to speak?
Speaker 5: Three.
Speaker 0: Okay. So then.
Speaker 3: Go ahead. First is Cherry Johannsen.
Speaker 0: And you each have 3 minutes, correct?
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Johansen.
Speaker 5: Good evening, ma'am. Okay. I think it's okay. Good evening, manager and counsel and. And Staff. I'm speaking tonight for the Alameda Progressives in support of extending the moratorium. We feel that with the vaccine literally on our doorstep, that this is no time to end the protections for renters. We implore you to protect the renters for a few more months. We don't want to see.
Speaker 0: A massive.
Speaker 5: Eviction when the end is so close and people will be able to get back on their feet again soon. So we we so appreciate the council's effort in protecting both the renters, renters and the landlords. But we are seeing our way through this and there's hope very soon. So I hope you will extend the moratorium. Thank you and happy holidays to everyone.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Happy holidays to you as well. Thank you. And our next speaker.
Speaker 3: Tony Graham.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. Graham.
Speaker 5: Good evening. To emphasize the message from the Alameda Renters Coalition that we believe that the moratorium on rent increases should be extended along with the local emergency declaration. The unprecedented pandemic and economic crisis are only getting worse, not better. Now is not the time for the city to step back from tenant protections. One half of the city residents we have received messages from renters are confused and anxious about what will happen to them. The situation is getting dire for many people. They still need your help. Please extend. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Graham. Our next speaker.
Speaker 3: Laura Woodard.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Ms..
Speaker 5: Hi. Good evening. I'm also asking you to extend the the temporary rent freeze. I'm I'm volunteering as a tenant counselor through a renters coalition. And we hear from tenants on social media as well. Tenants are in distress about possible increases coming in January. As you know, many independent work ers and business people have not financially recovered since the pandemic began, and many of the lowest paying jobs will never come back. And looking at the stats data on market rent, it's still extremely high, even with a dip. Many people still feel insecure in their income, their futures and ability to cover rent during the public health crisis. We we hope you'll help to relieve this burden. I also want to note that some tenants were confused by the rent program's letter informing them of maximum possible percent and increase their landlord can implement effective in January January 1st. Some thought they were receiving a notice of increase and unfortunately at least one tenant was given a percentage that was incorrect that was too high because she hasn't been in her unit. She's only been there just over a year and her tenancy isn't eligible for banking. So generally the discussion, this discussion emphasizes the cost and confusion that banking presents for renters, especially during COVID. I hope you'll strongly consider extending the moratorium to June. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Woodard. And is that all of our speakers? Madam Clerk.
Speaker 3: That is all we have. No more speakers.
Speaker 0: Okay. With that, I will close public comment on item four B and will come back to the Council for discussion. Councilor Brody.
Speaker 2: I've said a lot about this issue and in a year or so, pending the rest of you having an opportunity to comment, I would like to move approval of the item to impose and extend within the city of Alameda a temporary moratorium on rent increases for fully regulated residential rental units until June 30th, 2021.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilor Odie. And would you also include a recommendation to provide direction to staff to explore additional opportunities for further assistance to landlords, especially small operators impacted by COVID 19?
Speaker 2: I'll let somebody else make that motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Desai has his hand up.
Speaker 4: Yes, thank you. I just want to say that I. I'll second the motion made by Councilmember Odie. You know, I've. Yeah. So I'll leave it at that and I'll talk about more when we get into discussion.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, I will go last, but I am also hopeful that will provide some staff direction as was outlined in the staff report. Conservative fella has your hand up.
Speaker 5: You know, I think staff for the presentation. I do think that there's a lot of questions out there. Having spoken with a number of landlords and tenants, I think that there's a degree of uncertainty on both sides and people are trying to figure it out. I do hope that we will look at things like perhaps waiving the program fee for for landlords whose tenants are unable to pay rent. I think those are the types of things that we can do to help make sure that people will take the steps needed to register and participate in the program and not feel afraid of . I am a little concerned with the letters that went out. I think it's a good thing to to try to get compliance. But I think we have to also walk that line because there are so many people who are unable to pay rent right now. And I would hate for people to be sidestepping the use of the program, essentially to everyone's detriment. So I think that that would be something good to look at. I think I am open to having staff and to giving that direction to find ways because I think when we help out our landlords who have fewer units and we are also helping our tenants and we are trying to alleviate the stress that exists there. And so I do hope that we we will we will give that direction. I certainly am supportive of it. I also am very concerned about this concept that even though we're giving this protection through June, that people are contemplating a rate increase essentially as soon as possible. And I you know, I think that that's very worrisome and stressful because if people are having to pay the back rent and we want them to pay the back rent, then the nickel and diming people on that increase, it is very worrisome to me. I would like us to also perhaps give direction to staff to consider looking at some sort of longer period of extension for the bank amount of the increase so that people don't feel like they have to use it or lose it. Perhaps we could extend the bank to of the period of time that the increase could be banked in light of COVID so that landlords don't feel like if we don't give that increase from 2019 right away, we're going to lose it. You know, I think we're going to have to be creative. I really want to have us take steps. The goal here is to prevent displacement. I would hate to see a mass displacement of so many of our community members. I also just think that the stress of housing insecurity is so much and it passes on to our youth and it impacts their mental health and it impacts so many other things. And there are so many families in need right now. People are signing up for for supportive services. You know, the number is just through the roof. We're seeing it in our food bank. We're seeing it through the various community groups. And so this is a way for us to also address the stress and anxiety that that is compounding with the pandemic. So I'm very supportive of this. I think that there's more we can do. I look forward to continuing this conversation. I think the more we can be proactive and creative ahead of time, you know, the better just to try to alleviate that anxiety and stress and really bring people together. Because I don't think, you know, I would hate for us to see this as an issue where we put people against each other, and I think we can work collaboratively on it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Vella. And I'll just go quickly that I very much agree with what you have just said. And also, I feel that the there is good reason to do this and do this now. I think the June date is a reasonable one. Again, I'm very hopeful with this vaccine here being given to our frontline medical workers right now. And it's pretty encouraging that the latest polls show that now 71% of Americans indicate that they would take the vaccine if they see more from science about safety. But we are not just going to emerge from one day to the next week. You know, when we did this ordinance before, we thought that by January 20, 21 New Year and we'd be out of it and we do see light at the end of the tunnel. It's true, but we need to extend this longer. The reason I'm very supportive of also seeing what we can do to. Of our small landlords is that we don't want them to lose their property because being foreclosed by the bank, that wouldn't be a good thing for tenants. It is better to keep people who have these properties who presumably the majority of whom are good landlords, to keep them doing this business. They are all part of the community. And I agree with Councilmember member that we don't want to pit one segment of the community against the other. And I'm I'm very encouraged and appreciative that staff has been working with groups of landlords and different sized landlords. So, you know, where the most pain is being felt. So I would encourage you to keep doing that. I think we heard some good suggestions from my colleague, Councilmember Vella, but it's we need to listen to each other , so let's get some practical suggestions for what would help. And, and we've heard some great suggestions for what could could also help our renters. So I'm vice mayor. That's what I don't think we've heard from you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I yeah, I definitely support continuing something. I think it's unfortunate that we got here. If we could have stopped those letters going out, if we had if we had managed to get this before the council a month ago for a different reason, then the council member de SAC i to question the whole June 30th date because it seems like we continue to put ourselves in a place of putting in hard, hard, hard and fast stop dates. And then when we get to those dates, because things aren't going as well as we had hoped, we then rush to fix things or extend them and whatnot. And so I'm wondering whether or not we might want to consider putting a date that is actually connected to win the state of emergency is is rescinded. And and then adding I'm going to assume that since we're doing that, since we're doing this, that, you know, people are not going to go back to work the next day . So the impacts are going to continue. So whether we said it for 30 or 60 days after the the rescission of the state of emergency, that seems to be a way of just kind of continuing to benefit. The one fear I would have in doing that is putting an open ended date on never have it, never allowing for rent increases and whatnot in a way to maybe deal with that would be to allow for a rolling 12 month rent increase so that as you get to the 12 month period that you would landlords would be able to use the rent increase that they had to forego for that the previous 12 months. In this case, it would mean for two or three months some landlords would be allowed to add the 2.8% that they weren't allowed from April to August. But then after that it would be the 1% probably until this thing is over. So anyway, I just want to throw that out there as is a possibility for how we might just give a little bit more certainty as to how long this is going to go, as opposed to kind of, you know, getting to a getting to an artificial deadline. We're going to have to deal with this in April again. And I don't I don't know of anybody who says that this is going to be we're going to be out of this in April. So we're going to be back here in April having this conversation again. I think if we don't go longer than than June 30th. So those are my comments.
Speaker 0: And I'd be interested to hear from staff in response to the Vice mayor's comments. Ms.. Maxwell?
Speaker 5: Mr. WRIGHT Yeah, I.
Speaker 4: Think that's an interesting idea. I mean, I.
Speaker 1: Agree with with this very next flight that we don't want it.
Speaker 4: To just continue without any event that would cause it to terminate.
Speaker 1: So maybe and I'm different and Mr. Rash on this, is.
Speaker 4: There a way to bake in some language that would, you know, give the city council the authority to come back and modify the duration to the extent that.
Speaker 5: The event didn't occur as.
Speaker 1: Planned? But we thought that the timing.
Speaker 4: Was appropriate to end that.
Speaker 5: Limitation.
Speaker 1: It would it would seem to me that if to carry out vice mayors. What his thinking is that at least with respect to this ordinance, it would be tied to the determination of the local emergency. I think what we need to do to come back is to address sort of his second concern about how we would deal or what would the council would want to do with respect to allowing this kind of rolling rent increase concept, because we need to sort of think that through and how that would be worded. And we don't want to do that on the fly tonight. But we could certainly amend what's in front of you tonight to have it not end as of June 30th, but tie it to the termination of the declaration of the local emergency. I think that would be within the ambit of what was presented.
Speaker 0: I'm going to call in myself here. I wonder if we might have language to say that the program would conclude by June 30th, 2021, or the conclusion of the state of emergency, whichever is later, later. And I you know, vice mayor notes, but I agree with you, we are I'm still looking for that crystal ball. But I think the closer we get with the vaccines, I think there's some basis to to have hope that by the end of June, we could do something like that. But again, we're just seeing day two of the rollout. We don't know how it will go. But I'm just wondering if those two are, you know, maybe no date at all that says I think Maria then has a very valid then councilor, everybody with their hands up. Councilman Rivera.
Speaker 5: Not me. I'd be supportive of your proposal. I think it covers both bases. I and then I think we would have to then add the direction. And this is a question for the maker of the motion with that language changes proposed in combination by the mayor and vice mayor. Would that would we be able to add the direction to look at the various relief items? Because one of the relief items would be the rolling period for for the rent increase, and it could either be a rolling 12 month period or just an extension of when the increase could occur. But that would be one of the things or the remedies that staff would be looking at to to help alleviate any stress on the landlords.
Speaker 0: I think it will. We go to the maker of the motion next, Councilmember Odie?
Speaker 2: Sure. Just for clarification, I thought I heard the Vice Mayor propose that it would be 60 or 90 days after the termination of the emergency. I mean, is that something that would be acceptable to you, Madam Mayor? I think when I heard your comments, it was terminating coincidentally with the end of the emergency.
Speaker 0: Um. Yeah, I, I, I think, and again, I, my best assessment hanging on the, every word that I hear from public health officials, from Dr. Anthony Fauci down to our amazing county public health officials, that I think we are going to see a gradual reopening of our economy, too. I mean, that was part of the push that Alameda County made to be proactive to join the state's order even before we were down to only 15% capacity in our ICU to see if we could turn things around. And, you know, last week the public health officer, Dr. Nicholas Moss, spoke to the Alameda County mayors and told us that he doesn't see the ability to do this to our economy again. We just can't keep turning the spigot on and off. So this is like one last, you know, full court press. But the timing's great. You know, we're we're doing this with the vaccine. But which is just to say, I think I guess we could add that additional. I mean, Counsel, help me out with your thoughts. I guess we could say 30 or 60 days passed a day or 30 days past the declared end of the state of emergency. Remind me, there's something else we did that has a plus 30 days scale.
Speaker 2: It was the rent deferral repayment. Okay. Well, I'm happy to.
Speaker 0: Reiterate.
Speaker 2: The motion if if you would entertain that.
Speaker 0: Sure, that's right.
Speaker 2: So I would actually include both because there were some good comments from all of my colleagues. So adopt the staff recommendation, including both a moratorium and the direction to explore additional opportunities. And and the moratorium would be until June 30th, 2021 or 60 days following the termination of the local emergency, whichever is later.
Speaker 0: Elsewhere every day.
Speaker 4: You know, I'm more than happy to continue to second this, and I would love to have some direction. Also, I think some great ideas came out in terms of, you know, how to make some assistance to the smaller landlords. So that would be great. It seems to me in thinking about what we're doing right now, it seems to me that in effect, we are we are really not having a June 30th deadline. Right. I mean, because theoretically. I mean, mathematically. We I. Does any of us of us really think that June 30th -60 days is, what, April 30th? April 30th? Does anyone really think that between now and April 30th that the emergency is going to be lifted? So, so mathematically. And because I don't think that's going to happen mathematically, there really is no June 30th. And you're right. It's just whatever the the the science, the scientists says, is the end date plus. Did we say 30 or 60 plus whatever? I think that's I think that's what we're really calling the triggering point. Is that right? I mean, it's but if you want to insist on including June 30th and that's fine, it doesn't it doesn't hurt. But I just I just want to. Mention that.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 0: Yeah, we. We could all trade our guesses in it.
Speaker 5: Oh.
Speaker 0: I don't. I don't really know that how long the state of emergency will last, because I don't know how successful the vaccine rollout is going to be. But I actually maybe I'm just hopeful. But but anyway, what do we want to do? We need to move this item along. Council. I am happy to use both the date and the end of the order, plus the detail.
Speaker 5: But I'll say.
Speaker 0: Okay, we have a second for the discussion. Maybe have a roll call vote with.
Speaker 3: Councilmember de sac. I actually i i o.d.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Vela. I Mayor, is the Ashcroft high that carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, everyone. And that concludes the last item of business for this meeting. But I want to adjourn this meeting in honor of a very special Al-Ahmed. And I think a lot of you knew who who passed away last month. That was Dr. Jepson. Boone and Dr. Jepson. Boone was a long time physician in Alameda. He practiced for 35 years here. But before that, he he grew up in East Texas and was raised by his grandparents. He went off to Texas Southern Southwestern Medical School. But then in the third year of his medical residency, he was drafted and he served in the in the Navy as a as a Navy doctor. He was there in Berlin as the wall was going up. He also served in Vietnam during the Vietnam War in a number of different assignments. When he was on assignment in France, he met a lovely Scottish nurse named Valerie, who he later married. They had five children and settled in Alameda in in 1971. I got to know Doctor Boone when I was chairing the campaign to build the new main library. Co-Chairing it with Frank Matter SC and Dr. Boone was just a dedicated supporter of libraries and just his wonderful supporter. And then later he was a huge supporter of the campaign to keep the hospital open when I chaired it. And he was also my parents physician for a number of years. And so when we both served together on the hospital board and I talked to my would I also always say Dr. Boone, Dr. Brennan, he'd say that if you knew him. That deep voice. Marilyn, I have a first name. It's Jeb that I said. I know, but I don't think I can call you that. But what I loved in the end also, he was a longtime member and leader of Christ Episcopal Church here in Alameda. But in his obituary, which appeared in our local papers, I love this find that he is and his children will remember him as a tireless supporter and a source of calm in any crisis, real or imagined. He is fondly remembered for his warm, heart wise counsel and a deep skill as a peacemaker. And that's certainly how I remember him fondly. And Councilmember o.T, you you knew Dr. Boone, too, from the hospital board, correct?
Speaker 2: Yes. And I think you encapsulated everything and definitely a great loss to our community. And his many years of service will be missed.
Speaker 0: All right. So anyway, this meeting will be adjourned in honor of Dr. Jeff Coburn. So we are going to adjourn this meeting. Madam Clerk, tell us how this goes.
Speaker 3: So this meeting is adjourned and then you just go on to the regular meeting and start with the.
Speaker 0: All right, so we got no. No break, people. Sorry. So may we have the roll call, please? Madam Clerk.
Speaker 3: I've been notified. Present.
Speaker 0: All right, so then we come to a resolution acknowledging service and some farewell comments. So I am going to start off with a resolution for our colleague Jim Odey, whose last council meeting is this evening. And it is my pleasure to read this proclamation, which later this evening, a masked woman will appear at your door with.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Adoption of Urgency Uncodified Ordinance Amending in Part Uncodified Ordinance No. 3275 and Imposing and Extending within the City of Alameda a Temporary Moratorium on Rent Increases for Fully Regulated Residential Rental Units until June 30, 2021 [Requires Four Affirmative Votes]; and
Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff to Explore Additional Opportunities to Further Provide Assistant to Landlords, Especially Small Operators, Impacted by COVID-19. (Community Development 265)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_12012020_2020-8483
|
Speaker 1: Okay, great. So then we come first time five H and council member Odie. You asked to pull this.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean, given that we're talking about rent and COVID and the comments brought up during item four, and if it's inappropriate and you could you could tell me it's inappropriate, but I think it'd be worth agenda raising that discussion before the end of the year. On whether the rent increase moratorium should be continued. Otherwise, I have no problem with the item.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, is this in relation to five?
Speaker 4: H Well, H is rent and COVID, so there's at least tangentially a link. But if you all think it's too gentle, you can tell me so. But, um, I think there should be some discussion about agenda.
Speaker 6: Easing.
Speaker 4: An extension before it's one one or 1231.
Speaker 1: Um, I would look to the city attorney to tell us I don't disagree that it's an important topic. I would just look to the city attorney to give us a little direction here, if you would, Mr. Chan.
Speaker 4: So I believe Councilmember Brody pulled five H Or did you pull anything else besides five H I'm sorry. H Rent related to COVID. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, so because five H relates strictly to businesses and the direction that the councilmember would be giving us does not relate to businesses. I think that would be a direction probably too far from five H But we fully recognize your comments and we hear them without you having to specifically take action. Okay. Well, with that, I'll move approval of the item.
Speaker 1: All right, I council member Vela second. Okay, so we had a motion by councilmember decided by Councilmember Vela to adopt to approve item five h um, recommendation to modify rent relief programs offered down to point and commercial and nonprofit properties. And any discussion comments saying that we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 0: Odie. I avella.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 0: Mayor. As the Ashcraft frame carries by five eyes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. And so then we move to item five L And is this where we have a couple of speakers, Madam Clerk?
Speaker 0: We do. We have a few speakers.
Speaker 1: This is speakers. Okay. So do we want a brief staff report on this one?
Speaker 0: We need to admit the H.R. director. She's coming in so generally.
Speaker 1: So while we are awaiting the arrival of H.R. director Nancy Bronstein to introduce the item.
Speaker 0: Adoption, a resolution approving an amendment to the memorandum of understanding between the City of Alameda and International Associate Association of Firefighters Local 689 extending the term through December 19th, 2023.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And Ms.. Braunstein, feel free to add. Meet yourself to do that. Yeah. And there she is. Hello.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Recommendation to Modify Rent Relief Programs Offered at Alameda Point in Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic to Allow Loan Conversion Applicants to be Eligible for the Newly Approved Assistance for Non-Profits and Spirits Alley Businesses and to Allow Recipients of Business Assistance Grants to be Eligible for the Alameda Point Programs with the Obligation to Repay the Business Assistance Grant. (Community Development 858)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_12012020_2020-8470
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. And Ms.. Braunstein, feel free to add. Meet yourself to do that. Yeah. And there she is. Hello.
Speaker 2: Do you need. I can. I can just keep a brief overview of this item. This is to adopt a memorandum, an extension of the current memorandum of understanding with the International Association of Firefighters. What this item does, it extends the term an additional two years. The firefighters will not receive an increase this year. In 2021, they would have been eligible for a 2% increase. They will not receive that increase. But during the extension in.
Speaker 1: 2022 and.
Speaker 2: 2023, they will receive 2%.
Speaker 1: So it extends it for the additional two years. So for a three year term. Say. Thank you, Miss Bernstein. Why don't we? Unless there are clarifying questions about the staff report, let's hear from our public speakers and then we'll go back to public to council. Comment. Are there any clarifying questions? Okay, so let's take our public speakers, please.
Speaker 0: Kirk Van Kearney.
Speaker 1: Kevin Brady. Good evening, Mr. Kearney.
Speaker 3: Hello, Mayor de Council. Nice to see you all. Existing contract with the IAF Local 689 does not expire until December 18th, 2021. The uncertainty with regards to the economy and the effects of COVID 19 on the city budgets provides too many variables when considering the renegotiation of a labor contract that has one year remaining. In my opinion, the prudent financial option is to wait and see how the coming months events unfold before discussing a new contract. Our business, community and citizens have suffered severe financial damage. The possibility of continued curfews and shutdowns is likely as the COVID 19 crisis has spiked again. The state in some cities, as well as numerous private companies, including those in our business community, have laid off workers and curtailed business activities. There is a real possibility that our city could also be forced to invoke pay cuts and layoffs. Engaging in a negotiation with only one bargaining unit, especially one that comprises a large percentage of the city's payroll and not all of the city employees is not prudent, nor is it fair to the other bargaining groups. The city and its residents are truly in this together. Now is not the time to negotiate a separate deal with IMF f 689. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Kearney. And our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Trish Herrera. Spencer. Former mayor.
Speaker 1: Mr. Spencer. Good evening.
Speaker 2: Anything. Can you hear me now?
Speaker 1: Yes, that's fine. Okay. Great. Thanks.
Speaker 2: I wanted to also speak to this item. My concern that I would be echoing Kevin Kearney, the Treasurer. I believe we're out of the sorry and I'm back. When I was on council I had voted against this as had member decent. And at this point, I believe it's appropriate that we do not grant the extension. It is a serious matter if you look at the cumulative raises that the Firefighters Association have received under this contract. It is actually 20.7% since 2000 for 2014, which is very significant. I think the staff's report should have included that. I would have liked to have seen a breakdown of the annual raises for the firefighters, as well as their supposed to be a compensation that was supposed to happen in 2020. There's no update on that. There was also I think there should have been a link to the current contract. And in regards to the fiscal health in the staff report, it shares of savings at 174,000. That does not speak to.
Speaker 1: The.
Speaker 2: Additional two years of the 2%. I think it's very likely we will be asking once again all departments to have some savings. And there doesn't appear to be. And this seems to put the firefighters association in front. And I also want to share that if you listen to the transcript, if you look at the transcript from the grand jury, we the conversation with the former city manager that in fact, shares a comment by a member to request a short extension or something of the firefighters contract, which is interesting that that's what's appearing to be happening. Also, if you look at the recent contributions to member Ody and member Bella's campaigns for the their last campaigns, you will see. This is old information, I think, but it was approximately 30,000 from our Firefighters Association to member of this campaign and almost 23,000 to remember Bella's campaign, which is by far the largest donors. The next ones are like 70 $500. So I actually think they should consider recusing themselves from the vote on this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Jay Garfinkel.
Speaker 1: Mr. Garfinkel, good evening.
Speaker 4: Good evening. I have a few concerns, some of which have already been shared by Ms.. Spencer. One is that the firefighters contract, which is extremely generous, is playing a significant part in the city's financial budget woes. And I think that we should not be too quick to make it even more generous. We have I don't believe there's been any comment from the Treasurer or auditor and what the financial impact will be. It appears that the financial impact will be to increase the debt or relative debt of the city. And I think we should have the expert comment from our two elected financial. People. I was concerned that the City Council participated in the drafting of the memorandum by virtue of sitting in on the closed session and then giving direction to the city manager. I'm also concerned regarding the campaign contributions that were received by two of the members, as was just pointed out. And I believe that's patently a conflict of interest. And the city attorney doesn't seem to have any concerns about conflicts of interest these days. So I think that both Councilmember Odean, Councilmember Vella should recuse themselves from any voting. I also think it should be put off until next year as the first speaker recommended. There is absolutely no urgency in taking action on this issue tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Garfinkel. Next, public speaker Harman Reed. Is right. Good evening. Good evening.
Speaker 2: And. And thank you very much, Madam Mayor. And City Council members. I would just like to echo what Mr. Spencer and Mr. Garfinkel stated, and I respectfully request that Council Member Odie and Councilmember Bella recuse themselves from this from this vote based on the the contributions that they received for their for their campaigns. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Reed. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: We have no more speakers.
Speaker 1: Okay. And do we have council comments and questions? Councilmember Vela, I see your hand up, followed by Councilmember Odie, followed by Councilmember Dave and Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 2: So, you know, first of all, I would recommend that any incoming member to the City Council get acclimated with and familiar with our council handbook, which we passed while that person was not on city council. Second of all, I would like to ask. There were some allegations raised essentially during the comments, and I'd like to hear from our city attorney about the conflict of interest. There also seems to be some misinformation. There are requirements that we report. Any in-kind contributions. Whether or not we have any control over those things does not make them a monetary contribution. I'd also like to find out. So I'd like to hear from our city attorney on that. And then I'd also like to wonder, Mr. Garfinkel is a top donor to Councilmember De Saag and to Ms.. Spencer. And so whether or not they need to recuse themselves from similar votes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So, Mr. May. May I call on you next?
Speaker 4: Of course. With respect to the question about conflict of interest, there is no state or local law requirement that mandates that council members.
Speaker 3: Recuse just because they receive.
Speaker 4: Campaign contributions. And that is a longstanding and black letter law. Council members could choose voluntarily to recuse on any number of things, and that's beyond what we.
Speaker 3: Would be recommending. But in terms of.
Speaker 4: Legal requirements, state law does not require recusal based on campaign contributions, and neither does local law.
Speaker 2: And not a mayor. There was there was also a statement made about council writing the staff report, if we could hear from the staff. I wasn't involved in drafting the staff report, so I'd like to hear from staff about that.
Speaker 1: Maybe the MRU, but yeah, I could.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I can.
Speaker 1: Mr. Leavitt is your Eric Leavitt, please?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I can. I can address both. I can address that. And also just expand to make sure people are well aware of what's in the contract or what's in the what before the council tonight. So no city council member was involved and no see as far as the drafting of the staff report. So obviously in negotiation with the firefighters union, I had to go for direction to the city council in closed session and that was our involvement of the city council and no city council member or city council as a whole had any involvement in it. Other than that, I want to lay out just so to make sure people are understand because I got some emails which confused me a little bit when I read the contract. I was trying to understand how the email related to the contract, but this extension would be a two year extension. If I could just explain real quick to make sure the public understands it's a two year extension.
Speaker 1: That's very helpful. I appreciate it.
Speaker 5: Okay. It's a two year extension right now. They are scheduled to receive a 2% increase based on the salary survey survey on January of 2021. So that's in about one month from today. And with this extension, if approved by the city council tonight, that 2% would become a 0%. So that's worth $174,000 savings for the fiscal year. And about $348,000 savings for a calendar year would occur. That 2% would then go into the following year. So for what was a 2% this year would not become a 2% until 2022, not 2021. And so the reason for the action today or the action before January one of 2021, is that once the increase goes in, then it would become a take back and there would be a different type of negotiation that council would have to do with the firefighters at that time. So the increases with the two year extension as as shown is about 4% over the three years. So over the last year of the contract and two years of extension would be about a 4% versus the average that the firefighters have received, which I think one of the speakers I did did refer to was about a 3.2% per year for the previous six years. So this is a 4% over three years. Collectively, for the entire three years, it's a 4% versus the average of about a little over 3% per year. Prior to this, I think I thought that that was something that was a fair deal. And I felt the firefighters also deferred this year's increase, which actually doesn't even factor into that. What I just said, in addition that we didn't even put into the financials, is that they do pay between two and 4%. In addition on their pension and in what's before the council tonight, they would continue to pay that for the two year extension, which if this was not approved tonight, we would have to renegotiate that in one year from now. So that's not even projected in the financial savings to the city, but that is a assumed financial savings also within the contract.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Levitt. Councilor, are you finished? And then. Okay, so then we're going to Councilmember Ody and then to you. Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean. Mr. City Manager So that to the fore that was on top of the 11 that were allowed by maximum law. So I mean, it's really between 13 and 15% of their salary for pension, right?
Speaker 5: Right. It's over and above the regular percentage. That is.
Speaker 4: Correct. And then there's also a contribution of 4% for OPEB that the bargaining unit is contributing that continues for another two years in this contract as well. Correct.
Speaker 5: I'll let the h.r. Director speak to.
Speaker 2: That. That that's correct. They are paying.
Speaker 1: The additional.
Speaker 2: 6% toward hers and then in addition, another 4 to 4% to the OPEB liability. And that is what I continue.
Speaker 1: With this in your I'm going to ask just for the benefit of the lay audience that might not deal in these acronyms as often as we do. Just tell us what personnel are you referring to them, if you would, please respond to that.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: So for the retirement system, the oh, our public safety pay an additional amount as a portion of what the employer would pay. They contribute to that. So they pay 6% toward the employer's contribution.
Speaker 1: And then separately from that, we are setting.
Speaker 2: Aside money to pay down future cost, and that is the OPEB trust. And they pay between two and 4% into that trust as part of their contribution.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: And then the prize is the public employee retirement system. Public employee record. The OPEB is the other other post-employment benefits.
Speaker 4: CARLSON There was another provision in the current contract, something called the Breather Balanced Revenue Index, which created a floor and a ceiling for increases based on how well the city's financial performance was. And that's taken out of this two year extension, isn't that correct?
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 4: So for 2021, then they're forgoing a 2% increase and getting a 0%. That correct?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: That's correct. How much is how much are other bargaining units getting as an increase in 2021, the same year that the firefighters are taking a 0% increase?
Speaker 2: The other firefighter group will receive 2%. And then.
Speaker 1: Our public park police.
Speaker 2: Officers, it's based on a salary survey, will receive four and a half and then miscellaneous employees are 2%.
Speaker 4: Okay. So I appreciate that. Just a couple quick comments. It never ceases to amaze me that we have the you know, the haters of the firefighters come out whenever there's a contract. And I can never figure out why it is. I mean, is it because they save lives? Is it because they protect our property? Is it because, you know, when we have an arson string on Park Street, they respond quickly. So a whole block of of wooden buildings is not burned down. Is it because they risked their life and limb to in mutual aid to help the state while it's burning? Or is it because they exercise their First Amendment rights, First Amendment rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States? So, I mean, some day somebody, you know, I'm not going to be here much longer, but someday somebody will tell me, you know, what what what the problem is with firefighters, you know, is it that they do their job and they protect us and we don't like that? Or is it, you know, that, you know, they just decide on their off time to exercise their First Amendment rights and including and First Amendment rights is the right to make an in-kind contribution to a candidate of their choice that they've endorsed. And they've chosen to do that. And as Melissa, our councilmember Bella, but by the way, won the election going away, as she said, that's their right to do and we really have no control over it. So it's just kind of interesting. And I will point out that, you know, according to our charter, which I continue to read and reread, you know, the only response, the only qualification of an auditor is to be a CPA, and the only qualification for treasurer is to have investment experience. There is no requirement and maybe they have imputed on themselves some magical financial analysis powers that they're not required to have. But if I'm going to be listening to somebody's financial analysis, I will listen to our finance director and Eric Levitt, our city manager, and Jerry Bodin, our assistant city manager. So know this whole idea that, you know, campaign contributions are some time link. I mean, that that's the new standard we're going to have then. You know, I think when two people one person on council now and one that will be sworn in in two weeks decides to vote on anything related to tenants. You know, I think I'm going to be the first one in line that says you need to recuse yourself, because under your standard, if you receive campaign contributions, you're not allowed to take a vote on that. So we'll just see how far that works. So again, it just boggles my mind that there's so much angst over, you know, people that are protecting our city when, you know, they volunteered or offered to take a 0% increase during a COVID year when, you know, their fellow public safety officials are happy to take a 4.5% increase. So it is what it is. But, you know, I hope someday there's animosity towards the fire department and their hardworking employees goes away. I'll just say one last thing. I mean, it's a little bit weird for me to sit up here and have my ethics criticized by someone who accused of taking city funds and depositing it in their bank account. But, you know, life is what it is.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Odie. I'm going to ask our H.R. director, Nancy Bronstein, to comment, because I also don't want to pit one public safety group against another. I think that anyone who risked their life in the course of doing their job deserves the measure of respect. Ms.. Bronstein, could you explain to us why it is and I believe that the salary survey has something to do with the difference in the percentage increase that fire is seeing as compared to police. Yeah. Since Mr. Latte raised that.
Speaker 2: Is that the memo you are the the negotiated agreement with all four public safety units had this coming salary increase the January 21 salary increase is based on a salary survey. Those agreements identify what agencies will survey. So we look like agencies. And we did a survey and the language in the agreement said that the salary increase would be based on the survey and could be that it would be between two and 5%. So based on the survey results, so the police were four and a half percent below market. So they see that four and a half percent fire was not below market. So that's why they're receiving the 2%. So it's just.
Speaker 1: To.
Speaker 2: Equalize salaries.
Speaker 1: In fact, fire was above market, if I recall.
Speaker 2: I guess above market and place was below.
Speaker 1: Thank you for that clarification, Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you very much. I pulled this item from the consent calendar largely because I wanted to do it as I think that the council ought to extend as a courtesy the CEO, the new incoming council member, an opportunity to officially participate in the vote on a topic that is a large part of the City of Alameda budget. Granted, what's before us right now is about is about extending for two additional years a contract that will sunset on December 2021, I believe. So so that what's before us is specifically about the contract and extending the contract. But really, the topic, the subject for which this contract is being considered or for extension is a large part of our of our city hall operations. So for that for that reason, I it was my feeling that we should include the incoming councilmember. I do want to extend a heartfelt thank you to Councilmember o.T. I do know that, you know, with great passion that he's represented. Public service, public safety service. And I think for that, he should be thanked. And and no one, you know, should she should hold that against him. But I do think, though, that the subject matter, because it's a large part of our city hall budget, I think because there will be a new council member, that she should take part in that discussion. And that's why I pulled this. In terms of the substance of the agreement, there are actually some very good things within the extension. For example, not doing the BRI. I'm not going to go into the details of what the BRI is. But it was this way in which the rate the percentage increases was was calculated. And when you go into the details of it, you know, it resulted in these. Year in, year out kind of increases several years ago that cumulatively, in my opinion, as one of five council members was a slightly excessive. So I'm glad to see that the Brea formula is being stripped out so that that's actually a positive when it comes to this extension discussion. And it is also a positive that that there is a 0% increase, which is a misnomer. 0% increase this coming year as one of the trade offs and a 2% in the following year. And that's a the 2% is a positive in relationship to the average that you heard earlier this evening. I think you heard an average of roughly 3.5% a year. You know, over time, cumulatively, that that added up. So what's so within the the the substance that's being discussed, there are actually some positives. But I think the larger issue, though, is that we should include the new incoming council member, Tricia Herrera Spencer, in this discussion, because this is a large part of City Hall and it will be so going forward beyond the December 2021 sunset into the end of 2023. I suspect so. Okay. So that's why I pulled it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. Dislike for that explanation, Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 2: I appreciate that. However, I also inherited a bunch of contracts that were voted on fairly, but within a few months of me coming into office. So I think that, you know, we've seen this at the federal level, you know, Obama having to wait essentially and people filibustering Supreme Court appointments. I think that that we can go back and forth on this. My concern is that there there is a scheduled increase that they are due to get under the existing contract next month, I believe. And so there is a timing aspect to this. And sometimes, you know, those for those reasons, it's important to to know whether or not that we're going to be paying out the 2% or not and merely holding it up so that a new council member can vote on it might not be the most prudent thing because of the existing requirements of the contract. So for that reason, I think that we should move forward tonight as planned because we're going to get that savings and we need to be able to factor that in when we go into the midyear. And I, I would like I think staff also would like to know what we're doing. I think it's with our noticing requirements and everything else, if we waited, it would it would really put it down to the wire.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Avella, Councilmember de SAG. You are welcome to make a motion to. To carry out your desire. I don't know if.
Speaker 2: You're.
Speaker 1: As is your right.
Speaker 6: I'll I'll move that we postpone this item until the first meeting in January 2021.
Speaker 1: All right. We've had a motion by Councilmember Desai. Do we have a second? I'm not seeing a second. So that motion dies for lack of a second. Any further comments, questions on this item? Counsel, you're still on the consent calendar. I see you're next.
Speaker 5: I'd just like to make one quick comment that I'd be happy to move to the staff recommendation.
Speaker 1: And I make my quick comment. Okay, go ahead.
Speaker 4: Gladly.
Speaker 5: Because I have a great idea. So my comment is that that this process is not something that just popped up and is being rushed through. It's been a part of council conversations. I believe we had two council meetings over the over the one over the summer and one in the early fall as well. This is the culmination of long conversations and negotiations and the idea that we would stop so that that we could possibly change course after all those good faith negotiations is a little disconcerting to me. I also just wanted to say that nobody else has acknowledged it. I wanted to just call out that. I think that the attacks on the integrity of our city attorney, especially given how factual and inappropriate they were, were uncalled for. And that I have I work with a lot of city attorneys in my job, and I have worked with a number of them here in this in the city of Alameda as well. And I hold Mr. Shin very, very high regard, especially as it comes to ethics and following the law. And I think that it was just absolutely unconscionable to assume that he is somehow not care has turned a blind eye. The comments themselves, I think, really did call themselves out as being uninformed, and I will put that down to that. But I wanted to just offer my strong support for our city attorney because I think he does a fabulous job.
Speaker 1: So thank you for raising that point. I was taken aback by the speaker's suggestion that Mr. Shin doesn't care about conflict of interest. He follows the law. He's very knowledgeable about the law. Perhaps this council, moving forward in the next year, would like to entertain a conflict of interest, provision, ordinance, what have you. There's lots of lots of potential, I'm sure, but one of the things we talk about as a council are our responsibilities to the public when we're serving as council members and not to engage in ad hominem attacks on members of the public. There is not a handbook for the public, at least not not a written one. But I've often suggested that we would all do well to treat people the way we would like to be treated. And we can always elevate our discourse. And, you know, we don't all agree with each other, but for the most part, the council is able to communicate civilly with each other. And that's what I ask all of you, the five of us, that let's just keep it civil when we're talking. I know we get passionate and excited and let's set a good example for the public hopefully to follow. And I do want to thank all of our staff for their input. Mr. LEAVITT Great explanation. This party. Mr. Shen, I will tell you, I'm not fully in love with this proposal, but I do understand the merits. I'm going to support it. And so with that, I believe you by spirit. We're going to make the motion to adopt this resolution.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I'm approval of the staff recommendation and the resolution as written.
Speaker 1: Thank you. In a second.
Speaker 4: I'll second.
Speaker 1: All right. It's been moved by Vice-President Slade, seconded by Councilmember Ody. Any further discussions? Seeing. And may we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: I'm sober, Doug.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 0: Not quite. All righty, Odie. I vela i mayor as the guy that carries 41.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Crooks. We have one more item that was pulled also by Councilor Woodside and that's item five. Oh, Madam. Quick, could you introduce that item, please?
Speaker 0: I know. Positive audience approving a Third Amendment to development agreement by and among the city of Alameda Partners and Alta Vista owner governing the Del Monte Warehouse Project located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sherman Street and Buena Vista Avenue to extend the completion date for the Common Extension improvements by one year and authorizing the city manager or designee to grant an additional one year extension without further action by the City Council Planning Board.
Speaker 1: And I think the city manager would like to recuse himself. Yes, yes.
Speaker 5: Yes, you're.
Speaker 1: Correct. He lives near the property. Okay. So we will let you disappear. And Councilmember De said, do you want staff reported? You said.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Adoption of Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Alameda and the International Association of Firefighters, Local 689, Extending the Term through December 19, 2023. (Human Resources 2510)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_12012020_2020-8524
|
Speaker 5: So our man, Jolene Rae and Sheryl Taylor are all are three of the four members of the steering committee. The fourth is Christine Chilcott. And she could not make it for this meeting, but they are going to be providing the city council just with an overview of what the process has been, what they're doing and what their plan for public involvement and public input into the recommendations are as we move into the new year of 2021. It's more of a verbal report. There was a question by a speaker, and so I'll just answer that right now about the public not having the recommendation from one of the subcommittees. The recommendations of the subcommittees did not go to the city council or the public at this point, based on timing and based on the Sunshine Ordinance. We did not get those recommendations until less than 12 days prior to the council meeting. And based on that, I've held those in order to not violate the Sunshine Ordinance. They can, after this meeting, either be distributed to the council. And then and then that will be a part of the public process. I'm going to leave that to the steering committee. Whether they want to do that or whether whether they want to wait until closer to the council meeting in the next year. But they can go into that. We can answer those questions. So just for clarity, you heard the council does not have those recommendations and nor does the public because of the Sunshine Ordinance. And based on that, those came forward to my office less than 12 days prior to this council meeting.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Mr. Levitt. And I would also note that we have with this our interim police chief, Randy Finn. So welcome, Jason, and welcome to our steering committee members who I know have been hard at work well since the summer. Right. So we've got Ms.. Jolene, right. Cheryl Taylor, maybe camera shy or maybe getting here, whatever you like is fine. But we and we are very appreciative for your work and I am going to turn the floor over to you to proceed in any way you want to starting and just in mute yourselves. Are you able to mute?
Speaker 7: Yes. Can you hear me now?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's perfect.
Speaker 7: Great. Hi. Hi. My name is Alfonso Mance, and I'd like to start by saying thank you to you, Ashcraft, and to the other members of the Council for allowing us this opportunity to speak to you and give you an update we've been working on. So together with Ms.. Taylor and Ms.. Right. We are three of the four members of the Police Reform and Racial Equity Steering Committee. In August of this year, the city approached us about organizing the effort to organize the community to make recommendations regarding reforms to policing in Alameda. And since then, we've been hard at work trying to determine the way to be most effective and make the best record recommendations. It's been an exciting process. We've put a lot of hours into it and we've learned quite a bit. And as city manager Levitt said, we have at this point made some preliminary or even preliminary recommendations. They are still a work in progress. And we're here tonight just to give you an update on where we are, tell you what our process is, and to answer any questions that you may have. The we've got about 50 members in the committees and they've been working incredibly hard. We've got some very talented folks. I think it's very important to note at the beginning that we are all residents of Alameda and we're all just civilians, so to speak, laypeople. We don't have any particular expertize in this area. So an important part of what we've been doing is educating ourselves and becoming familiar with policing in general, and specifically and most importantly, policing in Alameda and Chief Fin and other members of LAPD have been extremely helpful in giving us some insight into the way they do things. And of course, we've done other outside research as well. We've had speakers come and speak to us and educate us. You know, particularly and that has been also on a subcommittee of various subcommittees, have had different speakers come in, but people have been very hard at work and I want to thank them all for the work that they've done. So it's important to note, and this is probably really obvious by looking at us that. The four of us were members of the steering committee. Are people of color, specifically black folks. And that is something that when we look at this issue that we bring with us, and it's an important part of what colors our view of the of the situation. We are also residents of Alameda. We are devoted to the city of Alameda. And we want to see we appreciate the job that the police do. We want to see it be a situation where and what of the things we say in our mission statement is that we want it to be a place where everyone feels protected and everyone feels welcome. And that's something that. In the past, it historically has been missing from policing. So with regard to what we've been working on, I think we've got to the philosophy of the committee. We're committed to the idea of reforming aspects of the way in which policing is done in the city of Alameda. But we hope to do it in a collaborative way. We understand the policing is important to our community, and we respect the Army, the police department's commitment to the safety and security of our community. We do believe that the manner of policing can be improved. For the reasons I just stated, so that all people will feel safe, secure and respected. As I said, with a few exceptions, we're laypeople. So we are doing this because of our love of the community and work. And we're starting from scratch. What we have, what our knowledge is that of what it is like to live in Alameda. And what we're trying to do right now is add to our add to our knowledge what it means to police in Alameda and the needs of the community on. With regard to the subcommittees and how they were selected. The city approached us in August about forming the steering committee, and we put out a call for volunteers. We received about 250 responses, which was pretty overwhelming in the responses. A number of people included detailed background information. Some did not. We felt a sense of urgency as well as as the city did as well. And as a result of that, we use the information that we had to make a solid make to make our selections. We select about 50 folks, and that was based on the fact that we had formed or envisioned five different subcommittees, and we wanted to limit those subcommittees to about ten different people. I guess it's just reviewing best practices on. The common knowledge is that it's seven is sort of the ideal meeting size, you know, give or take a few people. So we figured with ten we would get the benefit of the diverse experiences of those people, the diverse knowledge of, but also keep it small enough to be workable. And so approximately right now we have approximately 8 to 10 people on each of the committees. We let everyone put down what their first, second and third choices were. And we were able to give most people their first choices, and some people were willing to. Since the process has begun, some people have shifted from one committee to the other because it turns out that their interests are more aligned with that other committee. The subcommittees meet at least weekly. We, most of us, have standing meetings, most of the subcommittees, and additionally, of course, we communicate as necessary between those formerly scheduled meetings to get the work done. The larger group, the group as a whole meets once or twice a month as needed. The Steering Committee. The four of us meet at least once a week. We often meet with the city manager as well as other members of the city staff. And on a few occasions we've met with the chairs of the subcommittees to make sure that we are you know, we're constantly recalibrating and refocusing as we learn more information and our priorities might shift and also based on input that we get as individuals from members of the community on. As we have said a couple of times, it's community run the chairs or people who are chosen from the city of Alameda. They were chosen by the subcommittees themselves. And so it is representative. As the City Council is no doubt aware and was referenced in a couple of the public comments. We recently completed three nights of informational meetings with the leadership of APD Chief Ben attended and Captains McMullen and Emmet, who attended all three of the meetings which comprised about 7 hours. All told, they answered dozens and dozens of questions and the meetings were very successful. The almost all of the committee members were able to attend all three of the meetings, and the meetings were also shown on YouTube and in each of them has received over a hundred views. And as I said before, while it did answer many of the questions that we had, it also highlighted the need for continued communication between the subcommittees and APD, and also just the value of smaller scale interactions in that large format. We were able to ask to ask questions and get answers, but it was sort of a one way communication rather than. A give and take, which I think would be very beneficial for the committees, committees, and also for the officers and for APD. An important aspect of the process is, of course, making sure that it's public. And as I said earlier, it is comprised completely of members of the community of Alameda, members who volunteered to be involved. And we felt that once we selected those members, it was critical that our initial meetings and discussions and the workshops that we did were a safe space for people to explore their own biases, privilege, experience and expectations of the process. You know, it can be very difficult to have real productive discussions on the issue of race and the issues involving race in a public forum. So what we wanted to you know, the committees, each of the committees, people to find their voice, you know, in the sort of a more private space so that the debate could be free and so that everyone was able to you know, obviously, I think we can all agree that diverse opinions engender the best result. And so this way we were able to be sure that everyone and we do have a number of people with differing opinions, was able to get their voice heard so that we come up with the best preliminary recommendations. Now, that being said, the process obviously cannot be successful without further public input and traditionally. That's one of the things that's done is sort of by a comment period. And sometimes what happens with that is that, you know, you have the folks who have the time and the wherewithal to. Come in and make those public comments. And that's often people who are people of means. And these are the folks, you know, who have the loudest voices. And these are the folks who end up benefiting from polices from from from policing. We're hoping that in. Opening this up to the public. We can hear the voices of those people who have traditionally been policed because those are the most important voices for us to hear when it comes to reforming police policing. I think the police are pretty effective. The Alameda police are very, very effective at. Performing the traditional roles of police, you know, of, you know, keeping crime down, responding quickly. And what we want to focus on more is, you know, those are obviously areas that the police are undeniable experts in. But we want to focus more on is the interaction with the communities. As I said earlier, in focusing on this process and in moving forward, we want to make this a collaborative process. And that means in this instance, making sure the police are able to listen and able to hear the voices of the police populations. So what does that mean that the public process needs to look like? Well, we will be submitting, obviously, our recommendations and our tentative recommendations, these draft recommendations to the public for evaluation. And it's our expectation, actually our hope that as a result of doing that, the opportunity for public comment will result in revisions and improvements. In addition to that, I think it's necessary in order to institute long lasting change and to improve policing in Alameda, that we create an environment in which the police are able to have a continuing conversation between the police and the public who are on the receiving end of that policing. One of the big topics that's come up repeatedly for us is the idea of procedural justice. There was there's a Yale Law School professor named Tom Tyler and who wrote a book Why People Obey the Law in 1990. And what he determined in his research was that people don't obey the law because they fear punishment. They obey the law because they believe that the authorities have the right to tell them what to do, because they believe it's legitimate. And when he further found them, what and what subsequent studies have found is that what gives the law legitimacy is how people are treated. This is a quote from him. What people actually pay attention to when assessing behavior of people in legal authority is not how good they are in reducing crime or whether they get a ticket . What people care about is how they're treated and the particular ways in which they're treated. So I think in order for our process to be successful, we have to open up a discussion between the police and the public, particularly those populations that are traditionally policed and the police themselves. So that, you know, we all obviously necessarily work on stereotypes, we work on generalizations. Alameda is a relatively small city and it's a city in which, you know, the residents of the city are very involved. People in Alameda know each other. They know what's happening in the city. And so we have an opportunity to bring these groups together, to have these groups here, each other, to create different understandings and to increase that level of respect and to concentrate on that level of respect. So that way, procedural justice, actual justice in the procedure, in the way that the interaction occurs regardless of the outcome. Is something that's traditionally been a concept. We can make it a reality. We have the means to make it work and we have the desire to make it work. And I think that's very exciting thing. I'd like to say in closing, just thank you for allowing us to begin this process. Thank you very much for including us in this process. And thank you for giving us the opportunity this evening to let you know where we are. And I'll return the floor to the mayor and Jolene and Cheryl and I are happy to answer any questions that you might out.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Mats, for your comments. And I would also say to the three of you on the steering committee who are here and to Ms.. Christine Chilcott, who couldn't join us, thank you for saying yes when the city approached you and asked you to be the steering committee. I think it was a huge labor of love and devotion to your community at a very, very fraught time that is still all around. Is that it? Just I am grateful, just hearing your description of what has gone on, some of your ideas for purchasing your report. Ms.. Right. Ms. Taylor anything you'd like to add?
Speaker 2: Oh, I mean, it's just been such a joy.
Speaker 5: Working with this group.
Speaker 6: I've just been super thankful.
Speaker 2: So I have to shout out to the steering committee and all of our subcommittees. We see you and we appreciate you. Yeah. And just to echo that, I'd also like to extend appreciation to the staff. I think there was a tremendous amount of work that they did in support of this effort that is continuing. It is ongoing. I think, as Al Mance mentioned, that there are a lot of questions that came up in all of the the during the Speaker series, which was very informative, very enlightening, but just a huge shout out to the staff.
Speaker 1: Thank you for recognizing the staff. Ms.. Taylor and I watched all three of them police those sessions in, and it was intense. And I, I commend Chief Dan and the captains who were involved in all of you for the good work and the questions that were submitted and the answers. And and for anyone who has had a chance to watch them look them up on YouTube, actually, you can get to them from the city's website. So with that and chief fan, is there anything you might like to say? Well, we've we've got you here. Here he is.
Speaker 4: By.
Speaker 1: The evening.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Thank you, Mayor and council and for committee members. Thank you for working.
Speaker 3: With us and for a process that I think has been informative for us as well. And. I personally appreciate that. It's been a very thoughtful process that we're we're doing a lot of hard work here. You're doing a lot of hard work because I think that's what's that's what's important. And this is a big topic, not just locally, but nationally. And that's something that we want to wade into without a lot of this type of work. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you to your fan councilmembers. Comments. Questions of many of our guests. One sister. Oh, they're usually such a shy and retiring group. Really.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Odie I don't have much to add because I thought that was a very thorough update and I appreciate all of the hard work that all of our members of the community are putting in, and especially you three, for preparing for this presentation. You all get a chance to see what it's like to make policy. And, you know, maybe one day I'll switch places with one of you and you'll be on the dais. And, you know, I can I can be on a community committee that you guys formed. So I appreciate. Appreciate the update. And I'm glad to hear that that we're moving forward in a positive direction. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Councilmember Odie. Did I see your hands go up and count them? Because would you like to head the council this year? Leavitt. City Manager. Mr. LEAVITT.
Speaker 5: Yes. And I meant to say this at the beginning, but I definitely want to say that I do appreciate everything that the steering committee has done, as well as all the committee members, all 50 plus committee members. I think they've put a lot of time, a lot of work in thus far. And I also appreciate what the police staff has done as far as getting information as much as we can to the committee. So I think it's been a very cooperative environment. Not everyone always agrees, like they have said on everything, but I think people have been very respectful of each other and of each other's opinions. And I think that that is going to take this process a long way and you will see a lot of hopefully positive results from it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. then Councilmember Geller.
Speaker 2: I just want to thank everyone for all the time that they're putting into this. And I was one of the. The views on the YouTube videos for for each of the sessions. And I learned a lot as a council member. And I think a lot of the questions were really, you know, it's easy to ask a lot of questions. It's hard to really kind of steer things in a direction of getting information that's going to actually be illuminating to the process. And so just I know it was it seemed like it was a very intense and somewhat sometimes awkward format. But I think that there was a lot of information that came through, and it was very clear just from the questions that were being asked, that there was preliminary work that had been been done to really kind of develop themes in terms of where it looks like each of the committees are going and what you're focusing on. And I just also want to recognize that this is such there are so many different elements of what you could be looking at. But it seems even though there's differing opinions, it seems like there's a commitment to really focus on a few elements. And so it's interesting to watch this process as it moves forward. And I look forward to the recommendations that you'll be making to us. And I feel, you know, I'm happy that we're finally going through this exercise as a community and that it is being community led. And so I just want to thank you all for it to be community led. We have to have volunteers like yourselves to put in the time. So thank you so much for for doing this for everybody here in Alameda.
Speaker 1: And I'll just echo it. My colleague said that I'm always so inspired when I start meeting and interacting with members of the community because we have so many smart, talented people and you're all extremely busy and I know you're working from home while your kids are in the next room, or maybe just down at the other end of the dining room table. I don't know how you all do it, but you managed to squeeze in community service on top of all that. I'm really grateful and I want to hear any other accounts of comments. And then I'm also going to ask city manager Eric Levitt and I know Assistant City Manager Jerry Bowden had a big part in this, too. Just tell us about next steps, what they will look like, that public process, how will how will that take shape? And then real quickly, on the police, the sessions with the police, yes. Really thoughtful, tough, hard driving questions were asked and the police answered them. And I don't think they had the questions ahead of time or anything. It was it just in in real time. And I think I'm pretty impressed. I'm not sure that every department would have would have done that and then that, as candidly as we all did on both sides of the equation. So thank you for that. Mr. LEVIN. Mr.. You want to tell us about maybe dates that you have in mind moving forward? And then I know a couple council members haven't been heard from yet.
Speaker 5: So I'll start and then Jerry can add he may have more detail than than I have. We are tentatively planning on having the reports back to the council, the first meeting in February timing wise, and that you could be giving direction as far as how you want to move forward on the the recommendations. I think we're going to be there, the the anticipation and we're actually having a meeting later this week with the steering committee as far as public input process and engagement. And so we're trying to start that off before it comes to you in February, but probably have some continuation after the February meeting. I don't we haven't had all the specifics yet because that meeting is actually scheduled for later this week to discuss the details. But I don't know if Jerry might be able to add anything or if Joline, Alfonzo or Cheryl have anything to add to that.
Speaker 2: I mean, I could certainly just talk there's some talking points of things that we've discussed as options that would be helpful. I'm just going to go down our list here. You know, we were certainly thinking about conducting more proactive public engagements, which could include, you know, surveys getting the word out through community based organizations, social service providers , churches presenting to other relevant commissions and hosting more virtual community forums just to get some more organic, you know, feedback. I think one of the biggest things that we are really bumping up.
Speaker 4: Against in this is that that the communities that are most affected and that are most.
Speaker 2: Policed are sometimes the communities that have the least access to technology, to being able to to be on these zooms. So just really kind of thinking of how.
Speaker 4: We can reach people where.
Speaker 2: They are. I think that's something we really want to focus on.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you for this observation. Anybody else? Steering committee, Jerry Boden and then Vice Spirit. That's what it is next.
Speaker 4: The only thing I would add is that we want to be cognizant and conscious of the holidays. So we're really trying to. We want that public engagement in that public input with the process. But we also wanted to make sure that we didn't drop it on folks for just a limited amount of time through the holidays. So you can expect that the more robust public engagement to happen in January and possibly even into February, but starting in January, that's when we'd like to to make that that stronger push. But we want the recommendations to be out in December so that folks can digest them in between in between different festivities and then and then engage in January. So more to come on that as city manager Leavitt said, we're meeting later this week. And so I just wanted to put that out there and let the community know that they'll be there will be opportunity, even though the recommendations are out.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you for that, Mr. Burton. Bass player. Not quite.
Speaker 5: Great. I want to express my great thanks to Mr. Mance and Mr. Taylor and in absentia Mr. Lockhart as well for your service. I think the work that's being done in the forums that have been held have been really, really great. So thank you for that. I have a couple of just kind of process questions that I thought were best asked of the steering committee because, you know, I was a big supporter of the idea of this being community led. And I think over the last few months there have been questions that as a council member I've received about why aren't you? Why aren't you me, the council doing X or Y? And the answer is being, well, we're kind of waiting to hear from the committees and tying off of Councilmember Vella's appreciation, which, you know, of, of trying to really focus in on some very important key issues and dove deep on those. I'm wondering if has the steering committee considered kind of scope and time like how long you think you see this process going for you? Is it a is it an infinite thing that we'll address everything or more so? And I know you didn't sign up for that, but. Or is it more of a you know, hopefully in the next six months, we will come out with, you know, 15 recommendations. And then anything else is things other people get to work with. I'm curious if you've kind of thought about that and given any thought to, are there issues that might not focus into the the mission that the steering committee has put together that might be good for at least putting out a list for the future for or for another group or for the council to address more independently or anything like that. I don't know if that question answers. Hey, that was a very lie. Was written as one sentence on my computer.
Speaker 1: Okay. We're sorry. And Mr. Manson unmuted himself. So we're going to drop that right in your your lap.
Speaker 7: So, you know, it's it's in terms of the timeline, we've been, you know, one of the things we've been short on, one of the reasons we've been trying to move quickly is because we're trying to sort of tie things into when budget discussions occur because, you know, it seems like some of these things are going to definitely take some money. You know, we're doing it a little bit differently than some other areas because it is community led. So the education process has taken a little while for us to get up to speed and we're still never going to be subject matter experts. But we are thinking this is something that will. The the the. The assignment that was given will be completed in the first half of 2021. We're hoping to make recommendations to you sometime in March or April that can hopefully be addressed and implemented sooner rather than later. From what we've seen so far, it does seem as though this is what it would be beneficial. This is an ongoing project, not necessarily in the form of the 50 person committee, but it seems as though there should be a smaller sort of subcommittee that or commission that continues continues on because we're going to just making recommendations . But in order to ensure that those recommendations are implemented or to encourage the council to implement those recommendations, it would be it seems to make sense to have some continuity. So I think that's I believe I'm asking the questions. If there are any other parts. Vice Chair please let me know.
Speaker 5: No, I think that's great. So it's I think yeah. What I hear you saying is your, you're, you're, you're on a kind of time limited subject, limited to try to get some things in for the budget. But there's probably also a need for retooling some form of what's happening to ensure that there's some consistency and some ongoing . The knowledge doesn't get lost. We just start a whole new group of people in June of next year or something like that, and that's the kind of that will be a next step after those recommendations.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 4: That sounds fair.
Speaker 5: Okay. So I think the one question I'm a little curious about, just as we head towards the June meeting, is whether or not the steering committee or any of the subcommittees have looked into identifying kind of a policy document or a policy statement that really defines you have a great mission statement. I'm wondering if we've looked at do we have a policy statement that actually defines what the role of policing in law enforcement in Alameda is? One of the things that in some of my study that I've been I've come across is this kind of awareness that actually a lot of police departments across the country aren't actually grounded in any sort of real policy statement. It comes more from just a historical they do law enforcement and public safety. But what how that is defined and I'm wondering if that's a part of the work that you're doing in terms of coming forward, as is looking at that larger, you know, how what is the work that's being done? Where where is that getting placed in in how do you how do you take your mission statement of safety for all and turn that into kind of an actionable policy that that is adopted by the city? I'm curious, is there a place that that's happening or do you see that as something that once the recommendations come forward, might be a next step for a council on a policy body?
Speaker 7: We haven't come up with a specific policy statement for regard to that. That is an interesting idea. We our recommendations, you know, we've got the five subcommittees. One of them is unbundling, which makes some recommendations with regard to, you know, sort of addresses the issue of these are the areas we want police to concentrate on. These are areas that we believe can be handled by different agencies. So that. Sort of, you know, sets up a loose definition. And I think a lot of the recommendations will sort of make that clear. It might be useful for us to come up with the policy statement. I'm not sure we saw that as our role just because, you know, we we are not the police, but. But I think that it's something that we should look into and we'll have discussions about that because I.
Speaker 2: Think it's something we could center in some.
Speaker 5: Of these public.
Speaker 2: Discussions, you.
Speaker 5: Know, as we're meeting with the.
Speaker 4: Community to kind of develop what that is. Mm hmm.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think that's true. I think it's part of our mission statement in terms of what's going to make people feel as though, you know, welcome and safe and protected, you know, a definition of what policing is. Goes to that end.
Speaker 1: As a council member, I think I would welcome whatever input the steering committee, the subcommittees bring to us. And I think probably at the end of the day, council will make that final decision. But to the extent that you all are able to work with the police, I think that that would be you could probably make a lot of a lot of progress towards bringing us that recommendation. I think that's a good idea. Vice Mayor. Anyway, thank.
Speaker 5: You. And obviously, as a non Bronek thing, I will I will let them decide how they're going to how they're going to work this together. Again, I'll just add that that was my last big question. I'm interested to hear if we have any public comment. But again, I just I appreciate I appreciate this much in this conversation. I know we're I knew we were in good hands before I saw it. And seeing this conversation confirms all that belief and I will just echo my colleagues. Great. Thanks for all the time. I know that you've put in a lot of time on this and it's probably bigger than you ever thought. And it's I mean, yeah, herculean really is not is not the wrong word for what you've been asked to do. And I appreciate that you have continued this long.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 1: She said. I don't know. I keep thinking I'm seeing your hand go up out of the corner of my eye. Did I see your hand go up?
Speaker 3: No. Probably cause I'm taking notes here.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. I'm a note taker with you. All right. That's good. I am. It's not easy conducting a meeting from a screen. Sometimes I get the names of my own council colleagues wrong if they're in front of me. But. Okay, um, Councilmember Desai, I don't think we've heard from you. Great man.
Speaker 6: Yes, for sure. Well, first of all, thank you very much to each and every one of you, as well as all the different individuals who are participating on the subcommittees. I know that is taking up a lot of your time, and I'm quite sure that you're having to deal with a lot of perspectives. So I appreciate the work that you're doing on behalf of the city of Alameda in improving our police force. I appreciate that deeply. The thing that I look forward to certainly is your findings. What are what is it that your findings and also your recommendations and to see how the two are related? You know, I think there's a lot of things that we can do to improve our police force. Alameda for the most part, as a as a safe city. But but, you know, we shouldn't sit on the laurels. I think this is clearly not just a national issue, but it's also a local issue in terms of improving our police force. And and we can certainly do our our play our role in doing that. So we appreciate you helping us in that regard, each one of each and one of you. So I look forward to, you know, your findings and your recommendations. I think if I have one suggestion, it would be in terms of framing your findings and recommendations, it would be helpful to for me if I could understand what are the low hanging fruit issues and items, whereas a medium hanging fruit issues and items and what are the high hanging fruit issues and items? So that would be kind of helpful if we understand how you believe the community would like to frame some of the findings and recommendations. So thank you very much. Appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Day So anything else from anybody at City Attorney San? Did you want to chime in with anything now? Members of the steering committee. City staff. Okay. Well, I and I should ask the city clerk, do we have any public speakers on this item?
Speaker 0: We we still do not have anyone that has raised their hand. Oh, we have one person that just raised their hand. Jane Garfinkel.
Speaker 1: Okay. Good evening, Mr. Garfinkel.
Speaker 4: All right. Several references were made to public participation and YouTube. And it's not clear to me how we see these YouTube meetings. It isn't clear how the public is participating. I understand that there are members of the public on the committees, but it's not clear to me if the larger public is participating in this process or how we might go about participating in having some input before a final report is submitted to the Council, which will then have a two week public presence, after which the council will vote yay or nay or maybe or whatever. So I'd like a little more information on these issues. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Garfinkle. Do we have any further public comment on this item?
Speaker 0: We do. One more. Treasurer Spencer.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Spencer.
Speaker 2: Evening. I would also be interested in knowing where the agendas are so that we can follow along during the Zoom meetings. If there are Zoom meetings, I don't recall seeing agendas for these meetings or if in fact it's something that is just tape recorded and then we can watch it after it occurs. You know, all of our other subcommittees I'm sorry, committees and commissions are publicly noticed for public participation. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Spencer. Any further speakers? Spencer.
Speaker 0: Aaron Fraser.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Mr. Fraser.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I just wanted to take slight umbrage with one thing that the steering committee said. In particular, Mr. Mance, I am very, very grateful and very, very fortunate to work with the steering committee and they are all great. And I am so, so thankful to be working with them and with my other committee members. The one slight disagreement I would make with what he said was that we are starting from scratch and there are no experts on this committee. He is underselling himself, is underselling so many of our community members. And he's wrong. You know, there are many experts on this committee, including a person who spent, I believe, her entire career at APD. So and public defenders, former prosecutors, former probation agents, people who work with community service organizations. We have the steering committee assembled, a group of people from this community that demonstrates the depth and expertize that make Alameda a great place to live. And so, with all due respect to Mr. Mance, I disagree with that statement, but otherwise. Thank you.
Speaker 1: There is smart, talented in there, also humble. Anyway, further public speakers, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 0: Yes. They just put their hand down, so.
Speaker 2: No, no.
Speaker 1: Okay. Going once. Going twice. Okay. Well, huge. Thank you to all of you. And yes, they they are. I hope they convey that these are incredibly talented people, as are the members of the the steering committee is very lucky to have you all volunteering your time and your talent in the service of your community. Thank you. Yes. What?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I just wanted to make sure, because there was so much work that went into all of the questions. The YouTube is posted, I believe. And so if we could perhaps put have our staff put the link in the chat and get the information out there. There has been noticing of when the meetings were going to be posted. We posted it on our social media. We posted it in a few different places. You could watch the YouTube. Basically, the YouTube was allowing you to watch the meeting even live. It was there was a slight delay, I think. And so so there's different ways to watch these meetings and not all of them are. Our agenda is necessarily as we do for Brannock meetings because of the type of committee it is. But there have been a number of publicly noticed meetings, so I just want to make sure that that's noted.
Speaker 1: And there will be going forward. And I encourage all of you who haven't had a chance to view the YouTube video, go to the city's website, Alameda, S.A., type it in the the search box police YouTube videos or APD, and you will find them. There's three of them. And then settle into a comfortable chair because they are at least an hour. And I think the first one might have gone almost you to Mr. Barnes. Go ahead and mute yourself.
Speaker 7: I was just saying, I think that the first meeting is 3 hours and the other the second and third are 2 hours.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. A lot of time was put into it, so. All right. Well, with that, we're going to thank all of you will look forward to, you know, from here on out, we'll be hearing more about the public participation in different ways. And so we'll look forward to hearing more from you. But again, thank you so much to all of you. Take care. Stay safe. Bye bye, Chief. Thank you to you and your department. Okay, great. Everybody, we are okay. So we could call a quick break before we go to item six. Um, b b.
Speaker 4: Um.
Speaker 1: You know, let's, let's do that actually. We're going to come back at 905. Everybody quick break and we'll be back at 905. Probably want to mute while you're on. Hello, everybody. I a variety. I see. And you, Thomas? I feel like there is Randy Range there. Hey. Hey.
Speaker 4: My pleasure. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 0: Would you like me to read the title? Mayor of the City?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that would be great. Let's just make sure. Is Councilmember Thelma. And she is. She's there. She just read it.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I think we got it.
Speaker 1: We should probably vote. Yes. Yes. Okay, so let's. Let's resume the meeting then. It is a little after break. So we at six be.
Speaker 0: Recommendation to review and comment on association of Bay Area Governments bags Housing Methodology Committee's proposed methodology for distributing the regional housing needs allocation RENA among Bay Area cities and counties and proposed process meeting scheduled to update the city's general plan housing element for 2023 to 2031.
Speaker 1: Good evening and I want to welcome our planning building and transportation director Andrew Thomas this with us and also we are very honored to have with us from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Mr. Randy Rentschler, who is the Director of Legislative Affairs and communications for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area Toll Authority and the Bay Area Association of Governments. He is also an Alameda resident. And so I just briefly I represent our city on the Association of Bay Area Governments, also known as a big which is the Nine Bay Area counties, which comprise, Randi, 110 cities, hundred and 901, 79 counties.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Verbal Status Update by the Police Reform and Racial Equity Steering Committee and City Staff. (City Manager)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_12012020_2020-8509
|
Speaker 1: of Governments. He is also an Alameda resident. And so I just briefly I represent our city on the Association of Bay Area Governments, also known as a big which is the Nine Bay Area counties, which comprise, Randi, 110 cities, hundred and 901, 79 counties.
Speaker 4: So 100 and total. You had a district, 110 entities.
Speaker 1: 101 cities. Yes. And the nine counties and I also sit on the a big regional planning committee. I represent the Alameda County Mayor Mayor's conference on the PC. And so we are here to talk about a very timely topic, housing and and more. And so I want to turn the item over to Andrew Thomas and you can take it from there. Thanks so much, Mr. Thomas.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Mary Ashcroft, members of the council, Mr. Ensler and I are going to tag team this presentation, so I'm going to get it started off and then I'm going to hand it off to Randy and then I'll wrap it up at the end. So we're pleased to be here. We are at the beginning of a really an 18 month process. Are you seeing multiple screens on your.
Speaker 1: I'm seeing.
Speaker 4: Several.
Speaker 1: Two screens.
Speaker 4: Maybe we could change. Laura, can we just get this single slide up? Well while Laura is trying to help us out there. So we're at the beginning of the housing element update process. This is required by state law. We're right at the very beginning. So we here in the city of Alameda, with the help and guidance of the city council and a lot of hard work by the planning board and staff over the next 18 months will be working on updating the city's housing element. So tonight, what we are hoping to do for tonight is start this conversation with the city council. We're going to make a suggestion that this not be the first and only workshop with the council, that this be the first of several over the next six months. And then, of course, the entire process ends with the city council in 2022 when we come to you with a final recommended general plan. So tonight, what we'd like to do is give you a little bit of an overview of the process. And Randy is going to help me explain to you one of the key elements of this process, which is called the RENA or the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. So next slide, please, Laura. Please. There we go. Thank you. So for the benefit of anybody who might be watching on the first question, might be, well, what is a housing element? Housing element is required by state law. And this is a law that goes back many years. Since 1969, state law requires that all jurisdictions like Alameda must. We must plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in our community. And these laws are in the government code 60 5000266499 if anybody wants to look them up. But the key, what you'll find if you do is that what these laws say is an Alameda has a responsibility to make adequate provision for housing needs for all segments of the community that we must adopt and implement a general plan for the for the community. And it must include a mandatory housing element and that that.
Speaker 2: Element.
Speaker 4: Must identify and make sites within our community available during the housing element planning period, which is typically eight years. And when we say available, what that means is that appropriate zoning and development standards and with the services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city's share of the regional housing need, which Randy will explain in a little more detail, and that we have to do it for every income level that could not be that cannot be accommodated on our on sites that we already have identified. And if we don't have enough sites, then we must identify sites as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels, including multi-family rental housing. Our next slide, please. So the first step, of course, in the eight year process is to. Is to find out what our regional housing need is for the next eight years. And the eight year cycle that we're talking about is the period 2023 through 2030, so or 2031. So the and the process has already started at the regional level, determining the regional allocation at the state level and regional level, determining what the region's allocation and then Alamitos share of that. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Randy to talk a little bit about how that allocation process works. Laura, can you take us to the next slide? Thank you, Andrew. Thank you very much. And members of city council. It's my pleasure to be here. You know, I wanted this first slide to be up here, not just for yourself, but for the public. This is the front cover of a document, a 100 page plus document that can be found at a bank's website that discusses all the details of the arena process. And as Andrew mentioned, any law that was signed by then Governor Reagan and has been changed and strengthened over 60 years is going to be incredibly complex and it's going to be process heavy. And we're going to touch on just a little bit of that process this evening. Next slide, please. So this gives you a sense of of the different steps that the Reno process goes through. There's public comment, and that also means city comment as well as long as as well as the general public throughout that entire process. Next slide, please. This is another look at that process. You can see it began in 2019 and it's going to end in 2023. So it does take a long time. There's plenty of opportunities for cities to have their voices heard, for the community to have their voices heard. Again, the law is very complex. You can see some of the major milestones on a graph to the right and written out on the left. And you can see that there is also plenty of time for appeals and all sorts of activities for cities and the public to be engaged in, in this very important process that, you know, there are few things more difficult than the meeting of state and local control on the subject of housing. Maybe water in the state of California is tougher. But this one this one is notoriously tough. Next. So there are dozens of requirements that agencies like IBAC have to take into account as they do this process. And IBAC takes this process very seriously. There is a large number of professionals who are seeking to meet the requirements of state law. The needs of cities throughout the Bay Area. The demands of the state, which is this is a fundamentally it is a state law requirement on local government and a bag is local governments representative in this process with the state. When you boil down that many dozens of requirements, they really get to really five general categories. I'm just going to read them because I think they're important enough to take a moment on is to increase the housing supply and the mix of housing types and affordability in all places in an equitable manner to promote infill development and socio economic equity, to promote improved jobs, housing balance. And of course, the Bay Area has been a jobs machine for the past ten years, producing jobs at a rate of seven times what we're producing housing to balanced household income distributions, meaning housing and income throughout the Bay Area and to affirmatively further fair housing for the entire community . Next slide, please. This is just a little taste of of the process. So AIBA creates a housing methodology committee. The word methodology might be a long one, but just think of it as a formula. We're going to take a peek at it here in a little bit. This whole housing methodology committee has met since September of excuse me, October of 2019. It's met 12 times all in public session. Widely attended public comment throughout in publicly noticed meetings held throughout the Bay Area. Next. This is the little kind of a peek behind the curtain here of the kind of details that the Housing Methodology Committee has to deal with. So I'm going to cover some of these things, but not all of them in that very long report that is available on airbags website is there for people who really want to get into the details. But I do want to draw your attention to the number on the very top 141,176 units was given by the state to the Bay Area in order to allocate those. The state, however, details those number out and you can see in the yellow looking on the left hand part of your screen, very low, then to the right in green, low wound to the right moderate and moving to the right in orange above moderate. They break out these elements that have to be planned for and determined for each individual city. What the Housing Methodology Committee does, and this is the formula part is the next slide down. And what they seek to do is to break out these housing elements in a way across all the city jurisdictions and unincorporated areas of counties in a form that is considered equitable. And that's that is what is the discussion. And that discussion can be, as you can imagine, very detailed. So in the case of the very low and low portion of the housing, you can see that those formulas are going to be a little different than the formulas on the moderate and the above moderate income. And I'll just point one obvious one to you on the hard right, 60% of the allocation of above moderate housing was job proximity and automobile proximity. And the idea is that well-to-do people are likely to be able to afford a car, but we still want housing next to job proximity, and we're going to touch on that a little bit later. So the point of the slide isn't for you to all become expert in this formula, but to get a sense of the kind of detailed work that goes on behind the curtain in order to come up with a number. Total jurisdiction allocation, the little target on the lower right hand side of that slide. And of course, we can go back and answer any questions that any of you may have later. Next slide, please. This gives you a sense of what the Bay Area looks like if it was in the form of a honeycomb. So hopefully you can pick out the counties here and hopefully you can pick out the city of Alameda that has a 16%, if you can read that. Interestingly enough, the number of households growth in the Bay Area as a result of this Rena process is expected to be 16%. So Alameda kind of hit the number right in the middle. It just happened by happenstance. I want to be I want to be clear about that. The methodology creates a formula. That formula gives us an outcome, and then that outcome is here before you. What you can see, however, and this is the benefit of a regional allocation process, you can see that the county of Santa Clara with the darker numbers, as you know, the Bay Area has been a jobs machine. That jobs machine has been centered in a handful of places, one of which is San Francisco, one of which is Santa Clara County. And you can see that county, which represents approximately about 25% of the Bay Area's population, is taking about a third of the Bay Area's housing allocation in this particular draft of the numbers. And let's be clear, the numbers are going to change. There's a draft out there. There's a series of actions that a back in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission still need to take. But you can get a sense of the layout of the numbers. I will have you notice all the areas that are lighter or more basically white in color. You can see the scale in the middle of the slide and you can see the different colors. What you can see is. The renal process has to be consistent with the regional transportation plan. And what we're seeking to do is to put the housing where the jobs are and put the housing in the jobs where the public transit is and where the highway system is. So one of the objectives here of the whole planning process is to save our open space, to save our farmland, to try to put the brakes on sprawl to the best that we can within the law. And you can see it here in this graph about how things are working themselves out with respect to the total allocation in this particular cycle. Next slide, please. So this is where I handed back off to Andrew Thomas. Thank you, Randy. So once we get our arena allocation and as Randy said, it's a draft. At this point, there's still a lengthy process that will play out over the next 9 to 12 months at the regional level to finalize that number or that that methodology. And then hopefully by next by summer, next summer, 2021, we will know we'll get our final draft number. But the current number, as Randy said, is represents a about, you know, would result in about 16% growth for Alameda in terms of rough numbers, it's about 4900 units to be over an eight year period. That's a that's close to just about 1% of the total regional housing need. Alameda looks like it will be allocated about 1% of that total. Now, as Randy said, it may change. So we already as a city need to start thinking about how we're going to accommodate our new housing, where we're going to accommodate it and how we're going to accommodate it. And so that it's time to start thinking about that and talking about it. And we we believe we can do it. We've done it the last two cycles, and we believe we can do it again. But it will it will require that we get creative and we're going to, as we did in the last two cycles, we are we believe at the staff level that we're going to need to adopt general planning and zoning amendments that are in direct conflict with City Charter Article 26. For anybody who's watching, who's not sure what that is, that is a section of this Alameda City charter that prohibits multi-family housing in Alameda and it prohibits residential densities in Alameda, over 21 units per acre. It's the state, the Housing and Development Department for the State of California wrote us a letter in 2009 and I'll just quickly read this to you, was they're pretty clear about it. They said in addressing Alameda, prohibiting multifamily or limiting density is a fundamental constraint with significant impacts on the cost and supply of housing and particularly a variety of housing types. In addition, Measure A, which is the common name for Article 26, severely restricts promoting higher density housing and mixed use development near jobs and transit to maximize land resources and address climate change. Pursuant to government code, the city is required to make zoning available to encourage and facilitate multifamily development and address and remove constraints. As a result, the element must include programs to address and remove or modify this constraint, including making zoning available to allow multifamily housing. Next slide, please. So over the course of the next 18 months, the the job that we will have to accomplish is to figure out where we can put housing. The first step in that process will be to identify, well, what sites do we already have zoned for housing that will be available to to build housing over the next for the for the period 2023 to 2030. This is all very preliminary. Still, we don't know our final arena number and where we will obviously spend the next 18 months working through these numbers. But just to give you a sense of where we think we are at and what the issues are that we, the council, the staff and the planning board will need to to to work through with the community are the following. We think we have enough land already zoned to accommodate about 2100 units, and that's comprised of about in terms of the arena, about 551 lower income units and about 1500 above moderate those units, as you can see in the table or generally located at Alameda Point, where we think we have a capacity for about a thousand more units at North Housing, where we've already approved a project of about 500 units, which is 50% affordable. So we split that between the two income categories. And then we're making some assumptions here, which we'll have to confirm over the next 18 months with the state of California. We think we should be able to count the Boat Works project because of recent actions by this City Council to make that project feasible and resolve longstanding problems with the works project. The reason why I say it's still going to be a discussion with each CD is this is this site has been on our on our housing element for two cycles now and it hasn't been developed. So the first question. Is is it really available? And we're going to make the case that it is now with these changes that the city council made. There may also still be some building permits left still to issue by 2023 at Alameda Marina and some at Alameda landing . So this table just estimates maybe 100 at each of those projects. And then due to some really good changes the council made to the second unit ordinance a few years back, we're doing about 25 to 30 second units annually here in Alameda. So we will if you multiply that over eight years, we anticipate another 200. So that's how we get to this 500 approximately affordable units, some 1500 above moderate units. What this table shows, though, is we if if our allocation remains relatively constant to this initial projection and as Randi said, it could very well could change. So these are just estimates at this point. But if it does end up being around 4800, you can see on this table that we will be short on our lower income categories by about 2300 units, and we are going to be short on the above moderate by about 500. So approximately 2800 units or short. So what this means for us is we're going to have to find land suitable and available for about 2800. Obviously that our number goes down, then it'll be a little bit less. If it goes up, it'll be a little bit more. Next slide, please. The sites that we think we will be talking about as a community. And this is not something we have to decide tonight. But I just wanted to let everybody in the community and just make sure everybody had the same basic information, the kinds of sites that we think we will be talking about to accommodate those additional units include sites such as and signal terminals. This is a project that has been in the housing element for two cycles now and is still vacant. It's vacant because it's infeasible to develop. We will be coming to the Council with a proposal for a Tidelands exchange in the near future. If the Council approves that Tidelands exchange, then we think we will be able to count enteral terminals in our housing element. If the Council does not, then we will not be able to get annual terminals into the housing element. It will not be accepted because it's not available. South Shore Shopping Center is another site that we've all been talking about over the last few years. This is another property owner that is interested in building housing, which means it's available and has some residential zoning already, but it could accommodate more. So that'll be an interesting conversation if we want to try to allocate more housing to South Shore because we're trying to get to 2800 units. You know, those two projects alone get you to a that's about 1100. So we would we still need more sites and the sites that we're talking about or the other shopping centers in Alameda Alameda Landing Shopping Center, Harbor Bay shopping center, marina village shopping center, blanding shopping center, as you see on the table, available availability unknown. That's because we haven't talked to the property owners for for the state. We need to show that the zoning we are putting the zoning in place. But we also have to show if we're talking about shopping centers and sites with active commercial uses, that they're actually available for housing. And this is done at least it has been done the last few rounds, and we've been successful when we provide evidence from the property owner essentially to the state, saying from the property owner, hey , I'm willing and interested in building housing on my site. And if the city reasons me and puts me in the housing element, I will be building housing. So but we have not reached out to any of these these other shopping centers to inquire yet. The other areas that we're looking at, of course, and have been talking about over the years, Park Street, Commercial District, Webster Street, Commercial District, and then, of course, our medium density residential areas throughout the city where there is additional capacity to add housing. Next slide. So none of this has to be decided tonight. But we will have to start making decisions over the next 18 months. So what we're suggested in the staff report to the council is that we we'd like to set up a series of meetings with the council and then three in the next six months. Tonight, December 1st, really was designed to talk about educate ourselves about the regional methodology. And it's fantastic to have Randy here tonight to help answer questions about that. Then we'd like to come back in February or March, February, preferably in the next couple of months, and have another workshop with the council where we talk. Focus more on Alameda. Focus more on, okay, let's make some assumptions about what our arena might be. We can assume 3000. We can assume 5000. It doesn't really matter. What we would like to start talking about with the council is where do we as a community and where would you as council like to think about adding housing and using that sort of preliminary list as as a starting point? And then in the summer come back for a third time. We hope by summer of 2021 we will have the final draft number that Randy was talking about from back. That is the appeal period that he mentioned. At that point, I think the council has an opportunity to make two decisions. One is, does the city of Alameda want to appeal their number? And if so, what is our argument for appealing it? And secondly, provide direction to staff and the planning board on how you want to approach the housing element. UPDATE Because then the staff and the planning board need to get to work because we under state law need to be complete that work and all the public hearings and be back to you. City Council ideally in the summer or very early fall of 2022, so that you can have your final public hearings and adopt the. Housing element for the next round. So with that, I think that's the last slide. Laura And yes, it is. So that concludes the presentation. And staff as well as Mr. Chancellor from a bag MTC are here to answer any questions that you might have and any thoughts or direction you have for staff going forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Rentschler. Very informative presentations. So Council we have, we've, we've read the staff report and which was kind of summarized by Mr. Thomas. So what would you like to know? I should stop and ask if you have any clarifying questions of either of our speakers, and then we'll see if we have public comment. And before coming back to counsel comments, any clarifying questions about anything in these presentations? Kelso. Brody.
Speaker 4: I just wonder if we'd be able to. I mean, I personally like to hold my questions till after public comment. Is that. Sure. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Anybody have any clarifying questions that they want to ask right this minute? Otherwise saying, is that okay? Councilmember de SAC, you're you're kind of off center, so I don't see the hand that was raised. But yes. Councilmember Diaz, like.
Speaker 6: Well, first of all, thank you very much to staff. Also, I just want to say thank you very much to Randy Rentschler for coming out and giving a presentation this evening. I think the question that I have is because there's a jobs focused of within the formula. Is there any possibility that if it if either the economy changes down the path and and the job projections that that we thought that we would be on are not just temporarily but but systematically altered. You know, could we then alter? Could any city, including the city of Alameda, then alter perhaps downwards its housing number if there are systematic changes in the larger economy with regards to jobs, but also in terms of changes with regards to jobs, not just systematic changes. Let's suppose a city, a jurisdiction, decides that they don't anticipate having so many jobs in the future. Could that then also trigger a reassessment at some point of of the numbers that have been allocated originally makes.
Speaker 1: Mr. Read So you want to take that or. Mr. Thomas Either way.
Speaker 4: I was looking at Randy. Yeah, no, I'm happy to.
Speaker 1: I was too.
Speaker 4: So this work, it's a really good question and like a lot of things with Reena, because it's been going on for so long and had so many participants, that question has been asked a great deal, particularly. So, you know, given this very unfortunate environment we're going through right now, I think the very best answer I can give you is that it's very doubtful that this administration in Sacramento will change that number that they're giving not just to the Bay Area, but to the Los Angeles Basin and to San Diego. As you as you may know, over the past number of years, the arena laws have been strengthened significantly through acts by the legislature. And except for KOVR, I think a fair person would have assumed that they would have been strengthened even further this year. But Kobe just took out the oxygen out of the air out of Sacramento. So I think the best way to answer that question is that in the last ten years, we, the Bay Area, has produced about seven times more jobs than housing. And that even under the worst economic scenario and look, a large unemployment drop in jobs is not something people usually cheer for. But even if that were to occur, that the state is so far behind in housing and the current administration, as you know, from from listening to them, talks this line regularly that I think it's very, very doubtful that AMAG or the L.A. Basin or anyone else will get a set of numbers different than what we're dealing with right now.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks. So I was going to say very much the same thing just from my policy committee with the League of California Cities, Housing, Community Economic Development. We are so under housed as a state and we we have a lot of catch up to do so. Yeah, I think these numbers will hold conservatives. I have another question.
Speaker 6: Okay. Quick question. If you if you know the answer to this, that'd be great. Suppose we go through the Rita process and the state says, you know, you have to do 4900 and that the city and everyone else buys into that. But suppose as we're looking for places to find housing, that we could only come up with 3700 areas. So the question is, are are we credited for the fact that we greatly we found 70% of what we should have or so and and is any penalty. Correspondingly calibrated. If that question if you get that question.
Speaker 1: I think Mr. Thomas wants to answer that. I don't.
Speaker 4: I, I can take the first shot at it and Randy can correct me if I misspeak. But essentially that the the way this works is and I just want to clarify, I know, you know, this counts more days. So I go for the public because we often hear the public, you know, criticizing a bag as like the bag numbers, a bag doesn't create the numbers. They and they don't have the luxury of reducing the regional number there. They have the terrible job of of trying to distribute this very big number among all the cities. So the but to answer your specific question, no, that the threshold is either you either pass the green light or you don't. And if you don't, what happens is we the way the process works, we submit our housing element to D before we bring it to council for final approval to find out whether they determine whether it is in compliance with state law or not. Meaning, did you meet your number or didn't you? They will tell us whether we have, you know, accomplished the the the target or not. 75% is not 100% right. So in that case, we should anticipate a letter from them saying, no, you haven't done it. And what that means is they don't certify our housing element even if the council approves it, which means we don't have a valid general plan. And if we don't have a valid general plan in the city, in the state of California, then there's all sorts of consequences for a city in California from not having a valid general plan, which I won't go into all the details. But and those those those consequences aren't calibrated as you are suggesting, like, hey, you can metered 70 70% so discount the penalty it's either you're either it's either black or white.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Well, and as far as the consequences of Mr. Thomas, I mean, some of the more glaring ones maybe having to do with loss of funding for.
Speaker 4: Yes, I can just just to give you just a just a flavor of what what that means when you don't have a valid general plan. Over the years, with the strengthening of the Rena process has also come a strengthening of the penalty process and the incentive process. So many state grants for open space like the the major $2 million grant we got for Jean Sweeney, part of the original construction. We only got that grant because we had a certified housing element. If we didn't have a certified housing unit, we would not have been eligible to apply more and more transportation funding. Open space funding, affordable housing funding is is preconditions. Like if you don't have a certified housing, you don't even bother applying. The other issue is if you don't have a valid general plan, you don't have the basis for your local land use decision making because as you know, every decision the council makes and the point where it makes you have to make a finding is consistent with your general plan. Well, if you don't have a valid general plan, you can't make that finding, which makes us very vulnerable to lawsuits. And in those cases, if we have that problem and go down and find ourselves in that situation where we're out of compliance and somebody challenges our decision making abilities, the state and the courts can take over that local decision making authority from us.
Speaker 1: Ex Mr. Thomas okay, conservatives have another clarifying question before my question.
Speaker 6: But during the years when we are out of compliance, is it correct to say that development did occur in the city of Alameda?
Speaker 4: Now it can continue to occur. The question is, will somebody try to stop us or take our decision making authority away from us because we don't have a valid general plan? Thank you.
Speaker 1: Hey, if there are no further clarifying questions for our staff and Mr. Rentschler, do we have public speakers on this item?
Speaker 0: We have three right now.
Speaker 1: Okay. So as long as there are only three and in fact, if we only go up to five, right, they can each have 3 minutes. But if it's six or more, it goes to 2 minutes.
Speaker 0: It's seven or.
Speaker 1: Seven. Okay. Okay. So let's go ahead and start with their public speakers.
Speaker 0: Rob Halford.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Mr. Alfred.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Can you hear me okay? Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 4: Great.
Speaker 5: Great. Good evening. Mayor and members of City Council, thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight and thanks to the guests for an informative presentation. I'm here to share my viewpoint on this item as an Alameda resident. The result of the measure measures evoked in a high turnout election stated clearly that Alameda citizens want new housing development to be taken up in a controlled and measured way. As part of this approach, it is logical that as a community, we should seek to ensure the allocations we are given for new housing, are optimized for our city's best interests, and take into account the more unique factors that affect us here. Although several important factors informed the allocation methodology, the factor of safety is particularly germane to it to our city as a highly populated item and in standard Alameda parlance, I mean that to include the entirety of Alameda. Let's not be scolded for excluding Bay Farm Island and an island that possesses few means of ingress and egress. As we all know, in the event of an emergency, we are particularly vulnerable to mobility issues. As such, I hope that you, as elected officials and administrators, will proactively ensure that this factor is appropriately represented in our response to challenge the air bag methodology. Alas, and importantly, this message from your constituents is decidedly not an attempt to diminish or devalue other criteria such as equity. Nor is it motivated by a desire to stop the development of new housing. Rather, it's a request to make every effort to ensure proper weight is given to all the factors that are relevant to Alameda in order to produce an equitable allocation outcome. Voters spoke by a decisive margin in November. It's time for city leaders to show us that you are listening. In Alameda, it's time to work together in good faith as a community to develop a plan that understands and reflects the reasons why 25,000 citizens voted as they did. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Halford. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Carmen Reid.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Mr. Reid.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Hello, Madam Mayor and City Council Members, thank you for this opportunity to make a public comment. I would like to address the issue of our arena allocation and I respectfully request that the City Council and staff look for a way to reduce our expected numbers. Other cities in the tri valley area, such as Pleasanton and Dublin, are proactively pursuing a reduction. Alameda should do the same. Alameda has a unique geography within the context of the Bay Area. We have limited egress and ingress and are prone to sea level and groundwater rise. Please consider the safety of our residents. Please also note that any effort to reduce Rina, as it has been mentioned by Council member Knox White, is not an attempt to reduce equity, but instead an approach for a fair solution for our population of 80,000. Based on the physical constraints of the city. And lastly, given that four City Council members, council member Vela, Council Member Oti Mayor Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Knox White supported Measure Z, a measure opposed by 60% majority of voters, creating some unease and concern that the City Council no longer adequately represents the city. The citizens of Alameda. We would appreciate a public and explicit statement from individual council members that you promise not to pursue or accept personal financial benefit from the construction of new housing. In Alameda. Is that something you could do for us? Please consider this request. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms.. Read our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Delores Keller.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Is Kelleher.
Speaker 2: Can you hear me? Can. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor. And Council. I'm a 30 plus year Alameda resident, a member of Apes and active in the No on Z campaign. Since January's Planning Board, I've become more conversant and increasingly more concerned with the actions of the City Council and the Planning Department in regards to Article 26 Density Limits and Preservation in Alameda. I'm also concerned with environmental and equity issues, but do not believe that one set of concerns excludes the other and that this needs to be viewed as a zero sum game. I had hope that with the defeat of measures, the Planning and Council might begin to address all of these concerns in a truly collaborative manner with involved citizens and civic minded groups fully engaged. However, in less than a month since the election, the majority of council appear to be doubling down on finding a way to eliminate Article 26, despite the vote rejecting Measure Z. In early November, I sent a comment via email, as did others, to urge the City Council to advocate for reconsideration.
Speaker 4: Of the.
Speaker 2: Option, a methodology used to determine the Rena one that would better balance opportunity and resource factors with natural hazards. Factors represented in Alameda as a small island city. I was dismayed to see that the council in a 4 to 1 vote not only did not advocate for reconsideration, but directed Mr. Thomas to send a letter in opposition to Tri-Valley request for change in lauding and supporting the current AB methodology. During the November 17th City Council meeting, Vice Mayor Knox White seemed to interpret, seemed to interpret without any factual basis. The defeat of Measure Z meant voters wanted the city to abandon the overlay to meet our obligations and so potentially set up a legal showdown with the state. This seems to me a very thinly veiled attempt to subvert.
Speaker 4: The will of the voters.
Speaker 2: Voters who are and would have been fine with the status quo, including the overlay of city council, had not put Measure Z on the ballot in the first place. In my opinion, this sort of reasoning, if turned into action, would only cause more distrust, more division and standards, failure of duty to represent the majority of elements. This is the very reason that Article 26 is in the Charter. I urge you reconsider any such machinations and do the work necessary to both honor the will of the voters to preserve the unique character of our city and also fulfill our community obligations. In my opinion, this is best done in a classic Democrat crowd, a compromise in which each side gains by winning some of what is deemed important to them, while sacrificing something to the other in order to together to serve the common good. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Kelleher. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Jay Garfinkle.
Speaker 1: And evening, Mr. Garfinkle.
Speaker 3: Hi. Hi.
Speaker 4: You know, if the numbers that have been presented and process has been presented was correct, it might be reasonable to try to comply. However, there are internationally known experts, demographers and other and planners who have demonstrated that the 400,000 units needed is not correct. California's population is stagnant and is seen to probably decrease over the next several years. This will make the Air Bags Reno project totally irrelevant. In addition. I followed the Rina methodology process for a while and. Early on. Hazard, natural hazards and safety was considered one of the elements, and this might have addressed Almeida's concerns. Since we have a number of such issues related to sea level rise, egress, ingress. Lack of independent water supply and any number of other factors. However, for some reason, the Methodology Committee decided to ignore the natural hazard and safety issue completely. So Almeida's unique issues are not concern considered. The methodology that they come up with came up with is a sort of one size fits all communities. While individual communities around the bay may have a number of issues. The numbers have been the number thrown around has been around 4900. I believe that this is a an incorrect calculation and it may be as high as 16,000 additional units that we would have to build in order to reach the required low and very low income level units. Madam Chair, you are a bag representative and you did not push back on the methodology. You simply accepted it. And I think it's very clear that the methodology is faulty. If they don't consider the hazards.
Speaker 5: Natural.
Speaker 4: Hazards and safety issues, I think all of you elected officials, really, if you really want to represent the interests of the residents of our city, you absolutely have to challenge the current methodology plan. It's been proposed that there's no hurry. However, as at each, every few months, another step is carved into.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Garfinkle. Your time is up. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: We now have above seven speakers, so we will shift to 2 minutes. And the next one is Rasheed Shabazz.
Speaker 1: Mr. Shabazz, good evening. What have we done with Mr. Chavez?
Speaker 0: It looks like we aren't able to put him in. So let's see if he can update his zoom and we'll call Tricia or Spencer.
Speaker 1: Oh, you know what, madam? Great. That's a good reminder. You might want to just show everyone.
Speaker 0: Everybody needs to be on the most current version of Zoom in order to be promoted to speak. So Zoom puts out a lot of updates, so it's hard to stay on top of that. Please just try and update that zoom and then you'll be able to speak. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So much. Spencer is next for 2 minutes.
Speaker 2: All right. Good evening. Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Wonderful. Okay, so I wanted to use this opportunity to ask a few questions, and I'm not looking for answers at this time, but I think it's something that staff and our city attorney can be thinking about. And in fact, I want to commend Mr. Rentschler for his presentation as well as Mr. Thomas. Mr. Renshaw had referred to the Bay Area being a jobs machine over the past and I'm not sure how many years when he, I believe it was seven times increase or something like that. But I would be interested in knowing in regards to the city of Alameda, where are we in jobs? Because with my understanding, we've lost car dealerships, we lost the former base. And in fact, that we have had a housing imbalance in regards to having jobs decrease over a certain amount of time. So I would be curious to know where the city of Alameda is in regards to this. I'd also like to know in regards to presentation second unit, does that include a use or what is the definition of second units that's being used in that chart? I've also heard that other charter cities are challenging the state's authority, is my understanding, for instance, the city of Pasadena. And I'd be interested in knowing our city's response to that, what they think of it. I'd also be interested in doing other reasons that other cities are challenging the numbers. For instance, are any of them an island for bridges in a tube, though elevation and, you know, other factors so that we can have all this information for the community when we're looking at this. So thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Um, Delores Kelleher, has raised her hand again, but perhaps somebody else using her log in plans to speak now. Oh, no. She's lowered it. Okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we just get when went through.
Speaker 0: I just didn't know if they were sharing. So then Kathleen Sullivan.
Speaker 1: All right. Good evening, Miss Sullivan.
Speaker 2: Yes. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes.
Speaker 1: Hello.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Hi. People have addressed the concerns of getting in and out of the island. I would like to address the concern I have of traffic within the island. I find it odd that there is going to be new units in South Shore Center when Otis and Park Street seems to be closed down to one lane in the in the current city plans. I don't know how fire departments are going to be able to serve the community if traffic is backed up. And it will be if you put another 800 people into South Shore and continue to squeeze the streets. I won't I don't have time to read it, but I would like to call attention to Article 13, Section 35 of the California Constitution, which says in part, The protection that the public safety is the first responsibility of local government and local officials have an obligation to give priority to the provisions of adequate public safety services above all. So I like to see that part of your obligation to protect us, to be able to get the fire department, to get to my house, to allow an ambulance to get to the hospital. That's my concern with putting more and more housing on the east side in the gold and the Bronze Coast South Shore area. I just don't think those numbers can be supported. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Sullivan. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Drew Dara Abrams.
Speaker 1: Good evening.
Speaker 3: Hey. Hi. Mayor. Vice Mayor, council members. I already sent perhaps a bit of a novel over email, which I won't rehash here other than to comment on the topic of the arena numbers and thank the folks at a bag and city council for starting on this big, long process that I know is being repeated in many cities throughout the Bay Area with honestly the same unique complaints being made everywhere. So I just want to speak a bit, frankly, and say that I think these these numbers are are eminently doable. I would like to see Alameda not just. Well, honestly, I would like to see Almeida embrace Option 80, which a series of NGOs around the Bay Area have helped to shape and are promoting for equity for environmental concerns and economic concerns. Some council members have spoken pretty positive for positively about this before, and I think it's worth repeating that these these goals are are being squared. And to play a zero sum game is not just mean, but is actually running counter to some very valid environmental goals, economic goals and equity goals that the city should be pursuing, the region should be pursuing. And I'd like the city to be a part of that. Thank you very much for doing the hard work that's going to be spread out over a few years to make this happen.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Dara Abrams and our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Ashley Loren Lord.
Speaker 1: Good evening.
Speaker 2: Hi. And thank you for the opportunity. I just wanted to ask for clarification. When Mr. Thomas was showing that potential opportunity areas for where we can add those numbers to make up the gap, I didn't see any discussion of the lower income versus the above moderate income, and it seems like we're on track to potentially well exceed the higher income housing but failed to meet the lower income portion. And I just wanted to get some clarification around how we would proceed planning with that in mind and any discussion of whether we're intending how we're intending to change that, that right down between the two.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Gordon. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Rasheed Shabazz.
Speaker 1: Mr. Chavez, there you are. Good evening. Go right ahead.
Speaker 3: I'm awesome. Now that I've been in power to speak.
Speaker 1: It gets you happy.
Speaker 3: Thanks for the upgrade.
Speaker 6: Even though I won't get an upgrade in time. All right.
Speaker 4: So I just wanted to first say thank you to all of the the council majority that.
Speaker 3: Put Measure Z on the ballot.
Speaker 4: Because it enabled Alameda to have a conversation that is long been stifled or suppressed by the status quo. I'm actually one to be a little weird tonight, and I want to read a portion of my undergraduate thesis where I talked about I talked about the Clayton Guyton and Madison Henderson settlement. And so this is from Alameda is our home. Chapter nine Pages 155 to 161.
Speaker 3: Available on UC Berkeley website. And it starts off with a quote from Mike.
Speaker 6: Rawson, the legal.
Speaker 4: Aid attorney who sued the city of Alameda by filing the suit. Guyton and Henderson hope.
Speaker 3: To eliminate all city policies that limit the ability of the city to fulfill its obligation to.
Speaker 4: Provide housing for low income families. They also hope to educate and go at least part.
Speaker 3: Of the way towards changing attitudes of some city residents who would see Alameda as the exclusive province of middle and upper income homeowners. Now, there was a tentative hearing or preliminary ruling in which the city that a judge forced the city to.
Speaker 4: Have any land use decisions coming towards a judge.
Speaker 3: So to force compliance, the plaintiffs asked the judge to enact a portion of the housing element law that would allow the court to spend the city's authority to issue.
Speaker 4: Building permits for single family, residents and duplexes.
Speaker 3: As well as subdivision maps. And so on June 5th, 1989. Judge Michael Balakian also has ruled that the land.
Speaker 5: Use.
Speaker 4: Policies discriminated against the poor, and he.
Speaker 3: Ordered the city to revise its.
Speaker 4: Housing element. And until then.
Speaker 3: For 120 days, the city could not accept grant applications for zoning changes, variances or subdivision map improvements. And so every.
Speaker 6: Request had to go to.
Speaker 3: Ross Rawson. So I just wanted.
Speaker 4: To share it and encourage you to read that.
Speaker 1: Online. Thank you, Mr. Chavez, and our next speaker.
Speaker 0: We have no additional speakers. That was the last speaker.
Speaker 1: With that, I'm going to close public comment and we'll come back to the council for your discussion and any questions you had of our Mr. Thomas, you're Mr. Redstone, that you deferred until after the public speakers. So, Councilmember O'Toole, do you want to start because you deferred your questions earlier?
Speaker 4: I appreciate that. I can wait.
Speaker 1: You went away. Okay. Did I try to.
Speaker 4: Formulate my.
Speaker 1: Questions? Okay, well, formulate a way, because I see Councilmember Vella stand up, so why don't you go next?
Speaker 2: And I want to thank both Randy and Andrew for the presentation. I was listening the whole time. I was putting my son down to sleep, so I figured people do need to see that.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: But my question is, we know that these are our allocated numbers to the region. So what happens if we go or if a bag decides to go with the alternative methodology? Right. So the units potentially decrease here in Alameda. But but where do they ultimately end up?
Speaker 4: Mm hmm. So we have done an analysis about that. In fact, that was voted on at least three times through various processes at a back, including at the executive committee. What it basically does is shift housing further into Santa Clara County is what? That's the tradeoff. What you see mostly, although Alameda gets caught up in the math, it mostly shifts numbers from you probably recall that honeycomb chart. So you just imagine things shifting towards Santa Clara County in southern San Mateo County and into the city of San Francisco because it's a jobs heavy formula.
Speaker 2: And some of the units also end up in Oakland, correct?
Speaker 4: Now they do. Yes.
Speaker 2: My next question is so it's not that they just to kind of paraphrase what you said, it's not that they they leave the region. They might leave the borders of the city, but they stay within the region. Correct.
Speaker 4: Correct. So instead of 25% of the population of Santa Clara taking 30 some odd plus percent of the housing. And again, this is in round numbers. You also mentioned Oakland. The formulas do lots of things because it emphasizes jobs and doesn't emphasize furthering fair housing. You get to see shifts in various quadrants around the Bay Area is what the numbers do.
Speaker 2: Okay. And my next question is in in in terms of calculating and the jobs factor, we're not taking into account work from home relative to that, correct?
Speaker 4: That's correct.
Speaker 2: And there was a study, I believe, from 2010 to 2014 that in the Bay Area grew by 350,000 people in Alameda County, grew by 100,000 during that period. And we were the fastest growing county. Is my understanding in the state, I know that that some of the questions have been about estimating population growth for growth moving forward or stagnation. Can you comment kind of looking back at what's happened with the population of the region in Alameda County?
Speaker 4: So I can't answer the Alameda County question off the top of my head. I can answer the question about the Bay Area in total. So last time we did this number, but everything's jobs driven. That's just the way life is like we like it or not, right? And it's about access to jobs. So even though a job isn't in, let's say, a community like Alameda because of Alameda access and we have all sorts of numbers on what that access looks like, you know, the February votes being an example provides you easy access to jobs in San Francisco. So it's a complex picture with 101 cities, mostly small ones. We're not there's no way you put a job in a house in that, because that's not what life is like. Life doesn't look like that. But trying to answer your question directly, the amount of job growth that took place in the Bay Area over the last, let's say, five or seven years outpaced the entire estimate that we had for job growth for like 25 years. That happened so rapidly. So that's how you're seeing higher Rina numbers. They're all they're making up for many lost years through changes in state laws, but they're also reflecting something that has occurred over the past decade or so.
Speaker 2: And you, of course, have instances like my household where my my partner works in the South Bay, his office is in the South Bay, but he works within several hours of there and might be going to job sites all over. And my office is in the peninsula, but I my my territory is all of northern California in Nevada. So I think what you're saying is that there's various complexities depending on who's in the household and as well as the different types of industry growth and how that's all connected. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: Yeah, it is. And look, I mean, you're identifying things and everyone identifies this because the Reno process is imperfect at best. You know, it's been widely disliked for 60 years. I think the legislature has decided to do it because. The real the real questions behind housing are so difficult to solve. What they've kind of tossed around on local government is kind of what's occurred. But that's common, like the legislature does this kind of stuff all the time. So the complexities of what you're discussing are complexities we try to capture in our processes, but it's never going to be spot on and perfect. It's just not.
Speaker 2: And to your point earlier in the methodology, it takes into account a number of different things. It's not looking at one factor, although it is looking at the job growth relative to demand for housing. Correct.
Speaker 4: And particularly this round the vote that that the bank board took, in particular this round was seeking to to find more housing where the jobs are in Santa Clara. And look, you can imagine the impact on our transportation system. I mean, everyone a lot of people just expect that it's normal that we seek to raise billions of dollars to build barge extensions and highways, when really the problem we have is people live far, far, far away from where their job is. And if we can, the way we had we meet our climate objectives, frankly, at this point is to try to get people to live closer, to work with control combustion engines. That's the answer. So part of the complexity here that is behind the arena numbers is is is all the things dealing with transportation and the investment behind it. And there is a ton of background noise going on that's incredibly complex.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That's all from me right now.
Speaker 1: I just want to chime in and add that you're right, Mr. Rentschler, that jobs are driving a lot of this in proximity to jobs. And that is a good thing. We need to to factor that in. It is also opportunities, opportunities to live near good schools, to live where there are resources like libraries, like parks. And, you know, we we had an earlier item just before this one about I subcommittees on police reform, which are really part of a larger national discussion of why some communities have been impacted so much more by things like police violence, but also like COVID 19. And it a lot of it has to do with where you live. So the equity component also factors into it. And then you are right that rehab, is it popular with anybody? But the reason that the State Housing and Community Development Department has to do a housing allocation for regional governments around the state is that everybody would say not in my backyard and the housing crisis just continues to get worse. So, you know, trying to to put it a little bit in perspective to see where we fit into the the bigger picture. Casper Rodeo tickets are going to go up just.
Speaker 4: Yep, thank you. And I appreciate you calling on customer viola so I can have a few more minutes to percolate time. First of all. Thanks, Mr. Bunch. There. I see you have Alameda over your shoulder. So that's going backwards. Andrew You know, always informative. So I'll put you guys on the spot and you can pick who's going to answer. So we've heard a lot of comments and we received a lot of emails that kind of say that we are a unique city. I mean. Are we the only one that makes that argument, or do other cities make that argument? I want to ask you, are we really all that unique? Of course. To you ask it in the other way. 101 cities, of course. They're all unique. Of course they are. But look, we're also look, we're also very much the same when you look at a town like Alameda and you have the geography that we have and the bridges that we have, it's very obvious to come to a conclusion about about restricted access. And it's probably less obvious if you live in Contra Costa County and you got a fight a half an hour on just one main road, Ignacio Valley Road, to get to one freeway or in Alameda, we have an entire ferry system funded by the toll payers on the Bay Bridge work. No one in Contra Costa County. Well, I guess Richmond does now has that, but not in central Contra Costa County. We have access to AC transit. We actually a pretty good bus service. When when you think about all this and our technical people go do the math on this and they do do the math on this, you come to a couple of conclusions. One Mayor Ashcroft mentioned was that Alameda County is one of those communities that can provide people with a better life. We have good schools. We have a safe community. We have a good community relative to many of our peers across the Bay Area. And also, technically speaking, while it's hard to grasp this, we have very good access compared to many, many of our neighbors across the Bay Area. And so this feeling that people have, that we're somehow unique, I'm sure everyone's special, but you're not that much different than everybody else when it comes to hazards. Hazards were discussed at great length through this process, along with access, along with equity, along with transportation, and on the hazard side. But the big hazard and there's a state law and this has to do with wildfires and this notion about trying to keep people from going off into that interface on wildfires when it comes to climate change discussed at great length, we have $20 billion in our plan to mitigate for climate change, which will take care of a great deal of the problem for some foreseeable part of the future. But, you know, climate change is going to probably affect I-5 more than it's going to affect many roads around here, because that water drains through the estuaries across the Bay Area and those, you know, Solano County, 80, that's probably the biggest, scariest place. Highway 37 going between Vallejo, but that's in big trouble. So we have a lot of company, a lot of company on the issue of hazards across the Bay Area and across the state of California. Oh, Andrew, I'm sorry. No, I just going to add to Randy's thing. I don't have his regional experience. I just have local experience in five different East Bay cities and every city I've worked for. We always felt we were unique and we always argued that, you know, and it was often it's always, you know, my experience was transient. Oakland, Berkeley, Union City, Albany. We always argued transportation. We were uniquely constrained on transportation. So, you know, as Randy said, it's we're more similar than we are different. Thank you. And I think that's the challenge when you're listening to Alameda resident say, look, we need to challenge the number. We need to you know, it would be crazy not to at least try and that there's no resistance to trying. What I struggle with is, okay, so what's our argument like? What is the argument that the units shouldn't be in our in our city, but they should be in a neighboring city? I mean, that's the argument we need to make if we're going to challenge what not just that we can't accept them, but where should they go? And that's where I, I personally am struggling. Like, how are we going to make that case and what is our argument going to be? And Randy just explained, like, it's going to be tough. It's going to be very tough for Alameda to make a convincing argument given the nature of the region and the nature of Alameda in that region. So just for the sake of argument, let's go down that path. So, I mean, first of all, this 441 176 I mean, that is a zero sum game. If you take one unit away from Alameda or Emeryville or whatever, it has to go somewhere else. You know, we're not basically saying, all right, we want to reduce this 441000 to 2 X and then we're all going to kind of have to do less housing. Right? Right. Right. Okay. So and then, you know, I mean, how many. How often are these allocations appealed? 101 communities think they're unique and 75 of them feel them. I mean, what's really the likelihood that it's going to change? So, Councilmember, look, we can provide you with the exact details of that. Off the top of my head, I know a handful of communities have appealed. There is very mixed success on this. That might win on the margins in a couple of places. But I think I think in this case, it'd be better for me not to wing it here and provide you with the exact information so your council can can make the decisions that you wish to make. Okay. And then I think the next one probably for next couple are for you, Andrew. So we had this discussion about, you know, boat works for, you know, terminals and and, you know, my recollection is those are in passing housing elements. I mean, what's the success rate of of winning that argument that even though we put these because my understanding is if it's in one element, you can't just re-use that as availability or reasonable capacity in the next element, because otherwise people would just keep putting it down the line. Right. So, I mean, if. Well, first, what is the chances that we're going to be able to include those? And if we don't? I mean, the answer is obvious, but I'd like to hear from you. I mean, what can we do about those? Um. Yeah. However many units. 700 or 161 180. Good question. The gist to the question. Yeah, it's a it's a great question, Councilmember o.T. The laws on this have changed since we did our last housing element. And as you said, the logic of the law makes sense. And it's I you think of it from the state's perspective. Don't tell us the site is available. If you told us it was available eight years ago and it didn't get developed, I mean, something must be wrong. It must clearly not be available if it sat there vacant for eight years when you said it was going to be available. So so no, we're not going to accept anymore. The strategy that that that I will recommend to all of you is that we embrace that concept with some like for a boat works for example it's we listed it before we acknowledge yes you are right that didn't get developed we discovered a problem and then our city council in 2019 or right in the beginning of COVID, whenever that was 2020. Took a whole series of decisions in cooperation with that the property owner about works to make this project basically to UN leadership to UN constrain it. So please pretty please accept it because we really believe we honestly believe with this change. And you know what I, what we did last year or eight years ago, I mean, in some cases, we provided actual letters from the property owner saying, yes, I am available. I thought if this goes forward, I will be building housing on the site in the next two years. And, you know, I'm hoping that with that kind of support, we will be able to get a site like Boat Works Counted, even though we counted before. If we don't if KD rejects it, it's it just makes our life a little bit harder. It's another 181 units. We need to find a home for somewhere else. Now, that being said, that 580. Right. And then Arsenal terminals is another another 580 where, you know, we have the same problem. We do plan to come to the council in the near future to see if this council is would be willing to reconsider the Tidelands exchange, because that's that's why that site has been remained undeveloped for the last eight years. It needs that tidelands exchange. Okay. And let's chat a little bit about, you know, Article 26 because basically by applying reading of it, it basically prohibits multi-family housing, right? Right. And it limits density to 21 units per acre. So, you know, let's just assume for the sake of argument that, you know, the state can override that with their density bonus. And let's also assume for the sake of argument that maybe a multi-family overlay may not comply with our charter. And, you know, to vote to put it in would be a violation of the charter. So can you explain kind of walk us through maybe mentally or visually what it would look like based on Article 26 as is written state density bonus, accepting that it's just a fact, no multifamily overlay because there's questions about whether it may be legal and what that would look like in Alameda to meet this 4800 unit. Requirement of Rena, the work that your question is, what does it look like if we don't do a multi-family overlay? Well, that's the assumption I'm asking. You know, assume that maybe a multifamily overlay may let's just assume, for instance, that it may be in violation of the charter because the charter is pretty clear. No multifamily overlay. There's no state preemption on multifamily overlay. There's state preemption on state density bonus. Yes, that's right. I think that the let's I don't think it's an assumption. It's pretty clear. Like state. Yeah. The the issue is. The state says you need to show us how you are going to provide for all income levels. So in this way, this could say this question came up from one of the speakers like, I don't get it. Like, how are we going? It seems like even if we find the land for the 2800, we're going to be short. Because I think what she was saying is that you only have a 15% inclusionary requirement. So how are you going to get all those affordable? The state says you need to show us how the land that you've made available is going to provide for all income groups. And it gives us a couple options. Option number one, give us a study and show us with empirical evidence that if you just build on those sites with the zoning that you have. And the land values you have and the cost of living that you have, the cost of housing that you have in your community. That when somebody builds that project under that zoning, there's units that are available that are that are affordable to all income groups. Obviously in the bay area that is just not possible to do unless you have some way since our are lower income categories is about 50% of our total arena. So how do you ensure that? That many units are made available to to to to those income groups. You can either say you can you show maybe you in some small town out on the Nevada border, you say, well, look, here's the market rate for these units and here's some documentation. See, people can afford them that that might pass muster with the state. Number two, you can find some other way. And the city tried this in 2003. Like, we'll just subsidize everything. We we were going to use redevelopment money. We're going to just throw a lot of money at the are affordable housing need. Our affordable housing need was much smaller in 2003 for that round than it is today. Much smaller. And then the third option is the multifamily option. This is the option that we utilized for the last two housing rounds. What state law says is if you. You can show us how you're going to. How your zoning works. But we will make the assumption at the state level that if your zoning is high density and it allows multifamily by right. And what that for a city of our size if it's 30 units or more per acre measure. Remember is only 21. So and measure says no multifamily housing at all. State law says if your zoning shows that you permit multifamily housing and it shows that you provide high density housing through a minimum 30 units the acre. We will accept that because we believe that that's the kind of zoning that facilitates more affordable housing. So if you don't do the multifamily overlay again in Alameda, and this is one of the decisions that we want to sort of make as a with or get direction from the council over the next few months. Like what direction? Which of these roads do you want to go down? If we don't do the multifamily overlay that leaves us with the two other options, I don't think we will be successful arguing that single family development in the Inner Bay Area in Alameda is affordable. That's not going to work. So that sort of leads to a third approach, which would be a very expensive.
Speaker 0: Raising, actually.
Speaker 4: Laura. We can hear you now. While the weather may.
Speaker 0: Make that surface crash and Ashley juggle two surfaces at one time and got it all fixed. So she's amazing. Sorry.
Speaker 1: You are amazing. I was going to text you and say sorry.
Speaker 4: That was. I hope I answered your question. Councilmember Oh, yeah, I almost said that was amazing. Andrew But okay, thanks. So I'll just, you know. This is my last meeting on this. So, you know, I appreciate I'd like to see going forward as a member of the community because now I get to be critical without taking accountability . It would be kind of fun. Now what it's going to look like like are we now going to get like 100? You know, is the density going to be 100 units per acre, you know, a given lot? I mean, because that's what the state law is. And I would just like to see the practical implications as a member of the community on, you know, what our constraints are because there's these two immovable forces, right? There's our charter which says what we have to do in black and white. And then we have, you know, the arena requirements. So, you know, and I don't put a lot of faith in, you know, the state allowing us to push back. I work for the state, you know, I know where they're coming from. The video put out a report in 2015. Talk about why do we have an issue. Randi, you mentioned, you know, supply hasn't kept up with demand and they listed the reasons. And number one, community resistance to new housing. Now, if that isn't one thing that I've heard in the last six years, that's that's pretty much a lot of it. You know, the use of Sequoia to kind of delay projects, you know, local financing structures that incentivize commercial versus versus residential. And, you know, we have this problem here, too, you know, limited amount of vacant land. So it'll be interesting to see because we can't go this way anymore and nobody wants to go this way. But, you know, it'll be interesting to see. So I just want to make one point. Before I turn it over to other people. I mean, there was a lot of discussion. Today about the voters and respecting the will of the voters. And I get that. I mean, I understand that. But, you know, 12 years ago in our charter, we reaffirmed what's in our charter. 12 years ago, the voters of the state of California fairly overwhelmingly added something to the Constitution of the state of California. Section 7.5, Article one. And it basically read, quote, Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, end quote. The voters did that. And if the voters got their way, I wouldn't be able to be married today. So just because the voters put it in there doesn't make it right. And to me, the fight for housing equity, the fight for housing justice is not over. It wasn't over in November. Just like Prop eight, the voters decided it was okay to discriminate. The courts came in and said, Sorry, you can't do that. And now everyone has the right to marry. So before we start harping on and going back to and basically holding, waving that flag that the voters said we should do it, the voters said, should we do it? You know, the voters are always right. I respect them. I respect the decision they made. I will walk away in two weeks. But, you know, the arc of of justice bends towards the arc of the moral universe, bends toward justice. Right. So eventually we will have housing equity. Eventually, we will provide the housing that we need to meet our demand. And it may not be this year. It may not be next year. But, you know, I'm in for the long haul and I'm proud to be on this council that is move the ball forward. And that's all I got to say on that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council member Odie, who would like to go next? Vice Mayor next week.
Speaker 5: So I have a couple of questions and then a few comments. I just wanted to just kind of clarify my understanding of I don't remember Vandy or Randy and I'm going to call you Andy and you can decide what I'm talking to handIer in Andrew or Randy. Andrew, this allocation, you said doesn't solve the the housing crisis. Not only does it. I just want to confirm my understanding is it doesn't it doesn't catch us up to where we need to be. Right. Like this is the first year, my understanding this is the first tranche of many very large tranches of housing allocations that are expected over the next multiple housing elements to catch us up to a place as a state. Is that fair?
Speaker 4: I think that's that's probably a fair judgment of the future then other judgments of the future. Yes. Although it's always hard to predict your.
Speaker 5: Okay. But even if we were to if the economy collapses, we still have a housing crisis and a need for housing. Even if jobs go away. We still have pushed people out in Detroit to live in Tracy and commute in and we should be having those folks live here with us. I just wanted to I think you kind of answered this, but again, just clarify what I heard, which is there is no state requirement for a city to provide a 30 unit per acre multifamily housing overlay. That's a discretionary action that a city can take. But there are other actions we can take to meet that same need for affordable housing. Expensive actions.
Speaker 4: That's right. It's one option that the cities in its discretion can use, and it's provided under state law. To illustrate how you're accommodating the lower income categories.
Speaker 5: And stipulating agree agreeing with your concept that they're not going to believe that just building housing is going to be affordable in the Bay Area. We're not going to make that case. That would not be a good use. But the other one, which is we could fund the affordable housing, which is where the 30 units the acre issue comes in, is not a violation of our charter.
Speaker 4: No, not that I know of. No. The charter says no. Multi-family housing? No, no. Residential tenancies over 21 years. S.A. State says if you allow multifamily and you allow 30 units, C.A. will will give you a pass on that.
Speaker 5: Yes. So we can meet the housing element without charter violations. And then the last question is, because we're going to thank you. You've done a great job of identifying at least the low hanging fruit. 2100 units to the acre. Even if we put a 30 unit to the acre multifamily overlay that still gets us somewhere near 3000 and still almost 2000 units short of our current allocation. If we start, you know, let's say we drop a 30 acre down Park Street, we're not going to be able to say that all those lots on Park Street are available. We might be able to say 5% of them are or something like that. And so we could drop multifamily overlays over the entire city and make that case. But but I guess my point is, like, we're not going to be we are going to be able to perfectly spot zoning unless we have actual available land. And the next step is going to be that we're going to have to serve zoning in very wide swaths of the island, large entire areas of residential. If we wanted to use the multifamily overlay to try to meet of 30 units the acre.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I think there's there's there's really two we have to be thinking about sort of two goalposts. One is the immediate one in 18 months, which is we need to get a housing element that will say, you know what, if you cross the finish line, good job, you've shown us available sites. And I think if you think about Park Street like rezoning Park Street for multifamily housing with multifamily overlay, great. We could do that. The question is, what is the realistic capacity? That's the second question. That city. Well, well, what's a real estate capacity? Because it looks fully developed to us. Like, where do you think this new housing is going to go? Why would why would truck tuckers ice cream go away? Like, what makes you think somebody's going to build housing there? So I think we would have to combine it with some type of legwork that we do with the Business Association and all their members, like who on this corridor is interested in building housing over the next eight years. Because we would like you to step up and you know, can we tell KD that your site might be available? You know, CVS is one that jumps to mind in my mind right across from city hall. That's an ideal site. We have some sites down on Lower Park Street, so we might have to rezone, but it still is to our benefit to rezone the whole corridor, even if. To cover properties that are not identified is available. So we tell a CD like we think we have available, we're doing the whole quarter, but we think we can get 200 units over the next eight years because these five property owners step forward. But remember, we have to we have to report to the state every year. And this is the other part of state law that's also tightened up like every year we have to report. So we're constantly getting adjusted and or being are tracking our progress. So if somebody comes along after the housing element is adopted and builds an extra 20 units on a site, we didn't imagine because we put an EMF.
Speaker 2: Overlay.
Speaker 4: That's going to that's going to help us in the housing element process, not necessarily at certification, but two years later. And that's going to be very important. So the idea of doing zones with EMF overlay, even if we don't, you know, as opposed to just like we did eight years ago where, you know, Ron good Toyota just a teeny little site, got an MF overlay for 410 units like that. We may not take that approach. Right.
Speaker 5: And so if we can't find enough land to put the MF overlay over and get to 4900, you know, once we've gone to an MF overlay of 30 units, we're violating the charter. There's no reason we couldn't look at just doing an MF overlay of 60 or 120 units in key places, because we might decide that actually , you know, we've heard traffic is a major concern and it would be better to build housing on park and park and Webster Street and not build a whole bunch of single family ranch homes across all of the rest of Alameda Point, which is probably what we would have to do to be compliant with our charter and build the housing we have to build.
Speaker 4: I, I agree. I think, you know, we've been sort of in thinking about this and the shopping centers are a great example like. It would be useful to sort of just talk about the shopping centers as a group. Like what shopping centers do we want to sort of target? Let's pick two or three, then let's go talk to this property and then let's talk about them. How many units do you think you could actually do if you wanted to do it? Let's say it's a ten acre site and they say, you know, I could do a thousand units. All right. Well, that's 100 units, the acre. We need a thousand units on your site, so we'll put an MF overlay on your site that says your zoning is 100 units the acre because we're trying to get 1000 units on your ten acres. That's our goal. That's what we want to do. So, you know, 30 acres a unit, 30 units, the acre versus 100 units. The acre is in my book just as much of a violation. I mean, if you're. The charter says 21, right? 30 or 100. They're both not 21.
Speaker 5: And now we get to 4900 at that point. Probably does.
Speaker 4: Well, I think yeah. I mean, I think. Do you have the land to get to 4100? Absolutely. The question is, which land do you want to use and how dense do you want to to to build on each of those properties? Right.
Speaker 5: Okay. So so thank you for that. That was all very helpful. So for me, I just want to first off, just appreciate the the very concise and useful presentation on a very complex issue, probably one of the best presentations in terms of just concision and also really walking everybody through through how this all happens. Yeah, I think for me, there's two issues that we're talking about tonight. One is related to Rina and in the housing allocation, you know, and we've received a lot of letters asking why didn't we challenge our allocation to a month ago? And the answer is because there's no allocation to challenge at this point in time. We said we liked the methodology. We didn't necessarily say we liked the or we approved of the actual number. And, you know, for me, I think that, you know, I am I continue to be open to looking at how we might be able to make a case, as you laid out, that I think is defensible, whether it may not be accepted but defensible, and also honors the equity issues and things that we highlighted as a priority for housing here. And so, you know, I think as we I greatly appreciated Steph's kind of for meetings kind of over the next six months timeline that really does allow for this conversation to happen. And I think that we should be looking at seems from your presentation in that under Article 26, we can probably find a way to make to to accommodate 3200 units if we build on every single possible generally available form of piece of land. And you know, I personally, I would have liked to have seen parks and other things in some of those areas. But, you know, if we're going to honor the charter and whatnot the way that we have sworn to do, I think we need to at least look at what that looks like and that we should at least be open to considering that as a path for how we kind of challenge the numbers and ask for for reconsiders our appeal the numbers and ask for reconsideration. Now, I remember the original Alameda Point plan that had 3220 2200 homes or 1800 homes, a camera. Exactly how many was it? Had a single row of single family homes between the between the the hangars in order to be in measure a compliant housing plan. It was from a from a design standpoint, terrible. I wouldn't want to live in that neighborhood. But, you know, if that's the rules we follow, those are the fold, the rules we've been given. I think the second question we have is how do we certify a housing element? Because that's where we get into we have not used the multifamily overlay to accommodate a huge number of units. We've used it in the past because it was a way to accommodate affordable housing units. And I think that we, you know, after this vote and whatnot, it is really important for us to at least remain open to a path forward that doesn't rely on the multifamily overlay and relies on what I would say is the good faith arguments that we need to be prioritizing and building affordable housing. And since funding is not, that is the issue with that I think that a way for us to remain very consistent and compliant with our charter and also meet a housing element law, at least from an affordable housing standpoint, is rather than using a multifamily overlay , which is challenging to begin with and we are using inclusionary law that doesn't as Mr. Jordan pointed out, we're going to build a lot of market rate housing in our affordable housing is going to lag behind. We should be looking at what it would take and to fund that affordable housing and make that case, I think that should be a part of the conversation. Again, I think, you know, I'm not driving a specific outcome, but I do think these are things we need to be talking with our community about as we move forward with deciding that. And then, yeah, you know, lastly, I really appreciated the idea of having the conversation considering the range. I think the bottom of that range is 3200 because that's a measure a compliant and consistent with the staff presentation up to probably the 5000. And you know, for right now, I think instead of making a decision, I think we should remain open to how we can have that conversation with our community, with the new council that's coming in in two weeks, etc.. But anyway, I just wanted to thank everybody for the, for their time that that presentation was fabulous. I'm really excited to have this conversation. I think, you know, the staff report does a great job of laying out both those paths to the arena path and and allocations, but also the how to how are we going to get to our housing element? You know, I am doubtful that after everything I've been through on the council about charter violations and whatever else, that I'm going to be quick to jump into violating the charter in terms of how we meet our housing element arena allocations. But I think we're going to need to get closer to what those numbers are before I'm going to be able to make a decision on that. So thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. And that's why Councilmember Dissected. You want to go next?
Speaker 6: Right. Well, thank you. Leading up to November three, the residents were basically faced with a choice in Measure Z. A yes. On Measure Z meant an abandonment of the status quo regulating residential development in Alameda. On the other hand, no one measures the zimet keeping the status quo when it comes to residential development. And on November three, residents voted overwhelmingly. Frankly, in no uncertain terms for maintaining the status quo. At the heart of the status quo governing residential development is Alameda is growth control tool of Article 26 of the City Charter, which was adopted in 1973. Modified in 1991. And reaffirmed in the year 2020. At the heart of the status quo is also. To work arounds that allow in limited circumstances the types of multi-family housing supposedly not allowed by Article 26. These two workarounds, as we've discussed tonight, are the density bonus law, which we have on our on our books and the multifamily housing law overlay law, which we also have on our local books. Since 2012 we have in limited. Targeted and very strategic areas built multi-family housing, basically apartments and condos using the density bonus law and the multifamily housing overlay law. All of us on city council here have in one way or another supported this housing, these housing since 2012, even if they are counter to Article 26. The way that I see it is let us continue to fight. To keep our air bag housing numbers as low as possible as befitting an island like Alameda. But let us also build respecting the status quo of Article 26 growth control and a limited, targeted and strategic use of the density bonus law and the multi-family housing overlay law. In rejecting measure a the people in no uncertain terms said the city council must keep to the status quo approach when dealing with residential development. That approach that we've employed since 2012, we should fulfill the will of the voters. We should also work closely with the voters. We should take seriously the concerns raised by persons who were involved in the No Manzi efforts, as well as those who voted for them. I have no doubt that if their concerns are not seriously taken, the housing element will probably be put to a vote of the people. We can do that. So. People are concerned about a multi-family overlay on. Horror of landing? Well, there's not going to be a multi-family overlay on horrible landing. There's not going to be a multi-family overlay on the Horror Bay sports facility. And there's not going to be. There might be a multifamily. There's not going to be a multifamily overlay on South Shore Center. Those areas just are not strategic as they do not. They are not conducive to transit planning. So if we're gonna do multifamily overlay or density bonus in conjunction with Article 26, I think the people will definitely be looking for it to be continue to be used in a limited, targeted, strategic manner. If we have to bring the housing element to a vote of the people, well, then. Then, you know, we'll cross that bridge if we have to. But right now, I think in the aftermath of November three, 2020, I think the people have clearly spoken and they are encouraging you to work with the residents of Alameda in keeping our housing numbers as low as possible and continue to figure out meeting our housing needs within the status quo approach that we've used since 2012. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And before I calling anyone and I'm not going to go back to people who have spoken before until every one of the councils had a chance to speak. But we have to do some housekeeping because it's 1055. So if we're going to go past 11 and we do need to. You can in there. Yes, Madam.
Speaker 2: Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to go to midnight. Keep it within this day as we like to do. And I'm fine. I know that we have one regular agenda item left and then the stop waste update. That item item nine has been moved.
Speaker 1: We do okay with anything. Let's end before midnight of my like it's 1155. Could we vote to go to 12 5510 1155 instead we practically vote to go to the second as it begins over. Bilbo's seconded by Councilor Woodside. Madam Cliff, May we have a roll call vote?
Speaker 0: This council member dissolved? Yes, not quite. Yes. Odie.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 0: Vella. Yes, Mayor. As the Ashcraft. Yes, that carries by five.
Speaker 1: Thanks, everybody. Did you finish? I guess he did because he left it. So, Councilmember Bella, I'm going to call on you next.
Speaker 2: Thanks, Madam Mayor. There's a lot of talk about these mandates from the voters, and I think I'm going to respectfully disagree in part. There were a lot of measures on this ballot. And one thing that we know is that people tend to vote no when they don't understand or when they're overwhelmed with kind of what's before them . So I don't necessarily see this kind of mandate per say, existing. I also don't know how that reconciles with the fact that I was the top vote getter in the history of the city and and very pro housing and have been unabashedly so. And so I you know, what I do think is very clear, based off of the communications that we've received from from what I've heard from public speakers and what I've heard at various forums is that there's a lot of confusion around what people thought they were voting on. So I do hear that we a couple of things. One, that people don't really understand the numbers. They don't understand the housing element. They don't really understand what the charter allows us to do or not to do. They don't understand how different developments have come about or the density, how we've gotten the density, where we've gotten it . They don't understand how affordable housing is funded. They don't understand what the process is when we actually go through approving various projects. So I think that that that what's very clear to me is that we do need to have these informational sessions. We do need to have a number of meetings. And we do need to bring people along and have these conversations. What I don't want to do is to talk to the ideologues who are going to create a scenario that's essentially on I just infeasible. And I think that there's a few issues that have been presented that I that I am concerned about. So I do think we should have a conversation, for instance, about how does affordable housing get funded. And if we if if we want to to say here, we're going to do 100% affordable, what sort of bond would we have to do or measure? Would we would we have to do and fund locally? And how would we go about doing that? And what is the public support for that? That might require a little polling, for instance. I think we need to have a conversation of if we follow the charter. And I want to be very clear that I do not intend, by any stretch of the imagination to violate the charter. But but if we follow the charter in the purest sense, what does that give us? What does the where is the density? What does that map look like? And if that means that we lose commercial and we lose park and we lose these other things, what does that mean? Because I think that it's very disingenuous to say, where's all of our job creation? But, hey, you can't have housing density. You can't do these other things. We have to talk about these things not in silos, but as they all come together and. And frankly saying that we're unique because we're an island. Manhattan is an island. Please, people, let's stop talking about we're unique because we're an island. San Francisco is a peninsula. They have bridge access and limitations as well. I think we are looking at safety. That is one element. We're looking at transit. We're looking at the environment. We're looking at a number of different things. But we have to look at them all together as a composite. This isn't a situation where we get to be climate deniers or say that science doesn't matter. We have to look at what we know to be true, which is that the population has grown, that the demand is here, and that regardless of what happens, the fact that we have been planning essentially through ballot box has gotten us into the hole that we are in. We are here because we have voted on these different things to stop. And finally, I've heard a lot about we need to represent our needs and we need to ask for these numbers to be lower. I don't just think it's about finding a way, as Andrew said, to justify the reduction. I think it's also about thinking about the unintended consequences. I am very concerned of this NIMBYism that is saying I am such a NIMBY that I don't want a few hundred units in my backyard. Go ahead and put them in my driveway, surround my property, put them at my front door so that I can even get out of my house. Because these units are not leaving the region. We are we are talking about a composite of thousands of units. Then going along the 880 corridor along in Emeryville, in Oakland, in Newark, in places that we all traverse and that we all go to. And there are several members of this council who work off island or who have to leave the island for work. You're talking about impacting that sort of transit, impacting those emissions. I mean, there's there's huge ripple effects there. So it's not a zero sum game. Yes. For Alameda, but it does create these other problems. So we can't argue regional traffic and transit issues and then say, hey, just it's just a few units because it's not it's regionally changing where these these units go and there's a huge impact to us. So I thank you for the presentation tonight. I look forward to continuing this conversation and trying to bring people along as we have it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Avila. I'm very well said. Council. Councilmember o.T? Yes.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Senator. I'll be brief. I won't use all my 3 minutes. But, you know, I think it's one thing to kind of look after an election and kind of. Have your own impression on what it means, you know, and talk about, you know, where you thought people voted and why they voted. But it's another thing to kind of restate the theme of the election and, you know. That we were voting on something and it was clear because it was it. I mean, I pulled up the the ballot arguments for and against. I didn't see anything that basically said, if you vote no, you're going to keep the status quo. And if you vote yes, it means you want to get rid of the status quo. In fact, the argument against said if it's repealed, the council by a simple majority of three votes can amend residential zoning to allow city wide home demolitions, increased density, greater heights and less parking, resulting in massive overdevelopment and terrible traffic. Well, that's not the status quo. Sorry. And if there's any attempt to kind of twist why people voted, you know, that's fine. But if there's an attempt to rewrite history and say, what were the arguments that were made? Because I got every single flier and I didn't see it wasn't an argument about status quo versus not status quo. It was an argument about keeping Measure A in the charter and not keeping measure. So one last point. I mean, look at the charter. I mean, it says there should be no multiple dwelling units and there are some exceptions. It doesn't say, you know, it it says the maximum density is one unit for 2000 square feet and then it list a few exceptions. And in those exceptions, it doesn't say unless council decides they want to pass legislation to allow multi-family overlay in violation of this charter. It doesn't say that. So I think we proceed at our own risk. If we decide or you decide in the next 18 months to pass an ordinance that basically undermines the will of the voters reaffirming a part of the statue that's black and white like less than two years later. I mean, basically I just pulled a random section out of the charter, three dash ten. No real property of the city shall be leased for a period in excess of one year or so, except upon the affirmative vote of four members of the City Council. We couldn't pass an ordinance that basically came up with some exceptions on that. That's what's in the charter. And 26 dash, 126 dash to 20 6-3 are in the charter. And you may want to rewrite why you thought people voted for it.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Review and Comment on Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Housing Methodology Committee’s Proposed Methodology for Distributing the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) among Bay Area Cities and Counties, and Staff’s Proposed Process/Meeting Schedule to Update the City’s General Plan Housing Element for 2023 to 2031. (Planning, Building and Transportation 481005)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_12012020_2020-8484
|
Speaker 4: the City Council. We couldn't pass an ordinance that basically came up with some exceptions on that. That's what's in the charter. And 26 dash, 126 dash to 20 6-3 are in the charter. And you may want to rewrite why you thought people voted for it. You didn't want to, you know, have revisionist history and what the arguments were. But this is what you stuck with. So. That's just the way it is.
Speaker 1: You did?
Speaker 4: Oh, yes. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Okay. So thank you, everybody. And thank you, all of you. Randy. So I cut him loose, thanked him for doing a great job. Andrew Thomas. Likewise. Thank you, everyone. Our public speakers and council for your comments. I would just listen to my colleague, Councilmember Vella, who sits with me on the Statewide Policy Committee for the League of California Cities on Housing, Community and Economic Development. And so maybe that's why we're very aligned in our thinking. But I also would have to say that this past November, the vote and I mean from the federal, state, county, local levels, there were a lot of mixed results. I mean, there just were. So what I am more than willing to concede is that I think Measure C was a very confusing issue. And it is true that what people don't understand, they tend to vote no on. And I think now we have an opportunity to do more community education and outreach and the kind of collaboration that I think will actually be helpful. One of the things that Mr. Thomas does really well is to demonstrate what does it look like? Because it's just so abstract. When you think of so many units for Adra, what does that look like? But when you actually see actual photographs of actual real units, dwellings, historic buildings in our city, it's it's a lot less intimidating than threatening it. And even some of it, I think would be welcomed. But I do think we need to have this series of community conversations that will help educate the public and to bring the community along. Will we get 100% sitting together singing Kumbaya? Probably not. But will we have a better understanding of where we fit into this housing crisis and what we can do to help alleviate it? I hope so. I think it's possible. So now we have time, as was laid out in the staff report, if these public forums going forward and I really want to make sure that it can be as widespread and to get the word out, we'll think of different ways to to get the word and the messaging out to people kind of meet them where they are, because this is just a very important issue. And the thing that I fall back on is not only do we we need to to take seriously our obligation to help house people. We do need to be compliant with law, with state law. But these are not mutually exclusive propositions. I think there's a lot of possibilities. So I look forward to meeting with the community going forward. As has been mentioned, a lot of this will take place in the new year. So with that, let's see, we are and we were asked to review and comment on the Big Housing Methodologies Committee's proposed methodology and staff proposed process and being scheduled to update the city's general plan housing element for 2023 to 2031. So again, huge thanks to everyone for contributing to this very important effort, which is to be continued. Look for some public forums coming coming up in the new year. So thank you all with that is going to close this item and we need to move hurriedly on to item six be madam clerk for you introduce that item for us, please.
Speaker 0: Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to execute lease amendments for Rent Relief Program with Alameda Point Beverage Group Actions by the Bay Building 43 An Associate Faction Brewing Group Delphi PROXIMO Spirits Dahlgren Drone and USS Hornet Air and Space Museum via the nonprofit Spirits Alley program for rent relief in response to the COVID 19 pandemic.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And who's presenting on this with?
Speaker 0: We have.
Speaker 1: It was. There she is. Yes, I see. Miss Butler and Miss Mercado. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: All right. Are you there, Mr.? Kind of.
Speaker 0: We're getting.
Speaker 2: Her. We're looking.
Speaker 1: Really? Give her. It is falling asleep. It's getting late. Here is Lois Butler. Hi. We're looking for Miss Mercado, but we're confident we'll find her.
Speaker 5: I'll see if I can locate her. Oh, here she comes.
Speaker 0: Yes, she's here.
Speaker 1: Yes, I see your name. Hi. Good evening. How are you? Sorry to keep you up past curfew. All right. So if you're ready to go, we're ready to have you. And we just have to. 1155. You need to take all the money. So why don't you give us a quick overview?
Speaker 2: Okay. Can you guys hear me?
Speaker 1: Yeah, just.
Speaker 2: Okay. It seems like a lot of people are. Hey. So I will try to keep this brief over the. I. Can you not hear me?
Speaker 1: No, I can hear you. I just want to mute myself. And all of a sudden I couldn't hear you. But keep talking. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 2: I'm. I'm here.
Speaker 1: Now. I can see you and hear you.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I will try to keep this brief. Hi.
Speaker 0: Is there is your livestream still on tonight?
Speaker 2: Perhaps it is. I'll turn it off.
Speaker 0: That's. They're having a problem with, I think. Yeah. There's a delay with it. So oh yeah, the livestream is like 30 seconds later. So it's very like talking over.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm here. Is it better? Yes. Yes. Okay. Because I was caught in that live stream. Okay. So I'll try to keep this brief. Thank you, Mayor and city council members. I'm Ninette Marcano in the Community Development Department. Over the last ten months, this council has been grappling with what to do and how to bring relief to our tenants and various buildings throughout the city. We have done a 90 day deferral initially, which grew into the loan conversion program that we we approved and then refined on October 6th and further refined tonight in the on the consent calendar. And just briefly, that is not the program we're discussing tonight, just employee. And at that end, in that program, right now, we have about two applicants. There's one pending. And I'll just tell you, it's Saint George Spirits and Rockwall Winery so that it does not include those in the program we're discussing tonight. That program, just briefly, is the program where we negotiate a six. We negotiate benchmarks that would result in an abatement of rent for the tenants. The maximum of rent abatement under the loan conversion program is six months. And in October, the council allocated $1.5 million to support that program. I don't think we're going to come anywhere near that because a couple of the people who are interested in the loan conversion program have now said they would like to be a part of the new program that the council approved in October, which I call the nine three program. But it actually should be called 933 because it defers nine months of rent. It will be paid back over a three year period. And and I say the extra three because up to three months can be abated if the tenant pays back early. So. It's a933 program. That's what we're discussing tonight. So the council approved that program in October and said, come back to us and tell us what it's going to look like and what the numbers might look like. And so tonight, we have attached the agreement that we would enter into with each of the tenants that have been identified on this list. I want to tell you that they're the totals. It might be a little confusing because the bottom of the I have nonprofit spirits, Ali total and the loan conversion total because what I'm proposing to do is end in this 933 program, the council allocated up to $400,000 because you might recall it at that time. I did the quick math of, what, three months if all of those tenants could total and it was about $400,000. And then the loan conversion program, as I said earlier, the council allocated $1.5 million and I'm recommending that we use that 1.5 million for even the tenants who are applying for this 933 program because they were not I mean, they may they they go outside of the nonprofit Spirit's Alley purview. And so since we had already allocated it for this other program, we may as well use it. And it's going to be far less than the 1.5, as you'll see. Okay. With that said, I do I would like to ask the council to consider adding two more tenants to this list. So when you when you consider the motion that you would also consider adding these tenants. One is Pacific Pinball Museum, which is a nonprofit, and they're a three month total. If they were to do all three miles, it would be 34,500. And then the other one is Wonky Kitchen, which you recall is, um, Spirit's Alley. It's the commercial kitchen, which originally was the dehydrated kale, which is turned into more of a commercial kitchen for for food trucks and sort of an A they want to create sort of a patio at some point with different food trucks, which would be a perfect amenity for us along Spirit's Alley when the beautiful day comes when we can congregate and be together again. So I think we would like to add those two to this. I have added the total and in the bottom line for you so that the nonprofit Spirits Alley total would be 149 632, which is out of the $400,000 that you guys have allocated before, 160 266 would be taken out of the $1.5 million that you guys allocated for the loan conversion program, because those were the applicants who were originally loan conversion applicants. So you'll you know, that's why it's it's divided that way. So to complete the presentation, I would just like to go over the list of the tenants so that you would understand who's who. Made a point beverage group which you might know as bricks that the spirits alis tenant auctions by the day. They were a loan conversion applicant that now wants to go for the 933 program building 43 and associates that is Spirits Ali Tenant Faction Brewing Spirits Ali group Delphi. This was a loan conversion applicant and but and as a reminder, this is a company that completely changed their business model to adjust to the COVID, the COVID pandemic. So formally, they made the conventions, booths and spaces, and now they manufacture pre-fab things for construction of multifamily housing units. And they've kind of kind of generated a new business making those things. So we're very proud of them. PROXIMO Spirits Again, A Spirits Alley Tenet Sale June an original loan conversion program applicant who wants to do the 933 and then again Pacific Pinball and. Wonky Kitchen. Those are the two that I would like to amend this staff report for.
Speaker 1: You also need to include the US as Hornet.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sorry I skipped them. Yes, the USS Hornet, which is a museum.
Speaker 1: And I see the city manager has his hand up and so. Mr. LEVITT.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Yes. I think because of the way the agenda is, I would recommend that the pinball museum and the wonky kitchen maybe would need to be on a future agenda.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yes, that's a very good point. Thank you. I see the city attorney looking very relieved and thank you. Yes, good point. Well, you you were to bring that back.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it'll be the exact same staff report, but with just the new names in it. Sure. Okay.
Speaker 1: So did I see council hands shooting up there? I think it said Councilor or you Councilor Vela Councilor voted. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: I just had a quick question. I mean, yeah. Thanks for this, by the way. I think it's exactly what we asked for, the wonky kitchen, even though we're not voting on that. What was the amount.
Speaker 2: For three months of wonky kitchen is 7700.
Speaker 1: Wait, stop, stop.
Speaker 2: We don't talk about it.
Speaker 1: This is not agenda as we cannot discuss it, it will come back to us. Did you have anything that was on the agenda to ask the council member?
Speaker 4: Well, it just said that I was sorry.
Speaker 1: Either we are not going to talk about items that are on agenda.
Speaker 2: All right. All right. Sorry about that.
Speaker 1: Okay, Counselor.
Speaker 4: We should have stopped that earlier then.
Speaker 1: You're right. And stopping it now, Councilor Rebello?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I was just going to ask about whether or not we should be getting into a couple of the things that were discussed. But with with it, yes, but I did have a question. If you could just reiterate in terms of what's within the agenda item, what the total she's asking for or it is excuse me for I time as it's in the staff report. Right. It's for the nonprofit spirits Ali Total. It's $114,000, 114 132 and that's out of the 400,000 that you guys set aside. And then 460 266 and that's out of the $1.5 million that you set aside for the loan conversion program. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I have a question and I actually emailed this to staff earlier today. I would like to add a clause to the agreement, to the ordinance, and to the effect that if a recipient of these funds is found to be in violation of an order issued by the county public health officer and I would say found by a code compliance officer, a police officer or a member of city staff, then they should forfeit any benefits received under this program because there have been instances in the not too distant future when people we gave them an inch and they took a mile. And when it comes to COVID 19 and holding risky events and exposing the public and prolonging this pandemic and increasing our COVID numbers, I am really no nonsense. So you do not you should not benefit from our largesse as a city in this generosity and at the same time be flagrantly violating a public health officer rules. So I would like that. And I checked with the city attorney's office who said that was doable, but that would be my request to council that we incorporate a language to this effect into the agreement. I saw that Councilmember De Soto hand Councilor Brady said.
Speaker 6: Just to clarify in question on that issue that you just raised. Do you mean for this to be going forward, if you're found in violation of something after this date, then you. Right. Okay.
Speaker 1: Right, right, right. Right. If you before we approve this tonight, let's assume we're going to approve it and go forward. People get the the these funds and then they decide to hold some large gathering, something that's in violation of the public health officer. And we've had a couple of instances, and I just I don't think we can afford to reward that kind of behavior that just puts us at risk. And our businesses are just.
Speaker 2: Hanging on by.
Speaker 1: A thread. So we don't we just don't want to prolong this the situation any longer. So it's just, you know, do what you're supposed to do, basically. But if you don't that. And so we've got to clarify questions. I should ask the city, do we have any public speakers on this item?
Speaker 0: We do not have any speakers.
Speaker 1: And usually when I ask that question, then they arise. But anyway, Councilor Odie, did your hand go back up.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm just curious on I mean, maybe the city attorney can explain how that's permissible. You know, because I wonder if there's vested rights with the lease amendment that. Well, first of all, I didn't see it in the agenda or in the alternative. And second of all, I wonder if that's even something legally we could do, because there'd be vested rights and we'd be asking somebody to repay. Hypothetically, it's group Delphi 180,000 without due process. Councilmember Odie I yes, the Councilmember Odie. I do believe that the Council could make this requirement. It would be before they signed the lease lease amendment, it would be in the lease amendment and then the businesses would sign it as part of the lease amendment.
Speaker 3: We're not granting an entitlement.
Speaker 4: We're simply negotiating a contract. And in that process, before they sign the lease.
Speaker 3: We can put that in as one of the provisions.
Speaker 4: That essentially revokes this grace from the council, so to speak, for relief if they violate the law. And I do believe that that will withstand judicial review. At least amendment exhibit one for at least amendment doesn't include that. So, I mean, anyone that looked at the agenda wouldn't know that we were considering putting that in unless they were on at 11:25 p.m.? No. Councilmember that that is correct. So the council regularly makes modifications to ordinances.
Speaker 3: And items that are.
Speaker 4: Fairly well agendas. And this is simply a provisional change.
Speaker 3: It's not, for instance, adding.
Speaker 4: Entirely different parties. And so I do believe that that is within the council's province to do tonight. Okay. Well, I don't disagree with the intent. I'm not quite sure it's permissible, but I'm not going to let that get in the way of me approving this.
Speaker 1: All right. Any further questions, comments, motion calls we were given.
Speaker 2: I'd like to move approval with the amendment language that the mayor has asked for to be included in in whatever whatever lease amendment we issue. And I just want to thank staff for working on this. I think this is just it's helpful to hear who's taking advantage of the different options that we have. And I look forward to having the conversation about how we can continue to help our businesses. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Yes, I can. Some of those things if you we have a motion to move a second second member, Odie has seconded any further discussion. We're not quite.
Speaker 5: Quite sure. I support the intent. I guess my question is, what is the actual language that we're inserting? Since we're proving it tonight.
Speaker 1: And the attorney, maybe.
Speaker 4: If I may, is. Yes. So, Councilmember Knox, why we will draft a language that's consistent with the council's direction, not dissimilar to other.
Speaker 5: Direction you've.
Speaker 4: Given us, so that we don't have to read in specific language tonight. Well, we think that the direction is fairly narrowly tailored, so we should be able to get your language. It will be something to the effect of if the lessee is found to be in violation of health officer orders by a law enforcement or a code enforcement officer, then this amendment shall be a no further forces act and so on and so forth. So we will certainly get that together and then you will see it in second reading.
Speaker 5: And my assumption is that that that any of those code enforcement violations that were found would be similar to the very few that have been found so far. We're not going to pull somebody's loan because somebody wasn't wearing one. One employee wasn't wearing a mask when somebody walked in.
Speaker 1: No, no.
Speaker 5: I just want to.
Speaker 1: I think.
Speaker 5: There's a level of severity where I think, yes, I agree completely with this, but I just want to ensure that whatever language doesn't lock us into if somebody gets caught, right. Somebody filed a complaint, gets caught and they're employed and have a mask on. And I just.
Speaker 1: Know.
Speaker 5: Whatever that language is needs to be clear that there's a there's a threshold level of violation that needs to be.
Speaker 1: Great.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: Okay. Anything further? Okay. Madam, quickly, we have a roll cover, please.
Speaker 0: Let's remember de sag.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 0: Not quite. I oti.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Well, I may as the Ashcroft high carries my five eyes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Staff. Good. Good work on this important item. Sorry to keep you up so late.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Good night.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Lease Amendments for Rent Relief Program with Alameda Point Beverage Group, Auctions By the Bay, Building 43 & Associates, Faction Brewing, Group Delphi, Proximo Spirits, Saildrone and USS Hornet Air & Space Museum via the Non-Profit Spirits Alley Program for Rent Relief in Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. (Community Development 858)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_11172020_2020-8437
|
Speaker 5: Recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute a five year agreement with. Our services for cleaning and maintenance of Park Street, Webster Street and Marina Village in an amount not to exceed $1,264,323.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Dysart you pull this was that because recuse.
Speaker 1: Myself is necessary.
Speaker 3: Okay. All right. So essentially, we'll take a vote. Do that. Yeah. Okay. All right, then we can get a vice mayor. Next, we can unmute.
Speaker 4: I've got a collective. I'm of approval of the item.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Thank you. It's been moved by, and that's why it's seconded by Councilmember Bellamy. We have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 5: Uh, yes. Vice Mayor. Knock fight. Hi. Councilmember Odie I avella i mayor as the Ashcraft I that carries by four eyes. One absent.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. And can we get Councilmember Dave Suggs back?
Speaker 5: He is right there.
Speaker 3: Okay, then we will move on to item five D and vice versa. Next. Wait, you asked for this? So the floor is yours. Did you want to hear the report? Was that it?
Speaker 4: I actually just had some questions. I'm happy to hear the report if we like. I also half of half of that is I just wanted to give our staff some really huge kudos on the completion of this report.
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you. That's that's nice of you.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So and I just just I do have some questions. I did send them to staff a little earlier this this afternoon or late evening when I warned them that I would be pulling this. But essentially this for the sake of anybody watching, it's a report on the impact on shallow groundwater and sea level rise. And while I can't find the exact citation that I would love to read, the first page actually has a consultant's mentioning that city should be doing this work and nobody is. And I think we are one of the first cities to actually start looking at this issue. This issue ended up in our Climate Action Plan because input from our community around whether or not just putting walls up, sea walls up would actually have any impact around our our our soil. And I think for me, it was very interesting to to read through how some of the old contaminated soil issues actually become quite, quite significant issues in some surprising places around town, actually earlier than sea level rise starts to impact things. And so, you know, like I said, I just wanted to do a celebrate for our staff, just the huge accomplishment that I think this is. But also then ask a little question, follow up questions about their thinking. I'm there are some recommendations on policy, strategy, focus areas and some other next steps. And given that this does identify some kind of earlier than some of the other sea level rise strategies and recommends updating the carp based on them.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year Agreement with Clark Services for Cleaning and Maintenance of Park Street, Webster Street and Marina Village, in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,264,323. (Public Works 275)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_11172020_2020-8438
|
Speaker 4: But also then ask a little question, follow up questions about their thinking. I'm there are some recommendations on policy, strategy, focus areas and some other next steps. And given that this does identify some kind of earlier than some of the other sea level rise strategies and recommends updating the carp based on them. I'm wondering what our next steps are on this project just so we we have kind of that.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, and like magic, here is our public works director Aaron Smith too. So Miss Smith, welcome is nice to see you. And would you like to give just for the public who's watching? Would you like to give a little overview of this item and then you could address the vice mayor's questions?
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mayor. As you Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Knox White members of council. I'm Aaron Smith, the public works director for the city. Thank you for the praise, Vice Mayor. The report has been quite the journey. It was first in the development of the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan around 2018. There was actually some press coverage from U.C. Berkeley researchers that had started to contemplate and characterize the rising groundwater and the implications with sea level rise. And that came out right during our development with the Climate Action Resiliency Plan. It was fairly high level regional data that was published, but it definitely sparked good conversation. It was beyond the scope of our climate action or resiliency plan to localize that regional data. But we did put an action item in the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan to further characterize the rising groundwater. So the rising shallow groundwater layer here in Alameda. So we kicked that work off actually with Silver Stream is a the consulting firm that actually worked with the UC Berkeley researchers. And we are lucky enough to the principal of that firm that helped us is actually an Alameda resident, which so I know this this work is very meaningful.
Speaker 0: For for her.
Speaker 5: That's Chris Meg. Anyway, so we've been we've kicked off the work and what this work really looks at as sees rise it will the groundwater here in Alameda will also rise the report the regional had very limited data well data as it related to Alameda so we were able to augment that regional effort with.
Speaker 0: Local.
Speaker 5: Local information. And the report, as has shown, has a more refined model. It definitely shows flooding, increased extent of flooding. When you contemplate what's called emergent groundwater, that's when the groundwater rises to a point. It's now on the surface. It increases that extent by 25%, and it may even have flooding from groundwater. Emergent groundwater occur sooner than what we had originally contemplated at Shoreline Overtopping. So it's definitely important information. And our first next next step is to incorporate that into the Climate Action Resiliency Plan. I work closely with our consultant here to do a little bit of that legwork. And you can see there's tables at the end of this document that actually are the updates to the tables that need to go into the Climate Action Resiliency Plan. So a lot of that work is to some degree done. The next step is really on the implementation front. I think that one of the first steps we will continue to do is is to advocate and collaborate with the regulating agencies that are responsible for groundwater contamination. They set remediation, corrective action plans that have historically considered a static climate. And so this report is pushing a conversation and that they're wanting and willing to have. It's just very new of how do we consider groundwater contamination when there's possibilities that that groundwater may.
Speaker 0: Rise with sea level.
Speaker 5: Rise projections. So continuing to work with them, continuing to install more monitoring wells both geographically and temporally, increasing maybe the rate in which we or the regulators are looking at them. I think there's continued points of collaboration with the educational institutions we have in the Bay Area because I think they're great. So I think pushing the conversation as much as we can. One other thing that will that is happening is this study is, you know, one of the first of its kind in the Bay Area and really was instrumental in Sylvester, um, the consultant working with the San Francisco Estuary Institute to win a climate one of the Climate California Resilience Challenge Grants. They will actually be doing this very same characterization with, I think, four counties in the Bay Area. It's a lot of really motivated, smart people going to be looking at this subject matter at a regional level in the hopes of pushing forward solutions. And the city has been asked to sit on that technical advisory committee. So we'll definitely be part of any ongoing solution discussions for this matter. If if I can answer any other questions, I'm happy to. I can probably keep talking but don't want to take.
Speaker 0: Too much time.
Speaker 3: I just want to thank you that you are always fascinating to to hear from. We do have one public speaker on this item now, but before we call on our public speaker, do does the device, me or anyone else have any clarifying questions on this report? Okay, so.
Speaker 4: Say not, but I'll just say thank you for the answers to the questions.
Speaker 2: Appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Okay. So let's go ahead and hear from our public speaker, please. Madam Clerk.
Speaker 5: Michael Moon.
Speaker 3: Huh? Good evening, Mr. Ruby.
Speaker 1: Oh, hello.
Speaker 6: Sorry. Actually, it's the wrong one.
Speaker 1: I mean.
Speaker 6: I wasn't sure I wanted to come.
Speaker 1: In on six eight, so apologies about that.
Speaker 3: Oh, the.
Speaker 1: Truth. Let's get a note or.
Speaker 3: We'll get you here, okay? Okay. So do we have a this is a recommendation to accept this September 2020 report titled City of Alameda as a response of the shallow groundwater layer and contaminants to sea level rise. Do we have a motion to accept this report by saying that's why you want to say something more so?
Speaker 4: No, no. I just wanted to I was going to move with great appreciation. I just it's a fabulous it's really it's a really well done report. I think you so much.
Speaker 5: Second.
Speaker 3: To live by the vice mayor, seconded by Councilor Vella. May we have a roll call, please?
Speaker 5: Councilmember de san. Yes. Knox, right. Hi, Odie. Hi, Vella. I may as the Ashcraft I carries by five eyes.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you so much, Ms.. Smith. Nice to see you. Okay. All right, then we move on to the next item, which is item five H, the.
Speaker 5: Adoption of resolution approving a final map and authorizing execution of a subdivision improvement agreement for tract 8500 aluminum arena as a condition to final map approval.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Recommendation to Accept the September 2020 Report Titled, “City of Alameda, The Response of the Shallow Groundwater Layer and Contaminants to Sea Level Rise.” (Public Works 310)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_11172020_2020-8436
|
Speaker 5: Adoption of resolution approving a final map and authorizing execution of a subdivision improvement agreement for tract 8500 aluminum arena as a condition to final map approval.
Speaker 3: All right. And Councilmember decided you want to hear a report on this?
Speaker 1: No, not really. Madam Mayor, if it's okay. In the past, I hadn't been supportive of this, so I thought I'd be consistent by voting no on it.
Speaker 3: Or it's okay to change your mind.
Speaker 1: That's true.
Speaker 3: Okay. Just so you know that.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 1: I'll keep that in mind.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 3: Well, then I don't think we need to do a staff report. I think I'll just ask for a motion. So this is adoption of resolution, approving a final map and authorizing execution. Subdivision improvement is what the city clerk already read that a motion from you council wrote.
Speaker 1: I just have a question. I mean, according to the the staff report, it's ministerial in nature and we can either approve it or remand it. I mean, what if, for instance, hypothetically, we chose to reject this and not remand it? I mean, what would be the. What would be the consequence of that? I mean, if three of us agree with that, that position, that we should just vote no on it without giving direction back to staff. I mean, what's the consequence?
Speaker 3: And like magic, here is our city engineer, Scott Wickstrom. Good evening, Mr. Wickstrom.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Or members of the City Council? Yes, sir. The council member, Otis Point. This is a.
Speaker 1: Typically final maps are ministerial actions. Essentially, the discretionary action that council takes is in approval of either the master plan, in this case the subsequent tentative map application and then the associated conditions of approval that come with that tentative map.
Speaker 2: And in in our process, the final map basically completed our review of the approval plans and from our opinion, basically made sure that all of the.
Speaker 1: Pertinent conditions of approval search with the tender map have been approved.
Speaker 2: So if council really doesn't have an.
Speaker 1: Option to reject the map per se, but what they can do is basically ask questions or dig into details about whether or not the developer has complied with all of the conditions of the approval to the city's satisfaction.
Speaker 3: So thank you, Mr. Cantor. Everybody, back to you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean, so what are the legal consequences if we just decided we were going to not approve this?
Speaker 2: I might ask our.
Speaker 1: City attorney to.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was to start with him, actually, Mr. Chan.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So, Councilmember.
Speaker 1: So it's hard to speculate, because one of the things you're doing is to essentially review the staff's work to see whether or not the final map does conform. And if for some reason you disagree with the city engineer, as he indicated, you could certainly send it back to.
Speaker 2: Him for further review.
Speaker 1: Obviously, in the hypothetical sense that if the city engineer did everything right and nonetheless council voted no.
Speaker 2: On a final map, it.
Speaker 1: Is possible that a court, by order of the Council to order the city to change its mind.
Speaker 2: But with every item that comes in front of the Council, the Council.
Speaker 1: Retains discretion to review the staff work and make a decision on whether or not you agree with the final analysis. And that's why it's in front of you. Okay. Because a lot of times we have these ministerial acts and, you know, some people choose to vote against them without really understanding what the legal consequences are. And really what we're being asked to do today is either remand it back to staff with suggestions for changes, or say that staff complied with what our legal agreements ask them to do. So it's it's often really strange to have these type of discussions on ministerial acts, you know, whether it's moving money from one budget line item to another or approving a tentative map. I mean, the horse is out of the barn on this. This is something that's approved. And we're just trying to say, you know, Scott, Mr. Nixon, did you and your team do your job? And, you know, I'm perfectly happy saying that you did and I'm happy to move approval of this item.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Accept the motion. Do we have a second split second by the vice mayor? Move by accounts over 30 seconds by Vice Mayor Knox. Why do we have a roll call vote with Councilmember Desai?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 5: Odie.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 5: Oh, Knox, wait. Sorry, I.
Speaker 0: Vella Hi.
Speaker 5: Mayor. As the Ashcraft I that carries by five for one with disagree now.
Speaker 3: Thank you. All right we have completed the consent calendar and we're going to move to our regular agenda items. First Episode six ave and of group.
Speaker 5: Recommendation authorizing the mayor to sign a letter of support for the Oakland Alameda Access Project. And we have quite a few people coming into the meeting on this item, and we also have a presentation.
Speaker 3: Right. So we'll give given is it looking like two minute time for speakers because of the number?
Speaker 5: Yes, you are correct on that. Well, wait, one, two, three. But we have six so far, so we need one more if it goes. Yes. Now we have seven. Eight. All right.
Speaker 3: So we have a number of of very capable, knowledgeable folks with us. And, man, have there been a lot of conversations lately, but we're going to have a few more. So in addition to our stellar city staff planning building transportation director Andrew Thomas, Rochelle Wheeler, who's a project manager on our estuary bridge project.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Adoption of Resolution Approving a Final Map and Authorizing Execution of A Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 8500, Alameda Marina As A Condition to Final Map Approval. (Public Works 310)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_11172020_2020-8449
|
Speaker 3: So we have a number of of very capable, knowledgeable folks with us. And, man, have there been a lot of conversations lately, but we're going to have a few more. So in addition to our stellar city staff planning building transportation director Andrew Thomas, Rochelle Wheeler, who's a project manager on our estuary bridge project. We also have the executive director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Tesla Shell. So it's a pleasure to have her come out on such a blustery night to join us in Alameda. And also, we have some consultants and staff from consults to the Alameda County Transportation Commission, a consultant, but also Alameda resident Rodney Pimentel, also a bridge engineer. And I know staff from AC, DC and RMS Trinity Nguyen. Good evening. Nice to see you. And consultancies and chain.
Speaker 0: And.
Speaker 3: Find this anywhere, any way. Mr. Thomas, this is your staff report. And how would you like to how would you like to proceed?
Speaker 6: Well, I think what I'd like to do. Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and members of the Council, Andrew Thomas, Planning Building and Transportation Director. And I'm assisted tonight by transportation coordinator, senior transportation coordinator Rochelle Wheeler, who's been the project manager for the city of Alameda. And thank you for introducing the very capable staff from the Alameda County Transportation Commission, because this is really their project. We're bringing it to you tonight because we're recommending to the city of Alameda take a position in support of the project. What we would like to do tonight is give you an overview of the project, just so that everybody in Alameda sort of understands the nature of the project. And then we can talk about some of the, you know, sort of follow on projects and issues that we've been talking about over the last few days with the staff of the Army, the County Transportation Commission. And then I'd like to give an opportunity, if it's with your support, if it's okay with the council, to let the Army County Transportation Commission add whatever they would like to the to the presentation at the beginning just to inform your your conversation with the full council.
Speaker 3: I hope the Council would be agreeable to that. And I want to also add that so I represent Alameda on the Alameda County Transportation Commission. The Vice Mayor, John Knox Wade is my alternate on that commission. And these are big, important projects we're talking about. So let's get started.
Speaker 6: Okay, Ashley, are you running the PowerPoint? Or Laura?
Speaker 5: I am. Yes, I am going to run it and I'm trying to get it started. Just give me a sec.
Speaker 6: All right. Because Laura basically runs this organization here.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Flawlessly.
Speaker 6: All right. Beautiful. All right. Well, that's not the beginning, though. Let's go to the start. Here we go. Let's back it up. Okay. This is called the Oakland Alameda Access Project. This is a project that's named a named project in which the voters approved first about 15, 20 years ago and then again measure bb5 years ago. And it is a project to improve the connections between Alameda, the city of Oakland and the I-80 Freeway. Next slide, please. What we're asking tonight is that the mayor signed a letter of support for the project addressed to the Alameda County Transportation Commission. And we have a draft letter for your review tonight for the full council review. This has been a project that has been a long time in the making. It really got started back in 1997. So it's been about 25 years we've been trying to do this and it's been a many, many failed attempts to try to improve the access around this freeway, the I-80 freeway in Oakland. But in the last four years. Do almost entirely to the really great work by the Army County Transportation Commission staff. We now have a project that we think is a benefit to both Oakland and Alameda and the region. Next slide, please. The purpose and need for this, the sort of the guiding sort of objectives were to improve safety and reduce conflicts between regional and local traffic, enhance bicycle and pedestrian accessibility and connectivity within the area, improve mobility and accessibility for travelers between the freeway, the Webster Posi tubes, the city of Oakland, downtown neighborhoods in the city of Alameda, and then reduce freeway bound regional traffic and congestion on local roadways and area neighborhoods. Next slide. It's been a tough, tough project. We have been some of us have been working on this for almost 20 years. And it's it's a difficult project because you've got an old freeway running through a dense urban area. And we have many stakeholders, obviously, the city of Oakland, the city of Alameda, the Jack London neighborhood, the Chinatown neighborhood, all sorts of interest groups, bike and pedestrian groups, landmark groups. And then, of course, with each year, more and more residents living closer to these interchanges and these on ramps and off ramps, so not an easy task to try to redesign freeway access in an established urban area. Next slide, please. It's a it's not going to be cheap. The voters approved $75 million for this project if we could figure out a solution. Ictsi has come up with another 6 million or excuse me, another ten or so. We're up to about $86 million of secured funding. But as you can see in this table, the total project cost is estimated now at close to 120 million. So there is additional funding still needed in the order of approximately $33 million that still need to be secured before we can construct this entire project. Next slide, please. It can be done in phases or in in chunks. There's what we call the core project, which we'll show you in a minute. But then there's a number of additional pieces to the project that we'd like that are included in the project. Description. A number of improvements in Chinatown for bike and pedestrian improvements. The Oak Street Cycle track in in Oakland at $6 million. A new walkway through the Webster tube at 7 million. Some improvements on the Alameda side of the of the tubes for bicycle and pedestrian improvements at about a million. So when you add it all up and then the sixth Street improvements in Oakland, another 34 million. So it gets you up there pretty quickly to about $120 million. We'd like to just give everybody a kind of a quick overview of what this project will, how it will change the experience from an Alameda perspective. Just to remind everybody, Alameda is know this this route connecting to the I-80 freeway. What you see here on the slide is the I-80 freeway. The blue line was a26 on it. That's supposed to be Alameda Snow. When you drive out of Alameda, you go through the posey tube. You come out in Oakland under that freeway. If you're going onto the freeway northbound, you do that sort of right hand turn, another right and then another right sort of past those homes. And you get on the freeway. It's you're basically driving through Chinatown to get to the freeway if you're going southbound on 80. So do that right. And then you have to make another right and then make a left on Fifth Street and then head down Fifth Street. So it's a very convoluted approach to getting on to a freeway from a state highway. And you have to circulate through Chinatown if you're coming home to Alameda on the 880 Freeway from the south in particular, or from the north. That's what the red lines indicate. And I won't walk you through it. Alameda is know what? It's you know how to do it. It's but essentially what you can see from the red lines as you're winding through Chinatown or you're winding through the Jack London neighborhood to get to the Posey Tube entrance. Next slide, please. This is a diagram and it shows as the animation is adding in how the freeway onramp connections are going to be redesigned. We're going to show you in a minute some of the videos that our friends at CTCA prepared, which I think do a better job of illustrating it. But essentially what you see on this diagram is where today you circulate through the core of Chinatown or through the through the main streets of the Jack London District to get on and off the freeway. Now all those movements are brought closer to the main line of the freeway. So you're much you're close to the freeway. We're getting traffic out of the the neighborhoods of Jack London Square and Chinatown. And then the perimeter colors that are on Seventh Street and Oak Street represent bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the Chinatown and Jack London neighborhoods. Next slide. So we've got some videos here which we're playing. This is your trip. You're leaving Alameda, you're coming out through the posi tube and you're heading northbound on AT&T. Normally you would continue straight, but with the new with this adjustment, you can have an off ramp before the freeway and there's what we call the horseshoe. So instead of going around the into Chinatown, you're going to make that sharp, right? You're heading down Fifth Street right now. And then you're making a left and you're essentially on an onramp at this point and you're circling under the freeway. And you're making another left, and then you are on the Jackson Street Onramp. So instead of circulating through Chinatown, you've moved. Now, of course, there'll be more traffic. This is not a representation of the traffic conditions. This is just a representation showing you the new route to get onto the freeway heading northbound. Let's go to the next video. You're coming home. Heading from San Francisco, let's say. And you're heading down the. The ramp at Jackson's coming down into the Jack London Square area off the freeway. That's the horseshoe ramp just to your left and how you make. Another left turn. And another left. Normally you would head over to the Broadway. Intersection. But now what you'll be able to do is just go a few blocks. Along the edge of the freeway. This is along Sixth Street. One more block. You come to Webster Street and you make a left. And you are into the Webster, too. Coming home to Alameda. The Oak Street off ramp to Sixth Street. You've come off the freeway now. And you're heading along the new Six Street Road that is part of this project. So this is as an alternate instead of the long Broadway off street this currently you take the Broadway offramp and it takes you all the way to the Broadway intersection if you're coming from southbound 80, 80. Now you'll drop down and land at Oak Street. Go along sixth street. I'm sorry. I.
Speaker 1: That was actually at Webster.
Speaker 6: You could have. Yeah. That was that.
Speaker 1: Went past Webster.
Speaker 6: Yeah. I miss, I, I, I misrepresented that one. But let's keep moving. The, the, a number of improvements in the Oakland, Chinatown and Jack London area to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. This these areas have been significantly impacted over the years by automobile traffic trying to get on and off that freeway. So with this rearrangement of the on ramps and off ramps, you have now the ability to really improve the urban environment in the Jack London and and and Chinatown environment to improve pedestrian bicycle safety. So really great improvement for those users. This is a diagram showing the Chinese garden park. As you come out of the posi. Whoa. Going a little too fast as you're coming out of the posi tube. You know, we we have to drive around these two blocks of Oakland to get to the freeway. By removing that movement for freeway traffic. It really provides an opportunity to improve these these two blocks and make it a much more attractive and safe place for pedestrians and bicyclists in Chinatown. Next slide. There's also a couple improvements on the Alameda side to improve bicycle and pedestrian access into the posi tube and out of the Webster tube. So the numbers on the right, number three and four are are improvements for bicycle and pedestrian access into the Posey Tube bike path, pedestrian path, and then items one and three and two on the left coming out of the Webster tube. So the improvements to allow for bicycle and pedestrian access through the Webster tube where none exists today. Next slide. And this is a cross section of the two tubes. On the right is the posey tube, where that's the existing condition. As you can see, the little three foot bike path on the right that's available today for bikes and pedestrians. On the left is a cross section of the Webster Tube, and it shows how this project will open up one of the path in the Webster tube so that now pedestrian bicyclists will have two options between to get back and forth between Oakland and Alameda. One, the existing Posey Tube and the new Webster Tube connection. Next slide, please. So as you saw in are the city staff and the draft letter that went to the Transportation Commission. On this project, the city staffs from the city of Alameda was concerned that this project, although really much needed and much overdue to improve conditions in Oakland, improve the access to the freeway, reduce pedestrian and bicycle safety issues in Oakland didn't really do enough to improve pedestrian and bicycle connections and access between Alameda and Oakland. And that is not only to really support bicyclists and pedestrians, which we need to do, but also to reduce traffic in Oakland and Chinatown. So we have been working on a feasibility study with the Oakland Alameda excuse me, the alameda county transportation commission on a bicycle and pedestrian bridge. This connecting allen west alameda to jack london square. We know this bridge is feasible to build now. We know we can build it to meet the coast guard's navigational requirements, the city, the port of Oakland's navigational and operational requirements. We know it's an expensive project and we know we have a long way to go. We still have detailed design, environmental work and we have to raise the money to do it. But it has the potential and we know from a demand study that we can reduce up about 5000, you know, that it can add approximately 5000 trips a day, would use this bicycle and pedestrian bridge if we used it. So that translates into a lot of cars that we could take out of the network if we can get this done. Next slide, please. Oh, this is just real quickly. The the the change in the routing will save time for automobile drivers in alameda. A couple of minutes in the morning. When you leave the posi tube because of the horseshoe, you'll save some time heading southbound on i-80, about 2 to 3 minutes as you head southbound on AT&T because of the fifth Street connection from that new exit from the Posey Tube. Next slide, please. Coming from WEBSTER You know, coming from downtown Oakland, it will be more direct. Save a couple of minutes there. For those of you who drive up the A380 freeway from the South Bay because of the removal of the Broadway off ramp and this is where I. Sort of miss characterize that video. The Broadway off ramp which is very long you get off the Broadway off ramp and it carries you on that elevated off ramp all the way to Broadway. And then you're forced through the Broadway intersection, which is really a very congested intersection. And by dropping that ramp and having you drop at Oak Street and come in through the Webster tube, there's a significant, you know, 4 to 6 minute savings. By 2045. It might be as much as 6 to 8 minutes savings because you don't have to circulate through the neighborhoods of Oakland to get to the website or to . Next slide, please. There's information about this project much more comprehensive than I just presented at the Web site shown here. There's also a public comment period that's going through November 30th on the draft, the air next slide. So we published a draft letter of support with suggestions for key considerations for the city of Alameda regarding the bridge regarding Oakland support. We the basic the draft letter that we presented the transportation can commission on October 28th recommended support for the project with with three conditions one or two conditions. One was that Oakland support the project. If Oakland didn't want to do it, then you know our support, then we wouldn't pursue it. But if Oakland felt it was important for Oakland, then we would we would stand by Oakland and support the project and that there. The second condition was that there be a commitment towards the next planning steps by the army, the county transportation commission to the bicycle pedestrian bridge. The Transportation Commission made a couple of changes to the letter. They requested that we add a comment about further transit enhancements to improve transit access through the tube system in the next phases of the design process. And we had even offered that we give up the Webster walkway because we didn't feel it was in our draft letter . We didn't feel that it was very important or would really benefit by pedestrians. And the Transportation Commission felt that, well, we don't give that up so quickly. That's that Webster walkway, although probably not well used in the future, is certainly a slight by adding it. It's a it's a net gain for bikes and pedestrians, at least some. So they made those two suggestions. Next slide. Since we drafted that letter, a number of things have happened. The City of Oakland administrator issued a letter in support of the Oakland Alameda Access Project. So we now know that Oakland is in support. So we think we should revise the letter. We don't think that needs to be a condition anymore. We've also received a letter yesterday from the Army to County Transportation Commission executive director talking about their support and a willingness to assist us with the next steps in the bicycle pedestrian bridge process. So we have transmitted those letters to the council tonight, earlier this afternoon, and we have revised the letter we've revised it to because we don't necessarily need this. The conditions about the Oakland of the Oakland support and we have revised the letter and to continue our support for the project with the understanding that the Army County Transportation Commission will continue to support our effort and Oakland is going to continue to support the effort to to build the bicycle pedestrian bridge. And we think ultimately with the Oakland Army Access Project, Oakland Alameda Access Project constructed and the bike bridge constructed, we will have achieved everything that we were trying to do to improve transportation connections, achieve significant mode, shift reduce traffic, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and just improve the quality of life both in Oakland and Alameda and in the region. So we have prepared that draft support letter for your consideration tonight and it was distributed to all of you earlier this evening. I think that's the last slide. So with that, I'm available myself and Rochelle are able to answer any questions. And I know the County Transportation Commission staff is here as well. Executive Director of van Gelder. Do you want to say anything at this point or do you want to? Oh, I'm sorry. I'll turn it over to you.
Speaker 3: I think you'll see me smiling, waving and laughing because we have some really cute little kids. I mean, it's nice that all your council members are cute, but the little boys on this on this meeting are adorable. So council, I think what I would suggest if you're amenable is that we hear some brief remarks from Miss Mojo , the executive director of A.C.T., who can also answer any clarifying questions you might have. And then we'll hear your clarifying questions. And actually, you can ask a few questions of any of the numerous staff members who are here this evening. And then we will go to our of our public speakers. So why don't we start with this CTC director test myself? Do you want to make some remarks? Nice to see you again.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, councilmembers. It's nice to see all of you. And thank you for having this item before you tonight. I just want to start off by saying that Alameda City has long supported transportation improvement efforts in the city of Alameda. I want to note that just since 2016, there have been about $35.6 million that the city that Alameda City has awarded to the city for funding the ferry, terminal trails and several complete streets projects, and specifically for this estuary crossing. And Alameda, CTSI has supported $100,000 feasibility study back in 2009, about 275,000 for the 2019 feasibility study. And just this Thursday, the commission is poised to include two acts. They haven't acted yet, but they're poised to include the Westin Project, which is the estuary crossing in our long range countywide transportation plan. So I want to thank you all for working so closely with us and the city of Oakland on this. Oakland, Alameda, accept this project. In the letter that I did submit yesterday and and have had some very good conversations with the mayor, I did indicate to Pathways that my commission, the Alameda CTC, could consider for future funding for the estuary crossing bridge. And those are articulated in the letter. And we certainly look forward to working with your staff on how we can help technically to support moving the project forward. So I just want to thank you for your support of allowing me to access project. And we have long supported the work of the city of Alameda, and I'm certainly happy to answer any questions that any of you have tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Just for clarification, what's coming before the commission this Thursday is to include the Western Crossing in the 2020 county wide transportation plan for the ten year comprehensive investment plan, because there was both the ten year and the 30 year. But we asked that. That's correct. This western crossing be moved from 30 year horizon to ten years. Thank you. And yes, I think your letter lays out the of the other routes that we've we've discussed our with Mr. Chavez and and and John Batters Emeryville Councilmember, who's the vice chair of the Alameda County Transportation Commission and a big supporter of our proposal, was also in on this conversation on council clarifying questions about either the staff reporter any of the correspondents before you kill somebody.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thanks for that presentation. Quick question, this ten year cap list, I mean, what does that get us? And then I have a follow up. Depending on the answer.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Odie, I'll go ahead. Unless city staff, you want to answer that, but I know you're.
Speaker 3: The perfect person to answer that.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. So Alameda City is one of our responsibilities is to develop the long range county wide transportation plan. That county wide transportation plan feeds into the regional transportation plan. And a project has to be in the regional transportation plan to receive state or federal funds. For our long range countywide transportation plan. We require that projects that come through our comprehensive investment plan for funding need to be listed in the countywide transportation plan. So it is really a pathway to allow projects to be able to move forward from a funding perspective.
Speaker 1: Okay. So I guess my follow up would be, I think you kind of answered it and thank you for that answer. I mean, there's no guarantee of funding by moving it from the 30 year plan to the ten year plan. Right. I think that was the kind of the intention of the original two letters was to get some commitment and funding but. I'm not hearing a commitment on funding.
Speaker 0: That's correct. This the county, right? Excuse me. The county transportation plan is not a programing document. It's basically a document that enables you to pursue funding. What these normal county long range countywide transportation plans basically compile projects that are of interest and importance to cities, the transit operators throughout Alameda County. What we've done that's different this year is we worked with our city and transit operators to identify what do you really think that you can accomplish in the next ten years in terms of your priorities? And so we we we established this ten year priority list based upon the priorities from our local jurisdictions as this list that we're really trying to accomplish within the next ten years. And that's based upon project readiness and the ability to be funded. And so we worked with all cities to identify. What they thought would be in the 30 or less, what they thought would be in the ten year list. And so your project going before the commission is on the ten year list. There would need to be just a final. Excuse me for interrupting, but a final note is that any funding for the project would have to come as a very specific action to the full commission. We as staff obviously are not able to commit any funding, but any funding actions would have to go through the full commission.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. One last thing and I haven't seen you since you saw your new job, so belated congrats on that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: I think as long as we're talking about funding this budget and it with reference to at least in my first draft letter, that should still in the second one. But this 2014 letter, that is an exhibit, it's one of the exhibits to this particular staff for. Do you want to just touch on that and how that may factor in?
Speaker 0: Yeah, just a little bit of history, which forgive me if you already know all of this, but when.
Speaker 3: The public the public is listening in. So you're you're helping with speed. This is great.
Speaker 0: So when the county what when be back in 2014, the Alameda County Transportation Commission developed a county wide transportation plan to go before voters to seek their approval of a half cent transportation sales tax augmentation and extension. And we were going to each of the cities throughout Alameda County to seek their support. There were discussions at that time with the city of Alameda at wanting to make sure that there was enough in that plan that could really support the needs of the city of Alameda. And because, as Andrew Thomas has talked about, this, what used to be called the Broadway Jackson Project had been going on for so long, the city wanted to make sure that they had some assurances that if the project did not move forward, that there could be funding that could support the multi-modal access that's needed to the city. And so the chair and the vice chair at that time wrote a letter saying that if the project becomes infeasible, then the commission could consider programing money to the city. And so in my letter to you yesterday to the mayor, I noted that there are two pathways for the city to pursue funding. One is to go through our application process for discretionary funding, which is called our CIPA Comprehensive Investment Plan, and we're doing a call for projects in December. The second pathway is to come to the Commission and ask for consideration of that 2014 letter and for any consideration of funding through that venue. So those are two pathways that are before the city to come forward to have the Alameda CTC consider funding for the asteroid project.
Speaker 3: Thank you for the clarification questions council. That's where they suck.
Speaker 1: Yes. This is for our staff on the presentation particularly, particularly on page eight, the PDF Page eight. There is a construction phasing, kind of a just in case there's a shortfall. How funding? What kind of priorities would occur? My question is within Phase A, which is referred to as core project, which amounts to $68.2 million. Is the horseshoe coming out of posi tube? And is the improvements that lead up to evening commuters coming into Webster Tube? Are all of those projects within the core project a $68.2 million?
Speaker 6: My understanding is the horseshoe and the the dropping of the Broadway off ramp are both in the core project, and I'm seeing some heads nodding in the affirmative. So I think I'm right about that.
Speaker 1: Okay, wonderful. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's my.
Speaker 4: Birthday. So I've got it. I've got, I guess, a technical question. And then I want to go back and ask a couple of questions about the funding. The technical question is because I don't think I heard it and I'm sorry if I missed it. Enter in your presentation at one point in time that the Horseshoe was going to result in a slowdown of actual speed limit in the tube. Is that still a part of this project?
Speaker 6: I it. Rodney, do you? I see, Rodney said, going up and down. I'm going to ask Rodney if he can help me answer that question. I believe the answer is. I believe the answer is yes. Rodney, am I right about that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, definitely a key consideration because of the the geometry of the horseshoe is that we needed to slow traffic down to 20 miles an hour by the time they reached the first curve. And so in order to do that, we'll be reducing the speed limit in the in the tubes to 35 miles an hour and then a thousand feet before the end of the tube will be reducing speeds down to 25 miles an hour, which is a normal city street speed limit. And then 20 miles an hour right at the at the first curve of the horseshoe, this was a big controversy. And then also a consensus point with Caltrans was to make sure that the horseshoe was safe. And so reducing the speed limit was a key component of that. So we'll be you know, we'll be looking at adding changeable message signs and other it's elements to help motorists know that they need to slow down by the time they negotiate the horseshoe. Also, what we'll be doing is is is narrowing the lanes inside the tubes to 11 feet to to employ traffic, calming measures to try to slow down vehicles as well. So through all these different measures, you know, we'll be trying to slow down cars and then making the the the drive to the horseshoe as safe as possible. Right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Very helpful. And I guess and I'm not sure who the quite I'll ask you the question, I guess, about funding and perhaps staff is the right one. But so we've been talking in our in our community members have been talking about the need for a real true multimodal access for for for many decades and for many, many years on this project. And, you know, I just learned about your you're the new letter about it 20 minutes ago. So before I came into the meeting, not realizing that there was a there was a new revised letter.
Speaker 3: And you'll recall that I texted you earlier today, but we weren't able to discuss this item.
Speaker 4: I understand you.
Speaker 3: Would I would have given you a heads up.
Speaker 4: That's unfortunate. So I guess my question is, given that so far, I'm a little concerned that I'm hearing that there are no actual commitments to fund the next steps of this project, that we're going to put it in the CIP so that it can be, you know, available for future funding and but no action. I guess. My my concern is no action has been taken on our past kind of requests to try to get here up until this point. And so I guess what from your standpoint with the new letter, what commitments are we getting besides consideration to put it into a sip that will then allow us to someday apply for funding? Is there a broader I mean, are you hearing from your members on the committee that they're going to turn around and say, yes, that the money for the PSR in the air is is an easy go?
Speaker 3: Well, I don't want to speak too much for my fellow commissioners, but I think it would be safe to say that I have some really good solid support, including from our to Oakland councilmembers. Every city in the county has a council, a representative from the council on the Alameda County Transportation Commission. But the city of Oakland, because it is so large, has to. And I certainly spent a fair amount of time talking with my colleagues from Oakland. But others, we have good support on the commission. And so when and again, you know, you never guarantee a vote. But when I asked at my policy committee meeting last week to move our Western policy project from the 30 year city where it had been assigned to the tenure and explained why this was so important not just to Alameda and Oakland, but also to the region, because it isn't stated in the letter. What our ultimate goal really has to be is to reduce the number of automobiles, especially single use automobiles on our roadways. And I am happy to say that my policy committee from across the county and different agencies and county supervisors voted unanimously that they thought that was the right decision. And and so what I also would say in a conversation this afternoon and this, Michel, if you wanted to just chime in about the next steps, because we are looking at action items both coming up in our well, let's see for our December. The commission doesn't meet in December as a full board, but in January of 2021, we're looking at a couple of action items. So if you want to.
Speaker 0: So thank you may I could just say at a staff little level excuse me to respond to Commissioner Erskine me councilman or not musselwhite's comment about vice mayor excuse me. Comment or question about a commitment of funding. That has to that is an item that has to go before the full commission. And that is not something that staff is able to provide that commitment, because ultimately we are not the ones that are assigned the full responsibility for programing and allocating the Measure B funds. So what we're looking at is if we get a letter from from the city regarding the interest to have the Commission take a look at the 2014 letter and consider that I commit that we can bring that to the first meetings in January. We have one commission meeting in December. It's on December 3rd, and they don't we don't have committee meetings for that meeting. So the first realistic time with this could come forward if we received that request from the city would be in January. And the first committee meetings that we have in January are on January 11th. So if that's the case, then we'd certainly want to set up times to meet with the city and talk with the city about approaches moving forward with this. And so the moment I get that letter, I'm ready to to set up some meetings. I'd like to set up some meetings with the mayor and and with with staff. I'm imagining Andrew Thomas would be there and perhaps whoever else from the city is appropriate, maybe Michel as well, to have a chance to sit with my staff and to come up with an approach for how we bring this to the commission in January for consideration. The other thing I wanted to note is the CIP, which is our competitive call for projects, will be released and opened in December, and that's another opportunity for the city to pursue discretionary funding for bicycle and pedestrian facilities through our comprehensive investment plan. So I laid out two pathways for the city to be able to pursue funds, and those are both available to the city. But ultimately it's the commission as an entire commission that would need to act on any sort of programing, funding and programing action.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Dillon and Vice Mayor, just to go back to your question, I don't recall that and someone can correct me if I'm wrong that we have actually brought forth a proposal other than the funding we've gotten thus far, and we have gotten funding for early in the early phases of this bridge design and study, but there hasn't been anything since then that we've asked for and been turned down by actually bringing it to the commission. This letter, the draft letter is is a letter and it serves different purposes. But to actually get the technical funding there, to actually get the funding commitments, we do need to go to the full commission and it would first come through our policy committee, says Ms.. Fischel noted. And then the other thing I'll say is we all agree that we do need to work really carefully or not carefully, but just deliberately on communication, because we realized in in finally having a chance to sit down with the executive director, with the Vice Chair of the commission and some of our staff, that that is what you see. Staff wasn't aware of the extent to which we have engaged with the Coast Guard and that and I guess I'm just privileged to work with such smart, knowledgeable, talented people. And Andrew Thomas, Michelle Wheeler, Rodney Pimentel has been awesome and he speaks that language. So he has been able to work. I think he's been doing this with the Coast Guard a year or more, maybe to make sure that the bridge design standards were compliant with the Coast Guard standards. And so but DC wasn't aware of the extent of that. And we are expecting a letter from the Coast Guard soon, tomorrow. So anyway, I that's a that's a really long winded answer to your question, but I think that there is, as Ms.. Michelle said, there is a path forward to getting funding. And I do feel that we have good support from the Commission. Did I get through the questions before I got to Councilmember. Councilmember Vela. I see.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And my my question is really, you know, is, are the policy committees or we just went through the process, but is there going to be or are we hopeful that there will be a recommendation of support? Do you do those committees from those committees? Is that what I'm reading into this?
Speaker 3: I would say yes. Did you want to.
Speaker 0: Hear a thank you, Mayor? Yes. The way that the committees work at Alameda City is that they are recommending committees are subcommittees of the full board. The board is made up of 22 elected officials in Alameda County and the committees hear items and then they make recommendations to the full commission. And so essentially for it to go to the full commission after going from the committees, it would be going with some sort of recommendation, correct? Yes. Just to spell it out for members of the Bloc.
Speaker 3: Yes, exactly. And and you can be sure that I'm lobbying my committee and and we all stay in touch. I mean, these are the representatives of our 14 cities, all of our county supervisors and then the representatives of our transit agencies.
Speaker 0: So, yes. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. Any further clarifying questions, Kels, over this?
Speaker 1: This is a quick. Question for staff need to check. So when the traffic comes out of the posi tube, can we still go up to the Chinese garden park and then make a left there on that seventh street? I forgot. Or a street. And can we make it? Can we make a left like we do now? Granted, it won't be. It'll be at a at a. Angle. It won't be that nice. Smooth left. Can we still make a left? Left and then? And then onto Jackson. Figure out a way to then get on to the. In other words, not take the do not take the horseshoe. If that's still an option, even if we have to do a hard left. Hard left.
Speaker 6: It's all right.
Speaker 1: Hard right? Yeah, exactly. Sorry about that. Hard right. Hard right.
Speaker 6: Yeah. That will still be an option. It just won't be as big as you said because of the changes to improve bicycle pedestrian access. It won't be as as as as fast as it might have been in the past.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay. Any. I can't. Everybody.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm just. I mean, without commenting on the substance, because that'll be for later. But I'm just curious on the process because, you know, we had a letter that I first read about in the newspaper, and then it went to the Transportation Commission where there was a public hearing and they made modifications to it. And then it was agenda is on this agenda with a chance for the council to review and then an hour and a half before the meeting without any council input and apparently some discussions that none of us were party to or didn't even know were going on happened. And then now we have another revised letter that the public hasn't received. So, I mean, maybe I'm missing something in the process, but it seems to me that, again, that I don't want to talk about, you know, what the letter has in it, but it just seems to be like a nontransparent process. So can we can someone kind of.
Speaker 3: Walk me.
Speaker 1: Through, you know, what conversations were had and what promises were made? You know, how we got to a point where the verbiage was changed and I mean, it just I'm a little bit baffled.
Speaker 3: Sure. I will be happy to take that, because Andrew Thomas asked me, do you want to just go forward with the letter that's out there and have everybody kind of wordsmith it tonight? And I said, what I would rather do is get the letter into the council packet. And it did go in. But you have to know and refresh your your packet and all that that because I wanted the public to see it, to be able to follow along in real time, I wanted the council to be able to see it and the the changes that came about. And it wasn't a matter of trying to not be transparent because that's not my style. But we got an urgent request yesterday morning that, you know, there's some some serious concerns about a couple of things in this letter. And one of them was that we seem to be asking the commission to to guarantee funding, which is, as Ms.. Michelle explained, is not the way that process works. And we were also suggesting that now maybe County Transportation Commission be the lead the lead agency on this on the estuary crossing project for a number of reasons, because there's also federal approvals that have to take place. That was not necessarily something that could be done, but it just it wasn't the best place to state that. And we already had gotten and Mr. Thomas was able to get the support from the city of Oakland by way of this letter from the city administrator. So we didn't need to have that in there as a condition. I mean, we could have just probably done all the wordsmithing now and in a sense we will be. But I wanted to get the letters out into the packet for the Council and the rest of the public, and I'm sorry that some of you didn't see it sooner, but that's that's what it is. And that was why I earlier alluded to that, that we have discovered that we need to do more and better communication, because it would definitely have been preferable. When my draft letter first came out and got picked up by blogs and on the, you know, on the front page of one of our local newspapers, and it caused a lot of consternation. And I wasn't sure that everybody had actually read the whole thing, but there were some technical points, the ones that I pointed out, that did need to be corrected for it to be a more accurate letter.
Speaker 1: I guess my concern was, I mean, I got the email from Laura with the attachments, so I was able to read it before and without getting into the merits of the changes, I mean, whether they're valid concerns raised yesterday or not, I mean, I think those are concerns that should have come to the Council for a policy decision and not just unilaterally had a change in the letter, because many people in the community have raised a lot of. Concerns and correspondence to us. And I mean, personally, I think it should be our our position and our role to evaluate those concerns that I'm sure the seven people or more are going to raise and, you know, come to a decision together. You know, again, I'll have my comments on the substance later. But, you know, I, I just the process on this. I'm not I'm just not sure it is follows that this letter in the spirit of our sunshine ordinance.
Speaker 3: Well we certainly could have then I guess agenda is this for a continued it to another time and taken a little more time. I'm kind of playing Beat the Clock because I really would like to get this back to the County Transportation Commission in time for the December Policy Committee meetings. In the January full commission meeting that we are going to have we are going to have a discussion after we've heard our public comment. And I appreciate hearing.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just, you know, there's five of us here and we all should have it have a say in that. That's my only point. And I think we're perfectly capable of doing that in meeting the November 30th deadline with this agenda item.
Speaker 3: Right. Thank you. Any further comments? Okay. Let's go to public comment then. And so how many public speakers do we have now?
Speaker 5: We now have 12.
Speaker 3: Okay. So and each speaker will then get 2 minutes and.
Speaker 5: And we're now up to 15. Okay. So more people are seven. First one is Michael Mooney.
Speaker 3: And I'm just going to say really quickly that the speakers, you know, you certainly can have your 2 minutes, but you should not feel the need to repeat exactly what the previous speaker said. But with that, we are happy to hear our first comment. So, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 2: Well, Mayor.
Speaker 1: Vice Mayor and city council members, I will make this quick. I am a past president of OCA East Bay, so we work a lot with Oakland, Chinatown, and I'm also a 40 year Alameda resident, so I've been here for a while, grew up here in Alameda. I'm talking to you guys about this as an Alameda resident. This is something. Okay. And I think this is a great project on my in support of the project. I think it's definitely after hearing everything that's been going on, you know, being in Alameda and being in Alameda for so long, it is something that is definitely overdue . You know, we're not living like we were 40 years ago where you could actually have where the tunnel is and kind of be able to go through it and be on the freeway and be in San Francisco in like 15 minutes. We can't do that anymore. So any time saved, any time going around makes it a lot easier. Plus, also working in Chinatown and doing to Oakland, Chinatown, Pick It Up program. We see a lot of the trash and a lot of the pollution and all the other stuff that goes along on the walls. And so we feel, you know, I think that that would definitely help out in Oakland, Chinatown site. So excuse me, I'm sick. So but I just wanted to let you know that I'm in support of this. And also if we we do start doing the the the bridge, I think we should also think about motorized skateboards or one wheel ease or, you know, put. Personal vehicles are personal motorized devices that are electronic or electric to be able to go through the bridge area. Sorry about that. I'm still sick. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Man.
Speaker 3: I hope you feel better soon. All right. Next speaker.
Speaker 5: Sabrina Chen.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. Chen.
Speaker 0: I have to unmute which I needed. People don't appreciate, but. But here I am. Good evening. My name is Sabrina Chen. I've lived here for 23 years, and prior to that, I spent over two decades helping build the social service infrastructure in Oakland, Chinatown. So the reason why we have Asian health services, the Culture Center and all these other things, I, I was I'm very proud to say I had a little hand in it or a fist or something. But to to see Chinatown in the past 11 years has been devastating for me. With all of the protests that overflowed into Chinatown, businesses had to close early on weekends and evenings. And, you know, with the with the pandemic and all of the anti-Asian sentiment, it's really suffered a great deal and it's suffered it's been suffering ever since it was established. So the freeway itself destroyed 2000 units of housing, and almost all of the residential in the original Oakland, Chinatown have been destroyed. So when I saw this project, I was really excited to see that traffic would no longer cut right through Chinatown, where we live, our lovely Alameda with the beautiful streets and the trees one mile through the tube. And then you see this, this trash in Chinatown. So I really wanted to see this project go forward. And I'm I'm actually glad the letter was changed. And I will harness all forces to support the bridge, the pedestrian bridge, because it will help all of us. Thank you.
Speaker 5: You're. You're muted, mayor now.
Speaker 3: I'm still learning. Thank you, Miss Chen. And I hope Miss Chen read in a very moving letter to, I think it was the whole council. I hope everyone got that.
Speaker 5: Yes, I think they did.
Speaker 3: Good. Okay. Next speaker.
Speaker 5: Doris G.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. G. And we should go ahead and mute. There you go.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. Good evening. Here is the Ashcraft vice mayor Knox White City Council staff and a city commission. My name is Doris G. And I live in the city of Alameda. I'm an active community member in the city of Alameda and in Oakland, Chinatown. I've been a commuter from the Alameda Tube to my job on Oakland's Pill Hill for more than 35 years. I'm glad the problem is being addressed now with forethought because the traffic can only get worse. I watched the Oakland Alameda Access Project video, which was shown tonight no less than ten times because this is a very complicated plan with lots of moving parts and I appreciate all the changes that will happen. One of the treasures in Oakland.
Speaker 5: Chinatown, is the.
Speaker 0: Chinese Garden Park that is underutilized due to traffic. Our family had to cross Seventh and Harrison to visit the Chinese Garden Park. Even with the light, there was a lot of traffic and we were not sure that cars would stop. I cannot imagine anyone who was a senior with disabilities having to negotiate that crossing.
Speaker 5: With more traffic surrounding the garden park.
Speaker 0: It makes it very difficult. The park is isolated from the rest of Chinatown due to so much traffic separating it from the community. Removing the Broadway offramp from the 880 North will hopefully create more tourist opportunities and.
Speaker 5: A symbiotic relationship between.
Speaker 0: Jack London and Chinatown businesses. My favorite change is thinking.
Speaker 5: Outside the box by creating Alameda only exit out of the Alameda Tube to ease traffic.
Speaker 0: Getting onto the freeway exchanges. Although the not perfect conditions for biking through the Alameda Tube, I think it's time for us to move forward with this project. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Mr. Next Speaker.
Speaker 5: Susie Hofstetter.
Speaker 3: The evening. We have dinner that evening.
Speaker 0: Mayor and Council. My name is Susie Hofstetter. I'm advocacy manager with East Bay. Firstly, I want to thank staff, counsel and all the consultant teams and staff, all me, the city for your hard work on this project over many years. I'd like to say that it does support the project specifically for its safety benefits to Oakland, Chinatown, and we stand in solidarity with the Oakland Chinatown community and their needs for justice and in this traffic safety condition. However, we still have serious concerns about the failure of this project to provide true multimodal access across the estuary. And we've heard a lot of discussion about this this evening. And when we talk about the future of the bicycle pedestrian bridge. The question for both staff of the city and for the CDC and elected officials is what if the bike ped bridge does not secure any additional funding through the city or from the commission? In January and the Oakland Limited Access Project continues to move forward with no meaningful multimodal access across the estuary. If this occurs, what is the implication here for the city's commitment to multimodal projects as promised to voters? So we fully understand that our city staff can't commit funding for a separate project without support from the Commission. So what we do need to see is support and commitment from leadership, staff, leadership to partner with the city to present this project in a way to the commission that will earn that success and that will show true partnership. And if it's if it's totally neutral and it's just the city asking for this support from the full commission will be very difficult position for us. So that's what we're hoping for, to see true commitment and a presentation that presents the purpose and the need, the way that you would for a project of regional significance for any other mode. So that's what I'd like to ask for now.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Next Speaker.
Speaker 5: Denise Champion, you.
Speaker 3: Evening, Mr. Penny.
Speaker 0: Hi. Thank you. I appreciate the time and your attention. Mayor, vice mayor and council members and staff. I guess I want to start off by, first of all, thanking staff for their work on this. I was. I'll admit I was a little taken aback by the change in the letter today. We had worked very hard with staff on the original draft, so I apologize if I'm sounding a little flustered tonight. But my main the main point I want to make is that the the critical point of staff's original letter was that it conditioned our support on unidentified committing funded sources for the next two phases of the bridge . I'm just really concerned that we're settling essentially for supporting this project in exchange for a promise that this is going to be added to the ten year plan. But with really, as soon as you just said no committed, identified funding, I'm also a little surprised to hear that people think that this is a new ask. We have been saying since day one that opening up the Webster tube path will not make this project multimodal. And so we were excited that staff was. Basically kind of holding the line on this project, being multimodal and requesting funding to study a true multimodal solution. So, I mean, I'm just concerned this is our one chance to really hold a city six feet to the fire in terms of delivering a multimodal solution, which is what the voters wanted. So I think we have a responsibility to deliver what the voters said they wanted and not not give away that funding for another car project without any commitment to any type of multimodal solution for for all meetings. So anyway, thank you for your time and thanks for the work everyone's done on this. I know things have been really fast and I appreciate everyone's attention.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Premier. And next Speaker Cierto Tolani. Good evening. And you just need to unmute.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Good evening. Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. And. And Council members. My name is Sue Gilani. I'm representing Oakland, Chinatown Chamber. I'm a board member and also past president. Interestingly, I also resident, Alameda resident, 20 years living in Alameda. So I live alameda and work for Oakland, Chinatown. I also work in Oakland. Chinatown is my community and for many, many years, Chinatown has been taking the brunt of the Alameda traffic. And and I think the speaker earlier talk about a Chinese garden it wasn't belonged in a community but unfortunately cannot be used by our residents because of the unsafe condition and the the senior resident and the kids. So this project came along and I was involved.
Speaker 2: Earlier in the as early as 20 call Broadway Jackson and.
Speaker 1: I was heavily involved in that and we were supporting the project and we still support this project. So we hope the city of Alameda will approve this project because it's good not only for Oakland, Chinatown, but also it's good for City of Alameda in particular. With all the development that we have in the Alameda points with many cars, that is going to be coming. So my goal is that I'm hoping.
Speaker 2: This.
Speaker 1: Project will alleviate some of the traffic issues that our community is facing and it makes some improvement. And and it's really a benefit to our community. And we asked the mayor and council to approve this project.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Lundy. Our next speaker.
Speaker 5: Indeed, Johnson.
Speaker 3: It is Johnson. It needed me again.
Speaker 0: Evening. Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft. Council members and staff. I'm a longtime resident of Alameda, a board member of Bike Walk Alameda, and someone who travels this project area frequently to my job in Oakland. I support the city's recommendation on outcomes described in its original letter or a version of the letter posted just tonight. If it can be refined further to ensure funding promised will be funding delivered. Life is a good project, but we really.
Speaker 3: Need to the project to fulfill.
Speaker 0: Its multimodal promise to users, bikers and walkers who have been woefully.
Speaker 5: Underserved for years in this.
Speaker 0: Area.
Speaker 5: The walkway, isn't it? It advancing a transformational.
Speaker 0: Project like the bike and pedestrian bridge is the city's.
Speaker 3: Revised.
Speaker 0: Letter seems like the right direction in identifying this issue and steering the bridge into the countywide plan in its ten year priority project priority list. And we celebrate that. That progress now seems dependent on votes and applications that may be denied. Having to go through the CIP process to compete with other projects for funding feels like a step backwards from where we are now going. To the full commission with the 2014 letter, with letters of recommendation.
Speaker 3: As.
Speaker 0: Proposed, seems somewhat more promising, but still iffy. Bottom line, we'd like to see the cities led refined further.
Speaker 5: So funding is committed with greater certainty. Transportation funding is extremely competitive, and we already voted for this.
Speaker 0: The money that's needed for the next set of studies is sitting in the Webster Tube walkway, which is a truly modern enhancement anyway. Alamy this partnership on Iraq deserves at least this kind of commitment from AC DC.
Speaker 5: Thank you for your negative.
Speaker 0: The city leadership and staff for their hard work on this. It's a really important project and it can be transformational for both of our both sides of the story and for the larger region. Really appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Ms.. Chancellor and Speaker.
Speaker 5: Zack BOLLING.
Speaker 3: In the Mr. BOLLING.
Speaker 2: Evening.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I wanted to throw my support behind the original draft of the letter. I think I agree with the comments from the earlier speakers that we should probably consider conditioning our support on having commitment to a pedestrian bridge. I think there was two online petitions and one of them I think was like over 550 people. The other one had an almost 1500 people from our community that were behind having a pedestrian bridge. I think this project is really vital and we should move forward as soon as possible. But we really do need a better solution for pedestrian and bike access to the across the estuary than that small sidewalk. Is anyone that's ever taken that sidewalk through the tube as it is today is a terrible experience and not something we can consider a viable option. And I will leave it at that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. BOLLING. Our next speaker.
Speaker 5: Will see Geely.
Speaker 3: If you've never seen me.
Speaker 0: Hi. Hi. As you know, I'm founder of Bike Walk Alameda, and I've been involved with this project since the beginning from the Alameda.
Speaker 3: County.
Speaker 0: Transportation Commission Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee to the most recent app subcommittee. I've organized bike headcounts of the posi tube and spoken to many reluctant users of the posi path. And I urge you to a ject to the.
Speaker 3: Webster Bike Path.
Speaker 0: Inclusion. The city has rejected this solution since the 2009 estuary crossing study, and I respectfully take exception to Andrew's comments that it's a net gain. There is no data to indicate that adding a new path, a path that's exactly like the current posi tube would gain any.
Speaker 3: New.
Speaker 0: Users, not even one new user. The path would be a waste of millions of taxpayer dollars and.
Speaker 3: Frankly create an.
Speaker 0: Embarrassment. I urge you to reject the Webster too path and find a way. Please find a way to include a meaningful, multi-modal solution. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Jerry. Our next speaker.
Speaker 5: At Tommaso Bhujia.
Speaker 3: An evening.
Speaker 1: That evening. Mayor Council members, regional agency staff my name is Musubi and I'm a resident in Jack London where our air quality in London and West Oakland is some of the worst in the region because of the heavy traffic on a. We're in the midst of a climate crisis that demanded bold infrastructure changes two decades ago. We've known about this for two decades at least, that we could have done something about the fact that we're still talking about how to make it easier for people to drive cars. One of the largest contributors to the climate crisis, that is unconscionable. The project is not yet fully funded, and any fundraising with the aim of making it easier to drive is akin to climate denial. It is denying warnings from scientists that cars are one of the region's most significant contributors to the climate crisis.
Speaker 2: If you're thinking about electric cars, let me encourage you to listen to. Scientists were warning that a 1.
Speaker 1: To 1 replacement of internal combustion to electric cars would not allow us to meet our our mitigation.
Speaker 2: Goals, our climate mitigation goals.
Speaker 1: And the still significant impacts of local air quality of electric cars. I'm not in my way saying they're the same, but they still contribute to bad local air quality. If this.
Speaker 2: Project will.
Speaker 1: Increase car trips, it is a contributor to the climate crisis. I urge the Council and regional agencies to reprioritize infrastructure projects.
Speaker 2: To give people.
Speaker 1: Realistic options so they don't.
Speaker 2: Have to drive everywhere as they do now. We reduce traffic in Chinatown and make it safer.
Speaker 1: For pedestrians and bikers in Oakland by reducing almeida's need to drive everywhere. We are the victims of your commuting choices and of your infrastructure choice. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Vijay. Our next speaker.
Speaker 5: Jim Strelow.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. Stringer.
Speaker 2: That evening, Mayor, Council, AC, DC Staff and Ali. I am a native Alameddine voter, a bicyclist. I have ridden my bicycle in the Posey Tube walkway four times a month pre-COVID, and now once a month. The new Webster Street Tube bicycle pedestrian lane is needed and will be used. Alameda should request Caltrans maintenance monthly cleaning of the walls and for the project to improve upgrade the air circulation technology of both tubes. As a bicyclist, I fully support the current multi-modal OCA project. I have commented on this project for years. Good work AC DC. You would have much more favorable citizen opinions if you promoted another vehicle bridge access on and off the island. Spending so much money only for a bike ped bridge is the flaw in your suit. There are probably only one hundreds of citizens in favor and probably tens of thousands of maidens against a bike ped only bridge. AC DC do not be snowed by the council's eagerness for that project. Alameda should be promoting multi-modal solutions and not a one sided bike pad myopic view of the world and that spending of taxpayer money . I fail to see how thousands would daily use some future bike ped bridge. It is excessive hyperbola. This council is promoting an expensive non multi-modal bike ped bridge project. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Strelow. Our next speaker.
Speaker 5: Michael Sullivan.
Speaker 3: Evening, Mr. Sullivan.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor. Council and staff.
Speaker 1: My name is Michael Sullivan, and I'm one of the few people who pre-COVID biked through the tube on a nearly daily basis, going from Alameda to Amtrak and Jacqueline Square. I only tolerate biking because I value the freedom of being able to control my own schedule. And I don't want to be tied to the bus timing and I prefer not having to bike all the way to Park Street Bridge and back to Jacqueline.
Speaker 2: Is where I ride rain or shine and want.
Speaker 1: To take the quickest path. Quickest path, especially in the winter. A second path won't improve the overall experience at all. It's just a second bad option. The extra foot width of width in the.
Speaker 2: Second path won't improve the experience.
Speaker 1: And with the pass being one way, you'll still have to use the existing narrow path on one of the trips, so it'll always be a bad experience. Also, another.
Speaker 2: Issue with the one way path, which I haven't heard articulated.
Speaker 1: Yet. When you have fast traveling bicyclists and slow traveling walkers going through the tube at the same time, the bicyclists will overtake the walkers if you're traveling in opposite directions, which happens half the time on a two way path. Bicyclists approach the walkers from the front, and it's easy to see the walker get the walkers attention and to negotiate passing when going the same direction, which would be 100% of the time on a one way path. The bicyclists are approaching the walkers from the back.
Speaker 2: People often wear headphones due to the noise and.
Speaker 1: It can be very difficult to get the walkers attention. Many times I've scared walkers.
Speaker 2: Trying to make them aware that I'm behind them.
Speaker 1: In the video we saw earlier, you'll see multiple bicyclists and walkers together on the path. So next time you watch it, focus on the walkers and bikers. It really illustrates how the bicyclists are going to have to have multiple conflicts as they approach each walker from behind.
Speaker 2: And I expect that the walkers will start.
Speaker 1: Continually looking over their shoulders, worried that some devices will come behind them, so it'll make a bad experience for them also. The goal of these improvements is to increase the number of people biking and walking through the tubes. And although it's unlikely if it did happen, this will just increase these conflicts. I feel that it'd be unfortunate to spend any valuable bike and pedestrian funds on the second path in a tube. This is definitely not a multimodal little project like it's supposed to be. I strongly support increase in investing funds.
Speaker 2: On a real solution.
Speaker 3: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Sullivan. Our next speaker.
Speaker 5: Doug Letterman.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. Letterman.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. Council member. Staff. I mean, I'll meet a resident driver and also I ride a bike. I believe this project is designed almost exclusively for drivers of private automobiles, which is fine, but let's not pretend that it does anything for multimodal access or long term sustainability. The bike and pedestrian components of the plan are laughable and provided purely as a stop. On the Oakland side, it simply trades one dangerous traffic sewer for another. While it will reduce some pedestrian conflicts for freeway bound Alameda drivers. It will widen the street off ramp in order to funnel more open bound drivers onto Chinatown streets. The project will do nothing to further the city's goals at reducing automobile trips, greenhouse gas emissions and traffic, the more likely exacerbate them. So I believe Alameda has a tremendous opportunity to be a world leader in ending car dependance by encouraging more bicycle transit and pedestrian trips. The estuary bike pedestrian bridge is essential to this goal, and like several other speakers, I would urge Council to get its support for this bloated highway project on a firm commitment to fund the estuary, bike and pedestrian bridge. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Letterman. Next speaker.
Speaker 5: Dave Campbell.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. Campbell.
Speaker 2: Dave Campbell, Advocacy Director with Vikings. Faye, I just want to add and I apologize missed the presentation was on another call. To the comments that have been made and particularly the comments of Susie Hofstetter from Viki say is that I just want to see Alameda, CTSI commit to funding this bridge, this bike, that bridge. And I haven't really had a chance to talk with Alameda City staff on the particulars of this one. But, you know, we have not heard clarity on can money from the OJP this project go to fund the studies, the air, the bike Ted Bridge I have heard yes I for no I don't think I have clarity and I've talked to so many people about this. I know Alameda City staff is on this call. Let's get clarity tonight. Can it happen? And if so, then your letters should say we support the project with the understanding that this bike Ted Bridge will be funded from the project. And if not, or maybe you put it the other way, you will. Alameda will apply for the CIP funding to fund the air to the bike bridge. We support this project with the understanding will apply for that money and if we get it great and if we don't, it is our understanding that the OJP project will fund this bike pit bridge. So that's all we want. I know Alameda County has the money. We fought hard with volunteers to get Measure B passed. I've seen Alameda and CTSI work out solutions for good projects and find the money. And I think what would bring all the parties together tonight? It would be to hear from alameda staff tonight. We are going to build you a bike. Ted bridge, if it's the last thing we do. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Our next speaker.
Speaker 5: That was our last speaker.
Speaker 3: Okay. Okay. With that, I'm going to close public comment and I want to ask for some staff clarifications and a couple of things in broad strokes to Andrew Thomas. Can I ask you to address some of what we've heard from our speakers about urging the City Council to condition their support for the Oakland Alameda Access Project on getting funding for our estuary crossing? Could you take that?
Speaker 6: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: Madam Mayor.
Speaker 6: The we we prepared a first draft letter that many people referred to which conditioned our support on getting funding. And let's just make sure everybody understands. We never conditioned it on funding to build the bridge. We believe that building the bridge is a $200 million effort. We just were conditioning it on the next studies at about 5 million. So the bridge is a big effort. It's a huge project. It is a project that is going to require a huge lift from the entire region over many years.
Speaker 2: So this is a.
Speaker 6: Long road that we're that we are going to need to go down to get this bridge built and we're going to need regional support. Our first letter served a excellent purpose from our perspective, staff's perspective. It brought regional attention to this project. For the first time in many years, we were hearing from representatives from Oakland, from Emeryville, from Albany. People who represent their cities at the ACT board expressing their.
Speaker 2: Support for what we.
Speaker 6: Were trying to do. That is a major step forward because we're going to need their support for many years.
Speaker 0: We.
Speaker 6: From our perspective, we see two good projects here. We see the Oakland Alameda Access Project, and we see that as a good project for the reasons we talked about in the presentation. It is taking care of long standing problems in the Oakland and Chinatown area that were caused by the current design. We think that we've come up with a great solution to solve those problems and make life safer and better in the Oakland, Chinatown area. Does it solve the bicycle pedestrian access issues crossing the estuary? No, not by a long shot. And we are letter continues to make that statement loud and clear.
Speaker 2: A quick.
Speaker 6: Side note. Our first letter said, you know, and we don't care about that bike walkway at all. Like, if you want to take that money, that 7 million to put in that walkway and use that to fund the next step in the planning process, which we believe is around 5 to $6 million. We're okay with that. Just take that and fund the next step with that. That would be a simple solution to fixing this problem and getting us to the next step. It was the Alameda Transportation Commission who said, don't give that away so quick. STAFF We think it is a net gain. But just for the councils, from the council's perspective, that that's really something that as a policy call for you to make. So we have two projects, two good projects, one that solves problems in the Oakland Chinatown area that we think is super important. And then we have a second great project that we also need there in different stages of their development.
Speaker 2: Neither of.
Speaker 6: Them, though, are at the finish.
Speaker 2: Line.
Speaker 6: The Oakland Alameda Access Project is still short $33 million. The bike, pedestrian bridge.
Speaker 2: Short 200.
Speaker 6: Plus million dollars. The region is going to have to work together to get both of them built. And at this point in this process, holding the first one back. Until and unless we get the. 5 million to do the next step for the second project just didn't seem like the right regional strategy for Alameda to take was there. That's why the tone and the change in the letter which says we support the Oakland Alameda Access Project, we think it's a good project and we're doing it with the understanding because we believe it's good for the region. And we're doing it with the understanding the region supports us and is going to continue to support the city of Alameda on this second regional project. And that Alameda County, the Alameda County Transportation Commission, will continue to support both projects. That is our support and it's it's an and that and we and that is our statement of support for the Open Access project. And it's it's based on this understanding that the region also.
Speaker 2: Supports the bike bridge.
Speaker 6: So that's sort of how we see it and we don't see it in in our best interest. And if you're interested in continuing regional support. We're going to need to raise over $200 million over the upcoming years, you know, sort of obstructing or trying to slow down.
Speaker 2: Or or.
Speaker 6: Hold the one project back until this project, you know, tying them together seemed like we may be taking the wrong the wrong strategy there.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. And then I also wanted some clarification, and I think this would be from you, Mr. Joe. We heard Mr. Campbell of the Bicycle Coalition talking about why can't we use AP money to fund? And by the way, I'm just going to stop here for a minute. I see my time clock is running out. I am trying to see that questions are answered that were raised by our speakers. And I, I don't think I mean, will we get to council discussion? I will happily start counting my time. But if I'm going to give up all my time running this meeting, we're going to be taking a lot of roll call votes.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: So are you asking for 9 minutes?
Speaker 3: Well, I'm asking why when I'm trying to get clarification questions answered. Sorry, I'm a little irritated a bit, but really? City attorney, city clerk. Help me out.
Speaker 0: Here.
Speaker 5: Well, after the last meeting, the city attorney and I discussed it. You know, he can weigh in, too, but basically, you know, the rules don't provide for a distinction, you know, as part of the staff presentation. And it came up under the council referral. And the thing was the council member presenting the referral is able to give a presentation and we decided to respond to questions as part of just a referral. But this is a staff brought item and there's no exception for this, we felt.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, I guess I could just turn to staff and say you were listening to all the questions that were asked. Would you please answer them? But this. Okay. Okay. I would like to ask that I be given a reset on my clock because I haven't even begun to discuss this with the council. But we need to do that by motion.
Speaker 1: That's why I move that.
Speaker 3: We have a motion by Councilmember de SAC.
Speaker 0: I'll second.
Speaker 3: Thank you. We have a statement by the vice mayor. May we have a roll call? Vote, please. Madam Clerk.
Speaker 5: Councilmember de Knox White. Hi, Odie. I avella high mayor as Ashcraft.
Speaker 3: I think that council. I appreciate that. Okay. I'm going to be very brief then. Next question. Answered Please by this one shell can Oakland Alameda Access Project Funding be used for the Estuary Crossing Bridge.
Speaker 0: So one of the options that I provided in my letter to you, Mayor, yesterday, and I'm not sure if that made it to the rest of the council, but there are two pathways. There's the CHP and then there is this model.
Speaker 3: Could you start with the threshold question? Yes, that money that's allocated for the Open Alameda Access Project. Can that be allocated to the estuary crossing bridge?
Speaker 0: That is something that has to be determined at the Alameda CTC for commission. That's not something that is staff.
Speaker 3: Like it possibly can be.
Speaker 0: So it possibly could be, yes.
Speaker 3: Continue.
Speaker 0: And in my letter that I mentioned, I was mentioning the two options that the city could move forward with. And in my second option, it was to bring forth the 2014 letter for consideration at Alameda CTC for funding for the they could consider funding for the estuary bridge. What I committed in that letter also was that if I received a letter from the city of Alameda in early December, that I could commit to bringing that in January to my commission.
Speaker 3: Yes. And you did see that earlier. And so to be clear, the many we are talking about, as referenced in that letter is 75 million, is that correct?
Speaker 0: The money that is in the expenditure plan and referenced in the letter is 75 million. The letter also noted that if the project became infeasible, then the commission would consider reallocation. So I think that that's going to be part of the discussion that is going to need to be addressed at the commission. But I think that there is a strong commitment to multi-modal access and improvements. And I think that the Commission I would expect the Commission to be very open to that for considering multimodal access.
Speaker 3: Is there any geographical limitation that comes into play?
Speaker 0: The environmental documents for the Oakland Alameda Access Project does not have the estuary crossing as part of its very specific project study area. The expenditure plan in and of itself, the 2014 expenditure plan did not have a very specific delineation. It was the formerly known the Broadway Jackson Project. But so that's the distinction that the transportation expenditure plan does not have a map specifically drawn for this project, whereas the environmental document for the Oakland Alameda Access Project does have a very specific delineation of the project for sequence study purposes.
Speaker 3: But with that intact funding. Andrew Thomas is shaking his head now. Do you want to chime in, Mr. Thomas?
Speaker 6: I mean, what the air delineates as the project area doesn't. I mean, the the air can't cover the bridge. That's clear.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 3: Okay. Um, I'm.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 3: Okay. Let's open it up to council discussion. Who wants to start?
Speaker 4: Pressman okay. At first I was going to ask if Tony was okay.
Speaker 2: I'm fine. My carriages went down and you didn't move.
Speaker 3: Your chair fell or, you.
Speaker 2: Know, my camera fell away. All right.
Speaker 4: But, sir, thank you. I'm going to I'm going to try to talk really quickly and I'm going to. Sorry. I'm sorry that I mean, of course, some folks is probably a little bit of history about this project that, you know, the history of this project is really the history of Alameda and Alameda staff in Alameda as commission members and counsel, really pushing this project forward and getting it to the place where we finally have Chinatown by and and coming to us and asking us to please support this. The horseshoe that was discussed was something that was raised by the Transportation Commission. Remember Robert McFarlane McFarland when this project first came before the Alligator Transportation Commission and he read it and he said, Why don't you look at our horseshoe? That's what we do. When we built freeways down in Texas for a number of years, the Transportation Commission in the City Council actually pushed our public works department to keep that option alive, as the project managers for this project continued to try to push it off because it was too difficult in getting Caltrans to say it would work. What's not possible? One of the voices who kept saying No, you can do this is now the project manager, Rodney Pimentel. So again, I just want to give some props, props there because really at the end of the day it is the horseshoe that makes this project even possibly worth consideration for me. I think this is a this is a difficult decision we have tonight only in that I do not believe we are delivering the project that the voters were presented with when we went to the voters. This is not across estuary Alameda Point Serving Multimodal Project. However, I do also agree with all of our our speakers from Alameda but who also have strong connections into Chinatown that the situation that's happening in Chinatown is just absolutely unacceptable. And we are it is our traffic that is impacting their community and we need to do something. So quite honestly, I came to this meeting with fully expecting to support the original letter because I believe that the original letter actually outlines a pathway for meeting not just the letter of doing a project, but also the spirit of what was presented to people from from the get go. I ask the question a little bit. I'm I guess if I have disappointment, it's that here we are at a meeting where we're being asked to now start a process for asking for funding for hours and hours when we have known for years that this was going to be needed and that the city had a strong connection between estuary crossing and the AP. And I'm not I'm quite honestly had a little bit of a loss for why we haven't been working. Why why this? Why, why? This recommendation didn't happen a year ago, and we didn't actually have hadn't already made some of these questions so that we can actually come in here and say, hey, we've already got the requirement to me. Well, you know, I also believe that we have good faith partners who are here advising us in good faith. And, you know, I want to I want to suggest or ask I guess it would be the question. I think one of our first speakers, Steve Hofstetter, made a suggestion. You know, I appreciate Ms.. Langella's commitment to accepting and moving forward. Anything but my my ask would be that actually I would want to see staff to actually make a recommendation, along with the city council, with the city of Alameda for this funding. I again, I understand that the staff cannot make a commitment to fund it, that that is on the on the commission, and that's a vote that happens. But I think it's I think it is a show of good faith that we understand that this is a priority and this is something that we have been talking about for many, many, many years. I mean, I can tell you about meetings I had at Asian Health Services back before 2010, talking about the need to link multimodal connections to reduce traffic through Chinatown. Back when we were trying to convince them that this project was even worth worth moving forward with. So for me, I'd like to see I'd like to add with that commitment, I could actually, you know, I would be happy to sign on to the new and improved letter, but I would like to have that commitment. And if not, then I think we need to have a little bit of a conversation about how what what are we going to do if the commission says, well, we don't really want to kind of honor those parts of the those commitments that we made to voters back in 2008. So I'll stop right there. I look forward to your. Thanks.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Vella.
Speaker 0: But you know, I don't want to waste time repeating what the vice mayor as points were. But I think that to me, there's there's a few things here. I've heard from a lot of different community members with different viewpoints. I certainly think that we need to address Alameda Traffic's impacts to Oakland, Chinatown. And I think that that's a huge issue. And I think the fact that there is buy in from the Chinatown community as well as improvements to the project, is something that I am happy to, to see and to support. That said, I think my concern is this is all somewhat of a negotiation. And with supporting this project, we ultimately are losing our leverage to support what is deemed a separate project, or at least that's how it's feeling, I think, to some of our bike and multimodal transit advocates in that we are we are distinguishing the projects and we are then losing our ability to move forward with the other project. And I know that both are behind on and need more funding. I would echo device mayors asked to get a commitment from the staff to actually recommend support for the next step in the Alameda Estuary Crossing Bike PED Bridge. And I know we heard from a number of different speakers. I live on the West End. I go through the tube all the time for work. So does my partner. I lived in London. I biked and walked while I was there. The entire time I was there. Going through the tube is on bike is the worst experience I can possibly think of as a cyclist and as a parent to say that this we're going to build another walkway and don't worry you have bike ped access into Oakland from west Alameda is a complete farce because there is no way I think I think most parents would look at that and say there's no way I would want my kid going through there with the air quality issues that exist as well as the noise, the noise level going through the tube. I don't think we talk about it enough, but it is it is deafening in there. And just I just don't see that as a real feasible crossing. And so I, I think it is important for Alameda to talk about these things, because what we're talking about really is equitable access on the west end of Alameda across the estuary for people that that travel in in a number of different ways. And not everybody has the ability to have and afford a single occupancy vehicle. We do have a lot of people that really need this crossing. And so if there's anything that staff from Ictsi leave here with tonight, it's that I want you to really hear the council saying unequivocally that this is a priority for us. This West End estuary crossing bike PED access is a priority. And I want to speak for myself and just tell you that it is one of my top and utmost priorities. Housing is certainly up there at the top of my list, but this is an equity issue. It's an environmental issue, and it's an absolute priority. And to me, this is a non-negotiable thing. And I think we need to all of us regionally find a way forward. I think and I've heard I also want to put out there, I've heard from Oakland's appointee to the commission. I know she spoke at length with Mayor Ashcraft and I've heard from her her commitments. I think what we're looking for and members of the public are really looking for is more than just a pat on the back . Be good player. Trust us. This will this will go through. And I think just the timing of this and how the conversations took place and the fact that we are up against a deadline, I appreciate that there's these bureaucratic deadlines that exist and we have to work around them and go with the flow. I appreciate our mayor for having these conversations and for bringing everyone here tonight to to sunshine it and to have the have the discussion publicly. But I think what what some of our advocates and activists are looking for is really something in writing that's going to be firmer than, hey, don't worry, you're going to get a fair shot at competing for these funds. And I think that that's their concern and I share that concern. So, yeah, so I think getting something a little more concrete about at least supporting moving forward we. And there's huge funding gaps. But I just want to say that I fully support the bike ped crossing and I'm happy with the improvements that have been made to this project. I don't love the The Tube walkway, but I also listen to the Transportation Commission weighing in and I thought they did make some good points. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Vela, Councilor Odie.
Speaker 1: Sure. I'll weigh in now. So. I mean, at the onset, I'll just say, you know, I've I've been critical when people use the Sunshine Ordinance to kind of block things that I'm in favor of. But I also think it would be hypocritical if I basically say we should ignore it for something I am in favor of. So I'm a little bit disturbed about the my colleague's comment notwithstanding. I mean, the whole transparency on this issue. I'm deeply concerned because the way I understand this played out, know we had the letter and, you know, advocates of the crossing, the additional crossing, thought it was an opportunity to kind of leverage the only thing we really have to leverage to get funding for the next additional steps on the project. And then the letter went through the transportation committee in full sunshine, and it was changed. And the advice was to, you know, not give away portions of it right now. And then it came to the Council on an Agenda item, and there were objections to basically holding up one project that would benefit Chinatown, both from residents of Chinatown and Aluminums with connections to the Chinatown neighborhood. Valid connections. But at the same time, you know, there were concerns from the advocates of the Bike Walk Bridge that, you know, we really would not have any opportunity in the future to help secure funding. So there was the conditional letter that was sent out. And, you know, I spent a lot of the day today talking to a number of the advocates of the bridge and also folks that were concerned in Chinatown, because I think those are legitimate concerns as a project that's been on the board for 20 years. Right. You know, I'm fully supportive of that project. And, you know, I think to, you know, kind of threaten it or, you know, put it at risk. I think there were some valid concerns raised by my my folks that are concerned about the safety in the Chinatown neighborhood. You know, you know, I don't want to get into designing, but, you know, I don't think we should have a way where you can continue to do what you do today. But that's not really on my on my my to do list. So then we had well, those discussions are going on and there's community concern. Now there's a letter from Oakland that was in support dated November six that I saw for the first time this afternoon. There was a letter from AC DC dated yesterday that I saw for the first time this afternoon. There was a revised letter that the public had no input on. And, you know, I'm going to be irrelevant in a month, but I didn't think I'd be considered irrelevant today or that the rest of us would be irrelevant today, because it seemed that this was all done in a vacuum. And there were some legitimate concerns raised by both the advocates of the bridge and concerns about the advocates of this project that I think should have been fleshed out in public and not in private. I don't understand why that information could not have been conveyed to us, and we as a council could have could have made that decision. But, you know, a couple of things. I will I will comment on it. Yeah. And then we basically. We are always looking for a win win where we could not say that we're going to put one project at risk over another project, but also find a way where we could get some guarantee of some funding and we got one half of that win with this revised letter. But we don't have the other half of that win, so we don't have any guaranteed funding, and maybe that's possible, but I don't even think we have a path forward to that guaranteed funding. So I will say I like the the vice mayor suggestion that we get a commitment before we approve this letter from AC DC that their staff will make a they will make a commitment to recommend funding for the PSR and environmental study. I think that's a brilliant idea and I think it gets us closer to a win win. You know, just a couple of things. I don't think that the current Webster Street design or Webster tube design, that's not really multi-modal. I don't think that's what everyone thinks of when they think of some multimodal crossing. You know, I've never done it. I never will because I have asthma and I'm not going to subject myself to walking through that tube or biking through that tube. But I think the pictures of all those people walking and biking, that's not going to happen. I mean, let's just be real here about that. You know, the one thing I do appreciate about this process and, you know, speaking to Lina, I'm a former member of this council about her letter. You know, this really this has to be a collaboration. We can't do this without regional support. And I appreciate that. She took the time, you know, during a family emergency today to speak to me about this about this important issue. I'd like to see as part of any motion to approve this that we engage our state reps because they know they can have a lot of influence on Caltrans. And Caltrans, from what I understand, is who wants that additional right away, even more so than than bike pedestrians? I would like to see, as the vice mayor suggested, that we get a commitment from Ictsi today that they will make a recommendation to authorize this funding. And I'd like to see our alternate Mr. Naxalite also involved in this process because he is on AC DC as well. And you know, he's a very knowledgeable and person with a lot of expertize in this area who's been fighting for this topic for many years. So I wish we could have got a win win. I think we have a win. And then, I don't know, I'd like to get a win and a closer to a win. So I'm hopefully hopeful my colleagues can move the ball forward on both of these projects. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Early Council for Design.
Speaker 1: Oh, great. Well, thank you very much. This project is a long time in coming. When it was first brought to my attention back in 1997, when I was on city council back then, it was certainly framed as improving Alameda Residences, access to 80, northbound or southbound to get to work, as well as being a safety related project along the way. Through the 2000, we certainly had to have some negotiations with stakeholders in in the vicinity, particularly Chinatown, Oakland's Chinatown. And it seems to me that at long last we've come up with a project that that can help residents get off the island, but also deal with some of the issues and concerns raised by residents and and those who are intimately involved in Oakland, Chinatown, some of whom live here in Alameda for a long time. My firm my foremost concern in all of this has always been getting Alameda ins off the island and to 80. And frankly, for the long, longest time that has been met, that has meant focusing on improving vehicular traffic out of Alameda through the tubes Posey tubes and hope and getting on to 880 as quickly as possible vehicular traffic because at the end of the day when you look at the data, vehicular traffic is whether it's on a single occupancy basis or whether it's on a carpool basis. At the end of the day, in terms of commuters, especially the morning peak hour commuters, that is the preponderance of of people needing to access infrastructure like Posey Tube, something like 74% of all commuters in Alameda who are employed take vehicles, whether it's by single occupancy vehicle, which is, I think 64% or whether it's carpooling, which is 9% as bus, 74%. And so and that has always been the case, and I suspect it will continue to be the case in too many years. Let us hope and I think it will be the case that future vehicular traffic will be electric and alternative fuels. But but we need this kind of infrastructure to facilitate that. My disappointment in this project, I will go ahead and express it is the sense that, you know, we have long. Frankly speaking, enjoy the 45 mile per hour speed in the posi tube. At least I've enjoyed it because it's the only place in Alameda where you can really go 45 miles per hour. Other than that short, small portion of Doolittle Drive, there is a small portion of the dual drive. But and, you know, knowing that we that we're going to change that 45 miles per hour to generally 35 miles per hour and then slow it down even more to 20 miles per hour before we take the. The horseshoe certainly is a concern. I can't see my time, by the way, but it seems to me the data is saying, even as we slow down the the the rate that travelers will be going through the Posey Tube, even as we slow that down, there will actually be time savings between the time that they enter the tube and get on into 80. Actually think the time saving is going to result because we're no longer going around, you know, the Chinese garden park. And I think most of the time savings is because of that and not because of the the time spent in the tube, but that. Be that as it may. The fact of the matter is, the data says significantly that there will be a 30% savings in time in 2025 and 2045. We can expect a 45% savings in time. So what that means, for example, if on average the the trip to the tube is. I don't know, 7 minutes. So instead of 7 minutes right now, it will now be roughly 4 minutes. If this is all to be believed. So I'm making my decision based upon the data that I'm seeing here. And I'm going to support this. I think it is needed infrastructure, especially for facilitating vehicular traffic out of the posi tube, especially in the morning peak commute hours. And as our island grows even more with more development, we're going to need this infrastructure to get started sooner rather than later. So I just want to thank every stakeholder who's been involved in this throughout the many years. I know there are outstanding issues. Like the bike bridge. I think that should be separate from the fact that we need to get going. The that as indicated in the earlier phase a the core project we need to get the core project going, which is the horseshoe and which is a on ramp down for people coming into Alameda in the evenings. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember de. Thank you. Good comments, everyone. I want to follow up on something the vice mayor said and and I will put this on gel a little bit on the spot that she volunteered to come to this meeting. And I'm really so glad that you were able to hear all the comments and from the members of the public. I wanted to highlight Councilmember Bell. I think she just as she often almost always does, is so eloquent in articulating some some great points. I mean, you're all you were all added to this discussion. But so I'm to the the ask by the vice mayor, what kind of commitment would DC staff make to recommending funding that we had originally asked for as a condition of our approval for it, for the for the Oakland Media Access Project. And you know, Andrew. Well, what what was possible.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you, mayor and thank you councilmembers. And it is it has been very good to hear all of the comments by all of you as well as members of the public. And I certainly know the importance of this crossing. And Alameda CDC has committed to funding in the past for it. So as I said in my letter to you yesterday, if I can get a letter from the city of Alameda, I commit to bringing forward a consideration of the next phase for this project to my commission. I do want to note that the Commission funds by phases. We don't fund the project from a a feasibility study through construction because we need to fund BI phase. There's a lot of work I think we need to do between now and the time that it comes to the commission to make sure we're checking, recommending to the Alameda City Commission an appropriate level of funding and appropriate next phase. And I would like to work with your staff to address that. There's been discussion of a PSR, there's been discussion of environmental document, there's been discussion of estimated costs. And I think it's important that we have the opportunity to really sit down and talk about those those items so that we have something clear that we're actually bringing to the commission for their consideration. And I certainly welcome those meetings with you, Mayor, and with Vice Mayor John White as well, and staff from the city of Alameda . And we I'd be happy to set those up. As soon as I get your letter, we can start setting setting those up. And I committed to that yesterday.
Speaker 5: At your your muted nature.
Speaker 3: I will just add, it's not that I tried to exclude the vice mayor. It's just that we have this Brown act and we can make arrangements ahead of time before an item comes to to then just be the only two who are discussing something that's going to come to the council. But I thank you for for those remarks. So here's my feeling, and then I'll take a little more input from from counsel as to how you would like to proceed. I believe that it is important and essential that the city of Alameda, represented by this council approves gives our approval to the Oakland Alameda Access Project because it's what you have all stated and our speakers have very eloquently stated before us that these cars continuing to come through the tube and go around that lovely center, the Chinese garden, and and, you know, it just you wouldn't want that for for a center that you tried to to frequent. And it is has not been fair to Chinatown all these years. And now we have a solution. And it it really it is true. It is an auto centric solution. But we aren't going to stop cars from going through the tube. And so we certainly can stop the horrendous impact that they have had on Oakland's Chinatown. And I would hope that we don't hold that that project hostage. But as I told my policy committee a week ago, it's also possible for two things to be true at the same time and to need to move forward on them. Some of this is going to require trust because even sitting here tonight, we can't get the guaranteed funding. I mean, I just we can't get that tonight. Soon, I think we can get some pretty good assurances that it is there. I can tell you, I've had conversations with lots of my fellow commissioners about the importance of this project and gotten their enthusiastic support. And I, I really take that to heart. So what I'm looking for is how to move forward. Because the other thing I just want to touch on is that it was asked, why didn't this all happened a year ago? We should have been asking for funding a year ago. You know, a lot has happened in this year, in this year of COVID and everything else. But one of the biggest obstacles we had to deal with was the Coast Guard. And it was no easy feat at getting them to come around and see that it was possible to have this bridge over navigable waterways right outside a Coast Guard base. And again, I give huge credit. Rodney Pimentel, you're just the man of the hour tonight that because he I sit in meetings and I it could be like they're speaking Greek, but I can follow a little bit. But he understands he's a bridge engineer and he talks with the Coast Guard engineers and he understands their concerns and he is able to match every one of their questions with that, with an answer. And the Coast Guard has come around that it was not a quick and easy process, but here we are tonight. What should we do? I am open to suggestions and tell me what your pleasure is, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: And so I just want to ask a question of Mr. Rangel, if I could, because I think I heard her answer my question, and we may just be using different terms, but so when you say you will bring forward the city's request, I heard you say, you know, that we will commit I will commit to bringing to support bringing this forward. It sounded way the last time I heard you say it. It's anything you said as a staff recommendation to the council, to the to the committee was that was I was I trying to hear too much in your comments? Because I think that for me, the question is, are you bringing it forward, saying, hey, the city's asked about this or are you bringing this forward and saying, hey, we've been working with the city on always things that we are making a request. You know, we are we are bringing forward this recommendation, you know, as a recommendation of both AC, DC and the city of Alameda that we find the funding for the PSR in the air.
Speaker 0: So I just want to be clear, there are two things in the letter that I said yesterday. There are two pathways. There's one for the CHP, which I would not be able to bring a recommendation in January for the CHP. It's a competitive process. It needs to go through all the vetting and analysis. I cannot. Agreeing that what I can bring is the fact if I get a letter from the city requesting consideration for this because of the 2014 letter, then I can bring a recommendation for the Commission's consideration of the request. And I just want to be really clear that we only fund by phase in when I mean phase. That's their very distinct project development phases. And so what is in your memo is both the PSR and the environmental documents. And like I said, I'd like to talk with you and staff about what is the actual appropriate thing to bring to the commission for a next phase. Is the PSR the appropriate thing to bring? Is the cost appropriate that's there. I think there's more vetting that needs to happen for that. And I, I very much look forward to that conversation with with you the mate, with you mayor and with you vice mayor, as well as whichever staff you want to bring or however many staff you want to bring to have that conversation.
Speaker 3: And let me jump in here, if I may, for just a minute. Vice Mayor. You know, I'll just say right here in front of me on the screen, we've got staff and I know they've been working about on this and thinking about this. So, Mr. Thomas, in this waiver, be prepared to end mute when in answer to direct your line, Shell's comments, questions about, you know, we find in phases we'd need to know what the logical next phase is sitting here tonight. Do you know what that would be or do you need to have more more meetings?
Speaker 6: No, I this Andrew Thomas, I think what the executive director say makes sense. Let's let's formalize what the what is the logical next step? It is the continuation of the design process for members of the public. We have a feasibility study that we've been working on with Acts. It shows it's feasible to build a bridge we need to the next steps. From a layman's perspective, and I'm a layman here, not a bridge engineer. We need to actually sit down with Oakland and we've started these conversations like exactly where is this bridge going to be? Is it going to be on this street? On that street? Where do these where do the landings land? What are the logical next steps in this planning process that we need to do to then get to the next step, which will be the environmental process? And then the next step is the permitting process, and then the next step is raising the money to build it. And then so there's a series of steps. So I think that makes complete sense. I just I think what I heard the vice mayor asking is assuming we can scope out that next step, which I have no doubt that the people on this Zoom call can do that, you know, in short order, because we've been working on this and talking about it for months and months and months. I mean, I think the question for the vice mayor is, assuming we can work that out and it all makes sense, is TCE staff going to be just saying is are they going to be recommending it to their their commission? Can they and would they? That's the sort of I think that's kind of what the vice mayor is asking.
Speaker 3: Mr. Thomas. Is that is it the project study report you were describing.
Speaker 6: Or I mean, whether it's. Yes, I mean, essentially, you might it might go by a different name because it's a different process. But essentially, it's let's come up with the sort of essentially the final design and so that we can then get to the next step, which is the environmental review process. That's essentially what we have now. We have a project study report for the oakland alameda access project. It would be trying to get the bridge project to this to this level.
Speaker 3: And actually vice mayor. Or maybe this will.
Speaker 4: Be muted and ender, I think laid out the question I guess I'm so curious about. I'm not. Yeah, I'm less interested in what is the process to get to presenting because I think I'm clear on that. I'm still asking the question well asked. SCB partnering with the city to bring this as a recommendation for action, or will they be bringing it as forward as a Here's something for you to consider. The city has asked us to that's that's the that's the nuance on that that I'm looking for.
Speaker 3: It and if that was any. And thank you, Vice Mayor, then for Ms.. Martel, was that enough specificity from Mr. Thomas? That's not to say that to preclude any meetings, but is that a direction that you're looking for?
Speaker 0: I, I think there are a lot of technical, technical issues that we need to address in terms of what can position this project to go after funding. As Andrew mentioned, there is a large funding need for this project and we need to develop this project in a way where we do the right kind of studies that can open the pathway for funding. And that's where I would really like to have that conversation so that when we bring a recommendation and I've committed to bringing something to the commission for the next phase, that we are bringing the appropriate information that they can then consider as part of their own deliberation as an agency. That's a funding agency.
Speaker 2: You're muted. Yeah.
Speaker 3: As I tell other people that met a vice mayor.
Speaker 4: And still I've still I've I understand that and I'm on board with we need to figure out what is the right path and whatever else. The question still remains is, is it coming forth as a recommendation from staff or is it just coming forward as a something? Is it something for the the committee, the committee and the commissions?
Speaker 0: We we bring recommendations to the commission.
Speaker 4: Okay. So your staff will.
Speaker 0: Be we bring recommendations to our committees and our committees. Consider those recommendations. And then it's actually the committees that make the recommendation to the full commission. Excellent.
Speaker 4: Thank you. It's that that that was the nuance. I was trying to make sure I was correct. So with that with that clarity, I am happy to recommend a letter with direction to staff or to send that letter to AC DC and get those letters set up so that we can start that process that that executive director Jones has laid out for us.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And for clarification, you're recommending both approval of the letter the the the letter from the mayor and the letter to be sent from staff. Correct. That the front door has multiple times that she's waiting.
Speaker 4: For follow both pathways. But yes. The letter to start work.
Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. Thank you. And then the second by you.
Speaker 1: Right. And we're we're we're doing our letter and the staff, the revised letter, plus the two pathways in Mr. Rangel's letter, right?
Speaker 6: Correct.
Speaker 3: Yeah, good point, actually. Good point, Councilmember Odie, and thank you for the second. These are not mutually exclusive propositions, if I understand correctly. That's right. We can.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 3: We can have our cake and eat it, too. And yes, we this is and these are first steps to early funding, but. Yes. Okay, a second. Thank you. I'll get any further discussion. Seeing then we have a roll call vote, please. We've had a motion by advisory, endorsed by seconded by Councilmember Brody.
Speaker 5: Councilmember de thank.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Dusek, are you unmuted?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 5: Not quite.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 5: Avella.
Speaker 0: I may.
Speaker 5: Or as the Ashcroft.
Speaker 3: I and Councilmember Day said, for clarity, that was both. Yes. That you're unmuted and yes, that you're voting.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. That sounds unanimous to me. I want to thank everybody who's been here and this evening and for all the hours you've been working on this, and we'll work on this still some more. But I do think it was really valuable to to be able to hear from both our counsel and our public about what an important but important project these are, and we look forward to moving forward. So thank you so much, everyone on this. Good to see you. Council. We are so excited. We're going to take a break. We are going to be back at ten after ten. Okay. Ten, ten. We'll see you back. Thank you all. Great to see you. Take care.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. She said. It's a long time from now.
Speaker 3: Tony. You might want to and you might want to mute just so people don't pick up conversations. Oh, but see, I'm counting just some Olivia. Here's Maria. Hi. And I bet you that's Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 1: I'm here now.
Speaker 3: Okay. Got it.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 3: Okay. Okay. Madam Clerk, are we. Are we ready? Yeah. Here's the things. Okay. All right, then. It is 1011. So we are resuming at the Alameda City Council meeting for November 17, 2020. And we're moving on to item six, the.
Speaker 5: Public hearing to consider adoption of resolution amending master fee resolution number 12191 to revise and add recreation and park fees for calendar year 2021.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And I was going to say, do we have Amy Wooldridge, our recreation projects director. Joining us. There she is. Good evening, Mr. Walters. How are you?
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mayor. Good, thank you. So good evening, Mayor. Thank you. So, Clerk, if we could please put up the PowerPoint presentation. Thanks, Laura.
Speaker 5: And. In advance of her slide probably.
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you. So I'll go ahead and jump in. So there's a variety of factors that determine user fees for the Recreation and Parks Department fee schedule. These include rising costs for staff, contractual services, utilities, and we always are trying to balance these increasing fees with market demand.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a Letter of Support for the Oakland Alameda Access Project (OAAP). (Planning, Building and Transportation 4227287)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_11172020_2020-8434
|
Speaker 5: Public hearing to consider amendments to the Community Development BLOCK Grant Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2019, 2020 and 20 2021 and authorize. Sorry. My eyes are going. The city manager to negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and modifications.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And who's presenting this item.
Speaker 5: At Lisa Fitness? We're adding.
Speaker 3: Pronounce it. Hello, Miss Fitz and Miss Butler. Hello. Hello.
Speaker 0: Hello. This is Lois Butler and Lisa Fitz will be presenting this item.
Speaker 3: Perfect. Nice to see you, Ms.. Butler. And welcome biscuits. Hello. Hi.
Speaker 0: So, good evening, Madam Mayor. Council members. Staff. Oh, I do have slides.
Speaker 5: Yes, we're putting them.
Speaker 3: Thank you. We can arrange that.
Speaker 0: So my name is Lisa Fitz, and I manage the Community Development BLOCK Grant Program, also known as CDBG. Do I have control over the slides?
Speaker 5: No. We can advance them for you if you. Okay.
Speaker 0: So I think we're at like number four. If we could go to number two. That would be great. Okay. Thank you. So CDBG Cares Act funding. As you know, the city of Alameda receives CDBG funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, also known as HUD. And in September 2020, HUD announced that the city of Alameda would receive an allocation of $597,112. This is in addition to the first tranche of CARES Act funding that the city was awarded in June of 2020 in the amount of $683,116. Next slide, please. So the purpose of tonight's hearing is threefold. First, to accept and allocate the recently awarded funds. Second, to reprogram entitlement funds for the purchase and installation of community cabins. And third, to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and modifications. Next slide, please. So staff. For this for the CARES Act funds staff proposes that council accept and allocate 100% of the new CARES Act funds to public services that provide food or shelter to families and individuals who are vulnerable and in crisis as a result of the coronavirus. So please refer to the five programs shown on the screen. It should be noted that both emergency rent relief and emergency case management were approved and included in the current fiscal year action plan. Tonight, we are proposing to remove those from the current plan and have them funded by the Care with CARES Act funds instead. By doing this, it frees up money in the entitlement. I would like to also point out that the services on the screen would be offered through the end of the fiscal year. And if HUD continues to offer or continues to waive the 15% cap on public services, then safe parking and day center operation services could potentially be funded through June 30th of next fiscal year as well. In the event that the expenditures for next fiscal year are constrained by the 15% cap, then staff will propose to reprogram any remaining funds and will present recommendations to council with the action plan that will present to you in May. Next slide, please. So CDBG entitlement funds for the current year. Entitlement Funds staff proposes to amend the action planned to program $200,000 for community cabins, leaving the remaining $961,057 untouched. Please note that just last week HUD notified the city of a $230 typographical error in its award letter, resulting in a new total allocation of $1,161,057. Staff will reduce administrative expenses by $230. Next slide, please. So that concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Ms.. Fitz and Madam Cook, do we have any public speakers on this item?
Speaker 5: Yes, we have one.
Speaker 3: Okay. But before we take our public speaker at counsel, any clarifying questions of misfits? Okay, let's. Let's hear from our public speaker.
Speaker 1: And I.
Speaker 0: Have. Yeah, Mr..
Speaker 3: De. I'm sorry. And this way. Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Just to go on. Okay. Good. Clarifying question. In terms of the community cabins, do we have any are there is has any thought been given to persons who are in the parking program, transitioning them to the community cabins, making them available? How how what kind of thought are we giving as to who is eligible for for for that?
Speaker 0: That's a great question. So tonight, actually, we're really talking about allocating funds for the potential purchase of the cabins before the program is designed fully. We will have to identify there are few steps that will be taking, including contracting with a social service agency to provide services. But realistically, we expect that the cabins would become could potentially become shelter to people who are currently living in their cars.
Speaker 1: And quick question, how many cabins.
Speaker 0: Does $200,000 purchase? We expect that it'll cover it will provide 12 to 15 accounts.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Bank accounts for birthdays. Any further clarifying questions? Council. Okay. Madam Kruger. Public Speaker.
Speaker 5: Herman Read.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. Reid. And just go ahead. There you go.
Speaker 0: Hello?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me now? Yes, you can. Good evening.
Speaker 0: Good evening. And thank you very much for for taking my question. I just had a question about the community cabins and where will they be located. That's a great question, and that's something that is currently being worked out.
Speaker 3: City staff has said that it's no excuse the interruption and this is perfectly appropriate. Your your answer. Public comment is normally public comment and not Q&A. However, I think we can apply common sense and I'm sure that would have been part of your presentation and maybe in answer to a few future council questions on this item. So go ahead.
Speaker 0: Mr. Chair. Sorry about that. So, yeah, there will there are like I said, in response to Councilmember de Sox question, there are a few steps that have to be taken before my money will actually be expended. We would have to identify a location. I will have to contract with a service provider. We'll have to assess the location to meet HUD standards. So at this time, the location is it has not been identified.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Miss. And that was was that all of our public speakers?
Speaker 5: That was all of the speakers.
Speaker 3: Okay. So council member Odie has to stand up.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thanks, Miss Butler. I'll miss your presentations when I don't hear them anymore. And thanks misfits for your presentation. I think in this particular topic you'll have one of the most heartwarming but probably one of the most frustrating jobs. Because, you know, every every dollar that you give benefits an individual in need, yet there's never enough to go around. So I appreciate all the hard work you've done to serve our community and serve some of our most deserving. And I think what's what's important to me about this agenda item is it shows what government can do. I mean, government should be there for the good of people, and it has a purpose to help people and serve people. And that's why, you know, I always get emotional during this presentation, even after six years, because, again, I think it shows what we can do and it goes to the core and the heart of who we are as individuals and our belief that our government can actually spend money and make things better for people. So tremendous thanks to you all and all the hard work you do and all the tough decisions you make.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Ody, and other comments. Discussion.
Speaker 4: Vice-Chair That's why I guess I'd be happy to cosign everything Councilmember Odie said in approval of the item.
Speaker 3: Give me a minute to make my comments too. But Councilmember, despite Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 1: I was just going to second.
Speaker 3: So we have a motion of approval. We have a second motion by the Vice-Chair, seconded by Councilmember de SAC. Any discussion? Yes, Councilmember Vela. But hence you go first and I'll go next.
Speaker 0: I just want to just thank staff for their work on this. I know that there are a lot of moving parts, and certainly I think we've made it very clear, at least from the council perspective, of our desire to fund these things and to put housing and transitional housing at the top of that list. So I want to thank staff for making sure that the money and the funds that we're receiving are going directly towards that. So that was my comment.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilor Rivera. And I was just going to say that I found out last week that there's your double use, a countywide sales tax increase passed just barely by the skin of its teeth, because on last Wednesday night, we had our Alameda County mayor's covers meeting and our guest speaker was Cory Abbott, who is in charge of the county's program on homelessness. And so then I asked her the question because she was talking about these Project Roomkey hotels that are being purchased by the counties and by cities. And so I asked her with funding from Measure W, could that be used to help purchase some of these properties? Because I still have my eye on the Marina Village in and I know we're on the short list. We didn't quite make it, but we're on the short list and and her face just fell and she said, well, you know, I don't think Measure W passed. And then I felt terrible for even asking the question, but the next night I was checking results and I looked and it had gone ahead just barely. But it needed, you know, 50% plus one vote. And it got more it went vote over 50%. So I quickly emailed her and I said, Am I reading this correctly? Mr. Abbott emailed back and said yes and I look forward to working with the city of Alameda on the allocation of these funds. And I will let you know that the mayors of Alameda County, most of the mayors, I'd say serve ten or 11 of the 14 have signed a letter to the county board of Supervisors asking that the mayors have a seat at the table when the county is determining expenditure and allocation of these funds. So we can just make sure that our needs in cities are known. So that's to be determined. But, you know, I think it's it's good news, certainly, that I mean, obviously, it's a sales tax and the revenue has to come in. And so that would be right away. But it is an ongoing source of funding, so we don't count our chickens before we hatch. But I'd say they're incubating right now. So with that, I'm very favorable and very excited. Councilmember Odie is right. This is what some of the good thing government should be doing. We hope to see even more of that in the next four years coming out of the federal government. But we've had our motion, it's been seconded. Maybe we have a roll call vote. So thank you both for your good work on this.
Speaker 5: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 5: Next. Right.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 5: Judy.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 5: Vella. Hi, Mayor. As the Ashcroft high that carries by five eyes.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Thank you so much. Fitzsimmons better always great to see you and thanks for your good work. Okay, counsel, we move on to item six D.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Community Development Block Grant Action Plans for Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21; and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements and Modifications. (Community Development 236)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_11172020_2020-8435
|
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Thank you so much. Fitzsimmons better always great to see you and thanks for your good work. Okay, counsel, we move on to item six D.
Speaker 5: Recommendation to accept the status report of the city's economic recovery task force activity.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Butler. Yeah, thank you. Did you come up with me? Yeah. Not yet. It's just showing you muted. Hi, Miss Amanda Turkey. Give it a minute. And there. You must have the equivalent of my iPad there. Did you go? Muted.
Speaker 0: Muted again?
Speaker 3: No, no, you're good. You get and your screen sharing.
Speaker 0: Amanda Kirkby will be giving the report.
Speaker 3: All right. Good evening, Mr. Key.
Speaker 0: Evening, Mayor and city council members. And thank you, Lois. So, as Lois mentioned, I am here tonight to give a status report on the Economic Recovery Task Force. Next slide, please. So, as you all know, when shelter in place hit in March, it was very necessary to maintain our public health. But it did have a pretty major impact on our businesses and workers. The city took a series of immediate steps to help, and I'm not going to go through all of these here, but they're listed up on the screen. These actions were done under the leadership and support of city council and with the hard work and collaboration of a number of different city departments. Next slide, please. So while these actions were important and necessary, they were primarily reactive in nature. So in May, the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel advised directed city staff to create a COVID 19 economic recovery task force. So it's a ten member task force with members appointed by the city manager. So the goal of the task force is to kind of move a little bit beyond these reactive steps to create a short term mid-term strategy for economic recovery in Alameda. And the Economic Development Advisory Panel also directed staff to focus on our most vulnerable businesses, workers and residents. Next slide, please. So the task force has been meeting since July, just about every other week. We've contracted with the consulting firm Strategic Economics and Beacon Economics to facilitate these meetings and to assist with our data analysis. One crucial source of information for this work has been a series of focus groups that we've been conducting with the sectors listed on the slides. So these groups are really critical to kind of getting in on the ground, understanding of what's going on with our businesses and what their needs are. And you'll see those little stars next to housing and transportation. Those are there because we had not finished those focus groups when we wrote the staff report. So that information is not included here. But I'm happy to answer any questions that council has about that. So next slide, please. So I'm going to go through some of the preliminary findings of the work that are really kind of set the stage for the development of the strategies.
Speaker 3: And it's tricky. I hate to do this to you, but will you excuse my interruption because I've just been reminded and I don't know how this happened, but it's almost 11:00. So council we have to vote to approve considering new items which are six e. Remember, we have to hit open six F just to continue it and then we have nine A and ten A and so I need somebody to make a motion on that.
Speaker 4: I move that we work until midnight to get through the rest of the agenda.
Speaker 3: Okay. So we have a second to that.
Speaker 1: I'll second, but I'd like to encourage us to be concise with our comments so we can get through the entire agenda.
Speaker 3: It's a good point. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. May we have a roll call vote with.
Speaker 5: Council over Jason Knox? Right.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: o.D i.
Speaker 5: I may or as the Ashcroft, I get carried by five hour rate.
Speaker 3: And again, I apologize for the interruption. Mr. Keith, the floor is yours again.
Speaker 0: Okay. So one of our earliest findings was that we heard from the public health department that even with the vaccine, we can expect social distancing measures into 2022. So we heard this pretty early on, and this estimate had a pretty significant impact on how the task force was thinking about the timing of the emergency and the timing of our recovery. We're also seeing a pretty big racial hellscape related to the pandemic in Alameda County. Latin Mex population has the highest rate of infection, followed by the Pacific Islander and black residents. And the black population has the highest rate of deaths due to COVID 19. We're also seeing greater job loss among women, people of color and those without advanced degrees. So we're seeing more women, more black workers, and also more workers with a high school education or less who are filing for unemployment. Next slide, please. From our businesses and nonprofit owners. We're hearing about a lot of confusion and frustration around our county health orders. So couple examples of this are new health orders will be issued on a Friday and that doesn't leave businesses much time to prepare for any changes. Uncertainty about the timing or future health orders that can make it difficult for businesses to plan for reopening. And then also some frustration about the differences between the county and state guidelines, which can cause confusion, which when new changes are announced at the state level, but they don't apply to Alameda County from businesses that have reopened. We're hearing that expenses have increased significantly due to COVID 19, and that has to do with the cost of PPE, the cost of cleaning, and in some cases having to hire staff in order to enforce public health orders. At the same time, their revenues are down because capacity is limited and demand is also down. So we're hearing from many businesses that they're dipping into savings or going into debt to make ends meet. And the ones who were lucky enough to receive federal, state or local aid report that that money is is quickly running out if it hasn't already. So as a result, unless unless conditions change, we do expect to see many more business closures this winter. So one thing that really is making a difference to businesses is access to outdoor spaces, including shared public spaces through the Commercial Streets program. However, there are concerns about the viability of these spaces with winter approaching, and of course, there are many businesses who can't bring their work outdoors. Next slide, please. I'm sorry. Next slide, please. So the hotel and tourism industry has been majorly impacted by the COVID 19 pandemic due to the loss of business and recreation travel. These are they're actually expected to be one of the last to recover with full recovery, not expected till 2023 or 2024. In terms of office space businesses, we're hearing that the impact of the pandemic has been very uneven. There are some businesses, particularly in the life sciences, that are still viable or even thriving, but others who are really feeling the impact, for example, or co-working spaces have still not yet been able to open. In the long term, we're hearing that while there is going to be an increase in remote work, that there will still be demand for physical office space in Alameda. There's a couple of reasons for that. One is the importance of in-person work for creativity and innovation and accountability. Another is that businesses are reporting that their employees actually do want to maintain some kind of presence in the office. And maybe that's not a full week, but maybe that's two or three days out of the week in the office and two or three days at home. And then finally, we also heard that the office stock in Alameda is well suited to COVID recovery. It's low density. There's not many elevators and there's plentiful parking. Next slide, please. So in the childcare sector, we're seeing that many childcare providers have shut down or are experiencing reduced enrollment. And there's the kind of describe the strange phenomenon where they heard a lot of interest from parents at first about when are you going to open up, when can we send our kids back? But when they actually opened, enrollment was much lower than had been planned and they actually had to shut down some of their programs. So there's a real concern that when the pandemic lifts and the demand comes back, that these programs may not be there anymore. One thing we heard across the board in all of the sectors we talked to was about the importance of Internet access and tech literacy for businesses and workers. So we heard this with childcare. You know, they hadn't had ever expected to have maybe support online learning, right? So a lot of them had to expand their Internet capacity to work with that. And we also heard that workers, and particularly those without college degrees, sometimes lack the skills and access to technology that is required to file for unemployment, apply for new jobs, or even just connect with other workers. And finally, we heard a lot about mental health challenges for businesses and workers. And this was another thing that was across all of the groups we spoke with. You know, these folks are under tremendous stress. They are worried about losing their jobs. They're worried about losing their businesses. The business owners are worried about their employees. And everyone's really concerned about making ends meet. And at the same time, they're worried about getting COVID or bringing COVID home to someone who may be more vulnerable in their family or their household. And then on top of that, on top of all this, a lot of these frontline employees are in the position of having to enforce public health orders. So they are dealing with angry or just noncompliant customers. Next, Chris. So during the task force process, it became clear that this wasn't there was a need for immediate assistance assistance. This wasn't something that could wait until after a plan had been developed. There were also a number of activities that were already in process in the city under the leadership of city council and in a number of different departments. I'm just going to go through kind of some of these interim measures here. So the spend local campaign is something we've been working on to try to boost sales for our businesses over the holidays. That's going to be launching on Saturday. Another thing the pandemic really brought out is the importance of businesses talking to each other across, promoting learning from one another, advocating. And so as a result of that, we've been we worked with the Chamber of Commerce to launch a Personal Care Services Coalition. There's also been a massive citywide effort to permit alfresco dining through our Commercial Streets program. And then in terms of mental health, we've been working with a local councilor to schedule a series of group zoom based counseling sessions for business workers and owners that we're hoping to launch in the new year. We have also set up regular, consistent briefings with the county health department, and we've invited other Alameda County cities to join so that we can ask clarifying questions, we can share feedback from our businesses, and also just kind of help to spread the word about public health orders. So as a result, in part from these meetings, the county health has moved to announcing changes in health orders, usually a couple of days in advance so that businesses have time to prepare. And the county has also worked closely with the state to clarify or to provide clarity around the difference between state and county guidelines when those are released. We've also been increasing our communication weekly, bi weekly emails to our businesses. We did a webinar to help provide businesses with assistance and tips on negotiating with their landlords under COVID 19. And finally, as a council as well, we placed a cap on the third party delivery fees for restaurants. So rather than these 25 to 35% use, they're capped at 15%. And that cap went into effect a little over a week ago. Next slide. So in terms of next steps, we're here tonight to provide city council with an update and get your feedback and comments. And then we're working to develop strategies and put together a report during December and January. And we hope to be back in front of you in February or March for approval. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions.
Speaker 3: Thanks. Thank you, Miss Piercy. And I just want to note that these regular briefings with county public health actually came about because of the initiative of our own Lois Butler, economic development director. And I know that because every other week there is a county public health briefing for elected officials. And at our last briefing two weeks ago, Colleen Chawla, the director of the county health care services agency, announced that they are now doing these briefings for the economic development directors around the county. And then that was all initiated through the efforts of Alameda City of Alameda. So I think it's probably both. Lois but their enigmatic. Amanda But I think Lois, your name was even mentioned. And so that is not only to the benefit of our businesses, but also countywide. And we just really need to be making sure we're as proactive as we can be. This is the information. Some of the information sharing really made a difference, like not announcing these changes to the county public health officers orders on a Friday when, you know, restaurants and venues like that had to struggle to, uh, to comply. So I think this is really perfectly timed and personally perfectly timed item. Thank you so much for presenting it. Counsel We're being asked to accept the status report, but any comments or questions before we go on the air, before we vote? And then let me just ask really quickly, do we have some of the speakers on the side and.
Speaker 5: Have one.
Speaker 3: Of my questions first? Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 1: I just had one quick question. I wonder if you could share a little bit about the, um, the business assistance program that the county just announced that I think the application deadline is closing at the end of the month. And how are our businesses can kind of access more information on that?
Speaker 0: Yeah, absolutely. So Alameda County announced the Alameda County Cares Grant program. It opened yesterday. They're providing $5,000, one time grants to businesses located in Alameda County, unincorporated parts of Alameda County. As you mentioned, this closes at the end of the month. We've sent out we have it up on our website. We've sent it out in numerous locations, but I can try to grab the website to read off here if that would help. And folks can always contact us in economic development. We can point them in the right direction.
Speaker 1: Have we done any work on that type of outreach in other languages? Because a lot of our businesses are owned by folks whose English is not their first language.
Speaker 0: Yes. So the application provided by the county is available in multiple languages. I don't know the exact number off the top of my head. And we are definitely sharing all of those all of those options.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you for clarifying questions. Council Vice President, swing by.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you very much. I appreciated this a lot. My my one question was, as I was reading The Bullet about experiencing a wave of small business closures, have we done any or considered doing any survey of our small businesses to kind of find out where they are? Both. Are they even surviving? We just got a I just saw all these is on the risk of closing for good apparently according to the news tonight and kind of what their needs are like. Obviously, people are going to want to be a little careful. But I remember talking to businesses. Restaurants were opening over the summer and they were talking about how it's nice they're not making enough money to cover their costs. And they also have these 4 to 6 months of costs that they're going to have to pay back someday and kind of getting a better understanding of what the size and scope of that is so we can maybe make some survey. Question is, have we done are we going to be doing any survey of our smaller businesses, especially in our Main Street shopping areas?
Speaker 0: That's a great question. When we started this process way back in the spring, there had been a kind of a wave of surveys that had gone out around that time. And we looked at that data, but we were also hearing a little bit of survey fatigue, which I think is why we went more in the direction of focus groups and then also listening to people at our town halls. But I think I think that ongoing outreach is going to be really important to the strategy moving forward. Like we can't stop listening now. So I think incorporating a survey into it in the future is a great idea.
Speaker 4: Thank you. It's great work. So thank you. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And that's a great answer to Councilmember Avila.
Speaker 0: Okay. So the website. The County Grant program is actually administered by the East Bay EDA. So the website is East Bay EDA boards back slash grants for anyone who's looking for that. But my question was, you know, I've noticed with a lot of these small business grants, for instance, with the city grants and then also with the county grants, it's for businesses and it caps them at 25 employees. One of the feedback things that has come up is particularly for daycares and preschools where they might have two locations on island or something like that. With the new COVID requirements, they are having to reduce the ratio of instructors to youth. And so that means in many cases, if you have more than one location, you're going to be exceeding the the the maximum number of employees to qualify. And so my question is, having gotten the feedback that that preschools and daycares are potentially threatened, have we looked at that or have we how have we responded or how are we looking at responding to helping those businesses stay afloat? So with the Alameda Strong grant, you can have two locations and up to 50 employees. The criteria for the East Bay Eddy County Grant was done without input from the cities and so we weren't able to influence that. But with the grants that we have going forward, hopefully we can. Have that additional requirement. One of the things that I did want to let you know is we have a council item coming December 1st, but I understand what that council item, it's for a matching grant from the county. We have to follow the county's criteria. And so we may not be able to include that criteria in with with the request that we will be making. So we can speak to that later. And I will follow up with the with the SBA, EDA, to see if we can shift that criteria. Thank you. And have we do we have industry specific groups like are we. I guess my concern is I think that there's been a lot of outreach. And I know, Lois, you you've personally gone out and talked to businesses on Webster and Park Street, and so is your staff. My question is, what are we doing and how are we reaching out to businesses that are not located in our business districts? So we have used our business license list to try to hit as many businesses as possible. Some businesses exclude their email address, and so we're not able to contact them. But if if they have listed their email address, they should be receiving an email from us when these announcements are being made. Also, through our focus groups, we've been able to contact additional folks and they have been passing the word as well.
Speaker 3: So for you, that's for rebels. Okay. Thank you. Miss Bella, would you say that the majority of our business license licenses do include an email address?
Speaker 0: I would say so, yes.
Speaker 3: Right. Because every day. Did I see your hair? No. Okay. Any further questions? Okay. I understand that we have a public speaker at least. Correct. The spacewalker.
Speaker 5: She has lowered her hand. So I believe we do not have a public speaker now.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. No public speaker. Okay. All right. So any further discussion before we have recommended acceptance of this report tells everybody.
Speaker 1: I just moved to recommend the acceptance of the status report. There's a lot I'd like to say, but I also want to get onto the rest of the agenda. So. But thank you, Lois, you and your team for everything you've done.
Speaker 3: All right. And so we can do this by a motion. A motion to recommend. Yes. So, yes. Yes. Okay, we're moving quickly, people. So that was seconded by Vice Chair. That's what I believe. Yes. I'm reading it as such. A move by Councilor Brody, seconded by vice mayor. And that's why we have a roll.
Speaker 5: Call vote, please. Councilmember Jason Knox. Right. All right, Odie.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 5: Right. I may as the Ashcroft. Hi. That carries by five. Five.
Speaker 3: Thank you. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Butler. Ms.. Gherkin, great work and so well needed and timely. So thank you. Keep up the good work. We are now moving on to item six E. Our city manager, Eric Leavitt, is going to recuse himself because he lives in proximity to this project. And there he is. Assistant City Manager Sherry Burton is going to take this staff report.
Speaker 0: It's very.
Speaker 3: Welcome.
Speaker 5: And you want me to read the title?
Speaker 3: Yeah, actually, I believe they've already passed.
Speaker 5: I promise.
Speaker 3: We might as well.
Speaker 5: Carry the procedure. Public hearing to consider introduction of ordinance approving a Third Amendment to the development agreement by and among the City of Alameda. To our partners ILP and Alta Vista Owner, LLC, governing the Del Monte Warehouse Project located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sherman Street and Buena Vista Avenue to extend the completion deadline for the Clement extension improvements by one year and authorize the city manager to grant an additional one year extension without further action by the City Council. Our Planning Board.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Accept the Status Report of the City’s Economic Recovery Task Force Activities. (Community Development 256000)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_11172020_2020-8439
|
Speaker 5: for the Clement extension improvements by one year and authorize the city manager to grant an additional one year extension without further action by the City Council. Our Planning Board.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam. Kirk and I. I said to Assistant City Manager Jerry Bowden that he is actually sitting in for the city manager. This staff report is going to be presented by planning, building and Transportation Director Andrew Thomas. Welcome back, Mr. Thomas.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mayor Ashcraft. Given the late hour, I will just say this is an introduction of an ordinance to do a rather minor amendment to a existing development agreement to give the developers of the Del Monte building a little bit more time. The good news is, after much delay, this project is under construction. The Clement Avenue extension is under construction. The original development agreement had a requirement that it be done by the end of this calendar year, and they won't have it done because of the delays. On getting the project started. And then with COVID, if all keeps going well as it has been, they'll be done by the middle of next year. So to avoid going into a default situation, we are recommending an extension of the deadline from the end of this calendar year to the end of next calendar year. They will be providing monthly updates as they go along. So if they foresee any problems, we will get early warning of that. With that, I'm available to answer any questions. We also have representatives from the development team here. If you have any questions for them.
Speaker 2: Include right there.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Now, do we have public figures on this item?
Speaker 5: We do not have any public comment.
Speaker 3: Okay. So council with any a close public comment. So it's open to the council. Councilmember Ody.
Speaker 1: I just have a quick question. I know the motion says to authorize the city manager, given that he's recusing himself from this, do we need to change that at all or is it fine to leave it as is?
Speaker 3: And usually I'm just looking at the usually.
Speaker 1: Says his or her designate.
Speaker 3: But yeah, you're right. I think that's a that's a good way of looking at it. If it will.
Speaker 6: Only make that change, we can make that change. If you direct that change, we can have it adjusted for the second reading.
Speaker 3: Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And approval of the item then.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And I think the city attorney is nodding his head that this is not a material change. So this qualifies as a first reading. Okay. Councilmember Already you've moved approval. Councilmember Like that. Question.
Speaker 1: Questions. Question two staff. The staff report indicates that the. The entity is. It could potentially finish the project August of next year. So if that's the case, why then go to the end of the year?
Speaker 2: Well, we.
Speaker 6: They're not the whole project is the comment avenue.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Just like I meant.
Speaker 6: Our thought was this. If there is a delay, you know, there there's multiple parties here and other outside agencies, East Bay Mud, who are still involved in the project. So, you know, we thought rather than, you know, having to come back to the I mean, we had to come back to the planning board and then the council for another extension. It would be good to just give them till the end of the year. That was the only thinking on that.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: And I would just add to my observation that we just learned yesterday that we're about to go into the most restrictive tier of the states blueprint.
Speaker 0: For.
Speaker 3: A healthy economy reopening. And so I'm hoping that this COVID trajectory flattens in our state, in our county, and doesn't impact things like construction projects. But we don't we don't know at this point. We're going to do our best to not let that happen. I think one year. I think that's another reason, a one year extension because of the other hands, other council members. So it's been moved by councilmember only. Do I have the second vice mayor next. Wait a second. Okay. All right. So with that modification that was noted about the city manager's designee, it's been moved by Councilmember Otis, seconded by vice mayor. That's what you two have been the motion team this evening, I would say, and make it a prize at the end of the night. So we have the roll call vote please.
Speaker 5: I'm so everyday sag.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 5: Next. Right. All right Odie.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Avella I may or as the Ashcroft fight that carries by five.
Speaker 3: I thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. It's very nice to see you. Mr. O'Hara will see your name in this. Well, all right. We are moving on with all deliberate speed to item six F and so I just need someone to ask for the eight. But first, I need the city clerk to introduce the item public.
Speaker 5: Five to consider adoption of resolution, adopting a medicated dignity declaration and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Theresa on the property at 23/55 Street from annex mixed use to our four neighborhood residential district to facilitate residential use of the property and Introduction Ordinance. Amending the Zoning Map designation for the property at 23/55 Street, 1874 1350 623 From the mixed mixed use to our four neighborhood residential district to facilitate residential use of the property as recommended by the City Planning Board.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Third Amendment to Development Agreement By and Among the City of Alameda, TL Partners I, LP, and Alta Buena Vista Owner, LLC Governing the Del Monte Warehouse Project Located at the Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Sherman Street and Buena Vista Avenue to Extend the Completion Deadline for the Clement Extension Improvements by One Year and Authorizing the City Manager to Grant an Additional One Year Extension Without Further Action by the City Council or Planning Board. (Planning, Building and Transportation 481005)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_11172020_2020-8475
|
Speaker 3: All right. Any other hearty souls out there waiting to talk? No.
Speaker 0: They're not.
Speaker 3: So let me close out communications of nine agenda items and we move on to council referrals. We have one click.
Speaker 5: And it is. Considered directing staff to address zoning and general plan alignment with City Charter. Article 26 is part of the discussion in the Bay Area Government's regional housing needs allocation agenda.
Speaker 3: All right, Vice Mayor, this is your council referral. So the floor is yours.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So I brought this forward after our last meeting, based on the fact that I know we're going to have a conversation coming up very likely at the beginning of December about what is the methodology for our arena allocations. And I know that there, as I noted at that time, and we heard from some folks, there's also an interest in just kind of discussing both how we move forward after measures after after our community strongly supported retaining Article 26 and how that may or may not affect our arena allocation, our ability to meet that at the end of the day. We know that state law and our city charter are now out of compliance. And so there are probably multiple ways in which we could move forward as a council. And I think that given that we are still within the arena comment, comment period and whatnot, I wanted to see I wanted to ask my colleagues to give direction to bring forth as a part of that conversation on December a December 1st. Staff could bring forward some options on how we could give direction for the New Year and the new Council for it to join some of the what I believe is going to be a possibly a series of conversations that we'll have, but just really allow the community and our council to give some input on how they'd like to see that conversation unfold, what those options might be and direction on that. For me, I identified four areas that I think we should look at again returning. I called it a special meeting at the time, but it could be December 1st. I didn't I sorry, I forgot to delete that after our conversation on the first. But you know what steps need to be taken for compliance because at some point in time we're going to have to make it a decision to either comply with our charter or comply with with renewed requirements. And I think there's some interesting conversations there. I think we should identify what communications are necessary with our regional and state partners to talk about what compliance means so that we can really have a conversation with the community about what these trade offs mean. Identify any of the community impacts related to complying with the with the recent measures, the vote. And lastly, you know, I really want us to consider when it comes back actually voting to allow us to have the legal conversation outside in the public and open in open session. Whereas typically I would not would not choose to do that. I think when we're talking about kind of general overall land use law, it's really important for our community to understand the tradeoffs we are making and why we're making them. And at the end of the day, I don't think we're getting into legal strategy so much as to how to beat an opponent, so much as really making sure that I think it's going to be really important for our community to come along with us so that we're not having many closed session discussions about land use strategy and then trying to have those conversations in the open. And I think for me at least, my belief is that it is probably the legal risk is probably significantly less on something like this than it would be, say, on a on a Friday in a specific developer. On specific. Yeah, the boat works. I would not agree to that. So anyway, I wanted to just ask us to give some direction so that we can have this conversation. And I don't have specific recommendations so much as just bring back some things for, for, for us to consider and start giving some direction as we move forward
Speaker 3: . Thank you. Best man. Let's wait. Council, have your thoughts.
Speaker 5: We do have one speaker.
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm sorry. I did. I guess I didn't ask you that. So. Okay, let's get clarifying questions. Can we hold our comments, people? The comments. Okay. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker.
Speaker 5: Now have a second. Speaker two But the first one is Zach Bowling.
Speaker 3: All right. Good evening, Mr. Bowling. You'd be.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Swishing around. It's been a long meeting.
Speaker 3: Yeah, telling me.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'll keep this brief. I just wanted to say. I wanted to voice my support for option two and bringing back instructions from staff as soon as possible in December for the next meeting. And I think it's important to note that the citizens affirmed their wish to keep Article 26. And given that, I think it's important for council to discuss how we move forward. Like John was saying, given that we have to follow Article 26 and how we're going to manage to to meet our air bag arena requirements and how we're going to certify our housing element. I think it's important that we have this discussions, and I agree that having the legal discussion sort of be public is important. I know it's a little, little different in this case, but I don't think it's because somebody's suing us. It's just so that we can understand sort of our requirements, and that's important. So having staff come back to explain to us the things that had John had put into the item, I think it's important or vice versa, I should say. I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Internet Speaker.
Speaker 5: Our next speaker is Adam Busch, founder.
Speaker 3: In the evening. Mr. Bush BINDER.
Speaker 2: Hi, that's a that's a book. Binder.
Speaker 3: I was just going to say what I saw on the screen.
Speaker 2: No worries.
Speaker 0: Everybody. All right?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Hi, I'm I'm Adam Bookbinder. I'm a planning commissioner in the city of Campbell in the South Bay. So I'm speaking here only for myself. I'd like to echo what Zach said and urge the Council to choose option to instruct staff to return with their report in December. Speaking from my own perspective, every jurisdiction in the state, certainly every jurisdiction in the Bay Area has ambitious targets to meet. Every jurisdiction says that they're fully built out. These restrictions are as artificial as Article 26, and in the wake of businesses failure, the city has to determine how it's going to meet its rent goals. In this environment, our housing crisis or affordability crisis or homelessness crisis all very real. I urge the Council to face this issue head on and aggressively schedule staff to report back as soon as possible so we can figure out how on earth we're going to comply with Rena. And.
Speaker 1: Well, maybe you should stick to your own city. You know who. Who wants you?
Speaker 3: Excuse me. Council member Gifford. Oh, hold it, hold it, hold it. We have public comment. This gentleman has a First Amendment right to address this for 3 minutes. Please. You are entitled to your comments, but you will do it when we have council discussion. Okay. As I said more than once, we're not running a presidential debate. This is a city council. We don't interrupt each other. Mr. Bookbinder, if you can remember where you were, please pick up where you.
Speaker 2: Sure, I can. I can actually answer that question. I there's two reasons I decided to get involved here. One, as as the housing crisis is a regional issue, this affects me and this affects people I care about. This affects friends that I have in Alameda who would be here at public comment if this had taken place 3 hours as opposed to four and a half hours into this. You should have some letters in your inbox because I talked to friends I have in Alameda, people I care about who can hardly afford their rent because of the housing crisis here. That's why I'm involved. And I would absolutely welcome it. If you want to show up at a meeting in Campbell and share information that you have. The housing crisis affects us just as it affects you. And no one city can solve this all on our own. I. I promise. I do not think that everybody should go live in Alameda and nobody should living in Carmel. I think that we really have to coordinate together and it's sad that we have to get we have to essentially be forced by the state via the creative process to do what's right. And it's especially sad. The state has been trying to do this since. I believe it. At least 40 years and they have to add all sorts of teeth to the law. To make this actually happen. I wish didn't come to this. I wish that we didn't have to be hostile with each other. But I honestly want the best for my friends, for my city, for the people I care about, for the region. That's why I'm I'm advocating for this. Thank you for your time. I yield the balance.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Bookbinder. And I understand we have another speaker here.
Speaker 5: Yes, we actually have two more now. Herman Reid is next.
Speaker 3: Oh, right. Oh, no, not misread. Good evening again.
Speaker 0: It's nice to be here. And I thank you again that a mayor and city council members. I truly appreciate you being up so late and taking comments. I would just like to mention that I, I think it's important to note the responsibility of, of the city council to please uphold the will of the voters with regards to two measures. And one possibility would be to join our Tri-County neighbors on proposing a reduction in our arena allocation, especially considering that Alameda is an island and our geography should be taken into account and and appropriately and be proportionate to our limited egress and ingress. So thank you very much. And and please take this into consideration when when discussion when discussing how to move forward.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Reid. And our next speakers.
Speaker 5: Doug Letterman.
Speaker 3: Hello, Mr. Letterman.
Speaker 2: I thank you, Mayor. Councilmembers. I'll keep this very brief. I wanted to thank Vice Mayor John Max White for bringing this onto the agenda this evening. And I'll echo one of the other speakers. I think the council should choose option to. I think this is an urgent matter. The was a decisive vote. But I think it's unclear what it means for the city. And I think it's important not to discuss these issues.
Speaker 3: Because could we pause the timer for one minute? Councilor Birthday said You might want to mute yourself and then you could make whatever editorial comment you'd like to make that we don't interrupt speakers and I won't let people interrupt you either. All right. I'm pleased to present the clock. And Mr. Letterman, I'm sorry for the interruption. Please. Please.
Speaker 2: That's perfectly fine. That's that's all I wanted to say, is that. Thank you for discussing this. And I support option two.
Speaker 3: Thank you. All right. And then for digital tell, we have more speakers after this.
Speaker 5: That was the final speaker. Thank you.
Speaker 3: The final speaker. All right. Councilmember de Search. I call on you first. This is your time to end it.
Speaker 2: Sorry.
Speaker 1: I think. I'll just be brief. I think on November 3rd, the people of Alameda clearly said in no uncertain terms that they want to keep growth control measures like Measure eight, Article 26. They said that in no uncertain terms. But what that also means is that we're keeping measure A in the way that we're doing it right now. Measure A is in our it's embedded in our zoning. Right this every moment we live with Measure A and we live with two other things that in certain circumstances override it. The density bonus, the state density bonus law or the state housing overlay. So, you know, those things coexist. The idea that we can't build housing with measure a, the idea that we can't meet our regional housing needs, you know, to an electorate by planning commissioner from from the city of Campbell, from the heart of Silicon Valley, which is causing the housing crisis on all of the Bay Area. When Silicon Valley catches a cold, sneezes, the whole of Bay Area catches a cold. The idea that we're going to get lectured by someone from the Planning Commission of of the city of Campbell, that we're not good residents, especially in the aftermath of a vote in which the outcome was quite decisive. If you're going to follow through on all this, you're basically undoing the vote of November 3rd. And that is not the role of planning staff. It's not the role of city council to undo the outcome. We should just move along as we are right now, where we're working within the parameters of measure. Right now they're in our or at zoning and in as important. We're also meeting state housing law with regard to, you know, Bolton building multifamily housing. We're doing it through the density bonus. We're doing it through the multi-family housing overlay. That's why our our housing element was certified. Granted, there will be a new arena number, whether it's 4900 or whether it's 3200. At this point, the housing element is still certified. It will be up to us to figure out how to meet the 3200 number or the 4900 number. And we all believe that the no on Z vote. Indicates that the city council should be going for the lesser of the two choices. But whatever the number is, it will be upon the City Council to figure out how to meet the the arena numbers within the parameters that we have right now, which is measure eight as as instituted in our in our zoning ordinance. It's there already. And also working with the the density bonus as well as the state housing overlay. They coexist. And the vote of November 3rd was for for the residents to move forward and the status quo that we had. We have what they did not want, though, was to undo it, to unwind, remove, eliminate the growth control tool of Measure eight. That's what November 3rd was all about. And it was so overwhelmingly clear that people recognize that we're an island with limited constraints and we need such a tool like Article 26. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Cancer every day, side by side. That's why they sell your hand.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I just wanted to. Yeah, I hear in Councilmember de SACS comments, maybe a misunderstanding of what I'm proposing, because I'm not proposing. I agree with everything you just said, Tony. 100%. There is no such thing as a state housing overlay. That was something that the city of Alameda just made up and did. There was a.
Speaker 1: No. That's not true. That's not true.
Speaker 3: Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Speaker 0: Oh, sorry, sorry.
Speaker 3: Council member is you. You still have time left. I will call on you, please. I know this is fairly emotionally charged. I get it. But we've got to get this done before midnight. So thank.
Speaker 2: You both.
Speaker 4: I'm not looking to argue tonight. I'm just saying that what we're doing states, I guess just we should have a conversation about how we're going to move forward. Is it is it the use of overlays? You know, can we do that? If we don't use overlays, how many housing units can be accommodated? Which should we use that to talk to abeg about what you're proposing, which is looking for a different a different in lower number. So that's the conversation I'm looking for. This is not some let's have a conversation in December to overthrow a measure, throw overthrow the vote of the voters. I heard the voters very loudly. 40% voted yes and 59.87% said said no. 60. That is a decisive decision. And and I expect to honor that, you know, personally. And I will say it's going to be very difficult for me, to your point, to do things that just ignore that vote. So I'm not bringing this forward in any way. I hear that you think that this is a this is some sort of ability to ignore the vote. I'm actually bringing this forward to say I believe we need to honor that vote and what does that look like? And we need to start having that conversation now while we can have conversations with a bang before things are settled so that we know where we stand by the end of that process. So that was all I want to clarify. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilmember Vela. So your hand up, your next.
Speaker 0: So a few points, Madam Mayor. First is we have a code of conduct which we all voted on and agreed to. And I just think that we need to honor that code of conduct. And that includes the respect that we give constituents and people that call in to public comment and how we conduct ourselves at this meeting , not speaking over each other. And so I feel it's very important to raise that point. Especially because on this item alone, I think there were three opportunities to perhaps abide by that code of conduct better. And it does not, in my opinion, reflect the values exhibited in our code of conduct or what we want to convey to the public. Because I personally want to welcome public comment and public discourse, I think that there's a way that we can do it that is not abrasive or still taking input from others, even those that we disagree with. So I want to acknowledge that. I also want to acknowledge what I'm hearing. The number and the voting outcome is public. It's public record. We can we can view that. And I think that there's a lot of misinformation. And I say that because I'm listening to some of the speakers that have called in tonight and at our last meeting. And and to me, yes, I think that the vote and the vote outcome was, quote unquote, decisive. But I think that there was a lot of misinformation and a lot of misunderstanding. So I do understand where the vice mayor is coming from in terms of clearing the air and addressing how how do we move forward? What does this mean? What do these limitations rule? That said, going back to our code of conduct and as somebody who has faced a number of challenges and complaints and been accused of many things, I take very seriously our fiduciary obligation as council members. So I do think that there will be a time to have that public conversation. But I think one of the things that's been very difficult has been that we haven't been able to have a conversation as a council with our executive staff, including the city attorney, to talk about kind of not not specific legal strategy, but the pros and cons moving forward from a fiduciary standpoint. And I would like to have that conversation. I understand the vice mayor wanting to bring this forward. What I'm hearing is trying to get together a timeline of how we can actually have these conversations. I'm certainly open to to that. I would like to at least what I would like to see is, is that this actually get agenda raised first on closed session for us to hear specifically from the city attorney. I know some of us have probably had more in-depth conversations than others, but I think that there is a value in having that closed session conversation where we can speak openly and honestly, ask our questions and concerns and get them on the record. What I'm very concerned about isn't necessarily a lawsuit per se from a specific developer. It's from some of our own constituents, some of the people that worked on that. For instance, even on the No on Z campaign that have named all of us individually and are in various lawsuits over the years, and that does come at a cost to the city. And it means resources from a staff level, and it means that we pay outside attorneys. It means that we have staff spend endless hours going back and forth on these lawsuits when we should be moving forward in a proactive way, which is way I think the vice mayor is. His goal is and I certainly stand by that. And I do think that there needs to be kind of an airing of what does this mean for the city, how do we do these things? And so what I would what I would like is to have a closed session. I'm not asking to delay this very long. I do think it's a conversation that we need to have fairly soon. I'd like to have the presentation from a bag and then I think having this publicly agenda raised would be helpful either at that same meeting or at the next meeting. That would be something I would be open to because I do think that there's a valid point of clarifying What does this mean? What does this vote mean? How do these things interact? The last thing I want to say is it's really insulting to refer to Alameda as the island city because it ignores a whole portion of our city that exists that is not on the island. And I think it's very exclusionary of a vast majority of our population that live in Bay Farm. The Harbor Bay Farm community deserves to be recognized as part of the city of Alameda. They're on a peninsula. It actually used to be an island, but it became a peninsula when the island of Alameda, which was a peninsula, became an island. And so I think it's important to understand our history and to not just jump to but we an island. Because in reality, we have an island as. Part of our city. But we as a city are not just an island. I mean, I think it's important to recognize all of the people that make up our population. So I would just you know, I hear what people are saying relative to that, but that's only a portion of our city. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Vela and Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I appreciate my colleagues comments. I just do want to reiterate what Councilmember Abella just talked about. I mean, we we had a comment earlier in the meeting, remind us of our code of conduct. And it's pretty clear there that we all agreed and I assume we all signed, that we're going to agree to be welcoming to speakers and treat them with care and gentleness and not interrupt our colleagues when they're in the middle of of making a point. So, I mean, one time, okay. Two times, three times. I think it's something that the mayor needs to take up in in conjunction with the process outlined in the code of conduct. And you can you can read the quote that's after that rule of somebody that said, the way the council treats people during public hearings can do a lot to make them relax or to push their emotions to a higher level of intensity. So, I mean, this was something that the grand jury asked us to do. And I think that the person that violated it was very insistent on following through with the grand jury. And, you know, the irony that it was violated three times tonight is not lost on me. So I want to say that I appreciate the customer of the suggestion. You know, I think it's possible to combine a closed session where we actually hear some of the legal risks and then perhaps vote on waiving our privilege on that advice. And then whatever we wait privilege on can be presented in the following open session right after that. You know, I was one of the people earlier in the year that said it's time to call the question on Measure Z. Measure A, you know, I. Advocated for Measure Z. I put it on every piece of mail and and document that I put out in the campaign. And yet we lost. And it wasn't like a narrow loss. It was a convincing loss. And that's not lost on me that, you know, 3/5 of our voters basically said, this is in our charter and we want to keep it in our charter. So I think it's imperative that we take a look at what that means for us as far as going forward with our housing element and going forward with ordinances that we have passed that conflict with our charter, because there's always a talk in these meetings by some that the charter is the constitution of the city of Alameda and there's the Constitution of the United States of America. And if somebody passes a law that's in conflict with that constitution, then it can be held unconstitutional. Right. Yet we have passed laws and not this particular council, but other councils have passed laws, whether it be, you know, overlays and such that kind of get around measure a well, the public is basically told us we want to keep measure and it wasn't 5149, it wasn't 5545, it was basically 6040. So when these these ordinances were passed, we didn't have that reaffirmation from our electorate that this is something they wanted to do. And it wasn't a low turnout election. It wasn't a 12,000 vote special election. It was a 45,000 vote universal suffrage type of vote. So to me, it's pretty clear that the message that we're getting loud and clear is we want to have a ban on multi-family housing in Alameda and we want to have density limits that are in 26th Street. So we can't just ignore that. You know, whether we agree with them or not, we can't just ignore them. We have to learn how to deal with them. We have another just with them and we have to look and see if there's anything that we're doing that's in conflict with this charter provision. And if it is, you know, to me it's, you know, unconstitutional or uncharitable or whatever the the phrase you want to you want to call. So I appreciate the vice mayor for bringing this up. You know, I feel duly chastised for my advocacy of of something different. But, you know, I was on the wrong side. So when you're on the wrong side, you got to accept it. You know, I know Trump isn't doing that, but, you know, that's just the way it is. So I'm fully supportive of number two and with the caveat of Councilmember Avella suggestion that we had a closed session. So we can decide at that closed session what privilege we want to waive.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Odie. Okay, so I have a few things to say with regard to the code of conduct. It does apply to all of us. And we did hear a speaker at the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Paul Foreman, go into detail about how he felt, about comments that were made to him. And I and I will go back and listen to that. That portion of the reference meeting. And I just want to remind all of us that we do our best work when we listen to each other. We are we all are people of strong views and we're passionate about what we do. And that's a good thing. But we we need to listen to everyone, even people we don't agree with sometimes, especially people we don't agree with, because we can we can spend too much time in an echo chamber and not realize that there are other views out there. And and I've done a lot of soul searching about Measure Z myself, having co-chaired the campaign with the vice mayor. And, you know, I think and then the theme of communication came up when we were discussing the Oakland Alameda Access Project, and that is to say crossing bridge. And there was a lot of just misinformation and miscommunication that was swirling. So we are elected leaders. We represent our city, and we always want to make our city proud that we are the leaders. So regardless of how you feel about what someone is saying, we we strive to treat people the way we would want to be treated. And and and yet I'm the first one to acknowledge that it's tough. You know, we're not we're not robots. We have feelings. We get frustrated. And it's tough to keep those emotions in check sometimes, but we need to continually work toward it. And and I think, you know, reach out and and acknowledge and maybe have a conversation with someone who might have felt wrong by something you said or did. The other thing is very interesting discussion. And yes, I am bringing forward we will have a presentation on the reading methodology for determining our allocation of housing numbers. And this process is working its way through ABEG. And as we speak, I get a little nervous as an attorney when I hear that we should just waives the attorney client privilege and discuss legal things out in the open. So I would never want to have that discussion without asking our city attorney's input or opinion on it. And I would just say, from my perspective, I think it can be a slippery slope that, yes, we say we we waived this privilege this time, but then what about the next time? And who gets to decide that? City Attorney Mr. Evenson. May I call upon you to just share and share your thoughts? Impart some wisdom to us which should please this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Also, I'm happy to share what.
Speaker 1: We plan on doing and having shared process as what we are planning to do is to prepare a confidential memo outlining the various legal implications to the counsel, and we expect to provide that to the counsel this month. And so the counsel will have it in advance of any future council meetings. The counsel can digest it and consider whether any portion of, for example, any portion of the memo it would like to waive and and be.
Speaker 2: Shown to the public. That's certainly the council's.
Speaker 1: Call where we're here to provide legal advice to the counsel. And if.
Speaker 2: There's any provision in any part of the memo, it will be at least.
Speaker 1: Concrete. And the counsel can look at it and decide what is appropriate.
Speaker 2: And to the extent the counsel would like to have.
Speaker 1: A closed session, I'm happy to talk about that with the counsel. We, as you know, the states, as we probably would agenda as it is anticipated litigation, the city's initiation of litigation. And we probably will need a little more factual development before we bring it to you. So we we will not be expecting to bring that to you in December. We may bring it to you in the coming year after you've had the opportunity to digest our memo. And maybe here Planning Director Thomas's background presentation to you in December and when you have a little more information so that the Council can make an informed decision. I've got to answer your question. I'm happy to answer anything specific.
Speaker 3: Now that that is very helpful. And thank you for that. And Councilor, we're going to have to act quickly because we only have 3 minutes before we have to adjourn according to our vote. So I would I would like to see is that this is the sequence. I would suggest just my suggestion coming forward to us in the first meeting in December, the presentation by a bank staff on recent allocations sometime in the near future. Getting that memo from city attorney on his legal opinion about these matters deciding it's a little unclear to me how the council would go about deciding whether to vote or whether whether we want to release all or part of that. That can be determined. But then to get a closed session scheduled for, I think as soon as the city attorney feels like he would reasonably have the opportunity to get whatever facts together he needs. So we hear this item first in closed session, which I think is what Councilmember Vela was suggesting. But Vice Mayor and that's why I'm going to hand the floor to you, because you this is your this your item.
Speaker 4: Oh, well, you know, I'm I'm happy to to join my colleagues in moving whatnot forward. I would be a little concerned. We believe now that the methodology has been approved, add a bag and whatever else. We have a six month comment window that ends in June. And I would want to I do believe that we have heard from a not insignificant portion of our community, not necessarily the same portion that voted no on Z, but but that they have questions and interests in that in looking at the arena allocation and having conversations about that. And I would like to make sure that whatever process happens that maybe in January we are able to start having kind of the conversations about how to move forward. So again, I personally, you know, I would like to I would love to start and I think it would be good for our community because, you know, to the conversation I had with Councilmember de Song, I think there's a lot of misinformation out there about intention and what we're doing and whatnot. So I think the quicker we start, you know, kind of just talking through these things, I think that people will calm down a little bit and feel more comfortable again. So that was not a comment about Councilmember Sang. I just meant in the community, people are, I think, feeling tense. You know, I think Councilmember Odie has a lot of a lot of history here and could or just participate in that. And, you know, I would also recommend that we create space for the incoming councilmember as well to have conversation in that as well in December. That would be my recommendation is making sure that that space is okay.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Day So.
Speaker 1: I just want to say quickly that I was the campaign manager and what that meant was I wrote the political mail, I wrote the first draft of this.
Speaker 3: It is now midnight. We voted to go to midnight. I believe we've had recommendations to the staff for moving forward. That fair assumption.
Speaker 1: Is, I don't know. Is there is there a motion?
Speaker 3: We yes, we had a motion so until midnight.
Speaker 1: Okay. So what does that mean?
Speaker 3: It means we've had staff direction. I think the vice mayor laid out a pretty solid path.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: Staff, do you feel you have enough direction, Mr. Thomas, position moving forward? I'm seeing a nod from Mr. Sharon. A thumbs up. Okay. All right. Council member Odie.
Speaker 1: Can we move to extend the meeting another 5 minutes to kind of wrap this?
Speaker 3: And just this item.
Speaker 1: I'm happy to defer my ten A to the next meeting.
Speaker 3: Because you know my policy about.
Speaker 0: Ending.
Speaker 2: I understand that would.
Speaker 1: Be good that I'll move that we extend the meeting 5 minutes.
Speaker 2: That can.
Speaker 3: Okay. It's 5 minutes starting the minute the vote is taken and I'm timing correctly. Okay. Really? And it's been moved by. I'm sorry. It wasn't looking up, was it, early next week?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 3: In fact, it it in that order and maybe have a roll cover, please.
Speaker 5: Councilmember de SAC i naxalite ody i. Vela i. Mayor as the Ashcraft.
Speaker 3: High.
Speaker 5: That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 1: Fucking continuous as possible.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I'm going to start the timer. Just. Man, I missed you just one minute to try to find you. Talk to one minute, because then we get our 5 minutes. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 1: Ready?
Speaker 3: Three days to.
Speaker 1: Go. So I was the campaign manager. I wrote the political mail. I wrote it, I designed it. I earned or acted with John Diaz, with the Chronicle. I ran, interacted with Dan Borenstein of East Bay Times, with J.K. Deneen, the staff writer of Chronicle as well as the radio station Cale LW. And even when you look back at the discussion with the Harbor Bay Isle folks at all points in time, the message was never, we don't want to build multi-family housing. The message was simply, we want to keep Article 26 and we recognize that we are building multifamily housing. Look at our political mail, our political mail. Show the multifamily housing that we're building. So we understood that the density bonus and the housing overlay were a fact of life that we have to live with. However, we're at it scenes with the fact that we've got Article 26 embedded in the environment.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember Councilor Odie, were you I think maybe you were speaking.
Speaker 1: Here, I mean. It says what it says. I mean, it says we're not allowed to build multi-family housing.
Speaker 3: And we're looking for direction moving.
Speaker 1: What I would like to make a motion to adopt moving forward with item alternative two of the referral and direct staff to have it come back at the December 1st meeting. Because I mean, I would like to have some part of the discussion before before leaving. Knowing that it's not going to be an end all, be all.
Speaker 3: So that discussion could take place in the under the. The item on the reading methodology.
Speaker 1: It's fine with the refer.
Speaker 3: We should refer. Yes. Okay. Is that all right?
Speaker 4: That's all. Yeah. That was my intent, was to have them together. So we're not having two separate conversations.
Speaker 3: That is happening on December 1st. Okay. Correct. Anything further in the 3 minutes we have left? Okay. Mr. Chan.
Speaker 2: I just want to confirm.
Speaker 1: That the direction is not for us to bring a closed session item on December 1st.
Speaker 2: It's only to have open session.
Speaker 1: Conversations combined with Mr. Thomas's staff report.
Speaker 3: Correct? Correct. And then we're going to see a legal memo from you at some point in the future.
Speaker 0: Correct?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 0: And that open session conversation will not be waiving any privilege.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 0: To clarify.
Speaker 1: Absolutely see how it can based on this discussion.
Speaker 3: Okay. So with 2 minutes left, so we had a motion by Councilmember OTI and I think it's been clarified that this is going to be discussed in the December to December 1st.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 3: The first is that remedy is. Okay. Yes. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 4: Sticking with the theme, I'll second that motion.
Speaker 3: All right. Here we go. The dynamic duo. Okay. We've had a motion. It's been seconded by the usual suspects. May we have a roll call vote, please?
Speaker 5: Remember de.
Speaker 0: Thug?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 5: Not quite.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 5: Odie, I avella I may or as the Ashcraft High that carries 4 to 1.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, everyone. There's a minute and 36 seconds left, but I think I should probably just tell you a thank you. A lot of good topics, tough topics were discussed tonight and so continuing. Thanks for all your good work and please just be extra careful when you're out and about. Remember your your masks and all the things we need to do to protect ourselves and others from COVID 19. Okay. Take care. Stay safe. Thank you, Staff. Awesome work as usual. And I see you with the owls. And good.
Speaker 5: Night. Thanks.
|
Council Referral
|
Consider Directing Staff to Address Zoning and General Plan Alignment with City Charter Article 26 as Part of the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Agenda Item. (Vice Mayor Knox White)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_10202020_2020-8384
|
Speaker 0: Okay. So at this point I'm going to close oral communications and here's where we're going to hop ahead to item six A and so I know Madam Clerk here lining up our individuals, but let me just introduce what we're doing. This is where we are going to adopt a resolute resolutions. I think it can be one resolution, can it? Madam Clerk.
Speaker 1: You can approve it by one motion.
Speaker 0: One by one motions that we are adopting by one motion resolutions, reappointing Troy Horsburgh and appointing April Madison Ramsey as members of the Civil Service Board, reappointing Arnold Berlinguer and Jennifer Linton, and appointing Alison Mullens as members of the Commission on Persons with Disabilities and reappointing Christine Chilcott and appointing Priya Jagannathan and Anthony Lewis as members of the Social Services Human Relations Board. And then as an extra added bonus, Seema Cisneros, who is our newest appointee to the planning board, was unable to attend the the meeting, the last meeting where she would have been sworn in and introduced. Now, she managed to hook up virtually with the city clerk and be sworn in so she could attend her first planning board meeting. But I wanted you all to interest to meet her. So here in front of you, you have a very impressive collection of individuals. Hi, everyone. It was my high honor truly to have a chance to meet you all and hear your amazing backgrounds. I've counsel in the public. You should just be as amazed and grateful as I am that these talented, hardworking people with very, very busy lives are carving time out of their lives to help serve our city on the boards and commissions. So first, we need that resolution approved by one motion, correct?
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: All right. I see Councilmember Odie is making that motion. Do I have a second? Councilmember Rivera has seconded me. We have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG. Yes, not Slate. Hi.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Bella. Hi, Mayor. Is the Ashcraft High that carries by five eyes. May I quickly ask if anyone who is an attendee that called in and didn't have video options, if you could raise your hand by pushing Star nine so we can promote you too. But we just didn't see everybody. So we want to make sure nobody we weren't missing anybody. Nobody's raising their hands. So I think we're good.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm not seeing Christine up.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 3: There there is someone that's an open for.
Speaker 1: We'll get well we'll put them in. Great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. And. And Anthony Lewis might be out there.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And Arnold and Jennifer. I'm not sure if you called in. Can you identify yourself just so we can say hello?
Speaker 0: You can go to. Go ahead and meet yourself.
Speaker 2: Hi, this is Anthony Lewis. Sorry about that. I know.
Speaker 0: No worries.
Speaker 2: I knew that accidentally, but thank you. I'm looking forward to being on the Shrub for sure.
Speaker 0: We're delighted to have. Thank you. Thank you. The city of Alameda when that's what a staff.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's. That's us. That's the broadcasters.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Well, let's let's move forward and we'll just get we've got a great crew right here. So.
Speaker 1: Yes. So if. And if you could stand if you're able and raise your right hand. This is kind of the awkward part on Zoom, but we all kind of step backwards. Maybe it helps out. Added you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear you support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of California, and that you'll well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which you're about to enter.
Speaker 0: And then we can oh, they're all muted.
Speaker 1: But I think I saw as I said, I think.
Speaker 0: Yeah, for sure. Thank you. And, um, and again, I just want to thank you so much for, for this commitment to the city. We are all better for the, the time and the effort that you are going to spend on these various boards and commissions. So thank you. And you know what we can do really quick because we just have half a dozen. May I just ask you to just stand mute really quickly and introduce yourself and just a little, little bit about you? April, may I start with you? Is Madison Ramsey.
Speaker 4: Good evening, mayor and council members. I am April Madison Ramsey. I am a practicing attorney. I've been practicing law in the state of California for about 28 years, currently working in-house in the Office of General Counsel at Stanford University.
Speaker 2: I have worked for both.
Speaker 4: The city and county of San Francisco and the City of Oakland as an employment attorney, but most specifically as counsel to the various civil service commissions and boards. And so I was interested and excited about this opportunity to serve the city of Alameda.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. And I'm just going to kind of go down at least on my screens tomorrow. CISNEROS Just say hello and introduce yourself.
Speaker 4: Sure. Getting me mayor and council members really excited to be here and sorry about the other time. But yeah, I've been in the land use and commercial real estate industry in both the public and nonprofit sector in different roles, whether ranging from.
Speaker 1: A big mixed use.
Speaker 4: Development to accessory dwelling units and been a resident of Alameda on and off since 2007. So I'm really excited to contribute back to my community in this role. So thank you all for this chance.
Speaker 0: And thank you, Anthony. Louis, introduce yourself.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Good evening, Mayor and City Councilman. I'm Anthony Lewis. I'm retired. I was a rehabilitation counselor for the state of California for quite a while. Resident of Alameda on and off since 1988. And I'm as I said before, I'm really looking forward to being a part of the shrub. I still volunteer a lot with the Institute on Aging and other senior programs, and my passion is really working with homeless seniors and making sure folks are taken care of as we all get older and making sure we don't get left behind. So thank you so much for this opportunity. And I was became a fan of yours when you told me that you you ride the city bus. I'm always a fan of people who are either 55, so they forget.
Speaker 0: I think I may have seen you in your golden retriever one of those times.
Speaker 2: I'm sure you have.
Speaker 0: A mr. Hosmer treehouse. Maybe we'll go to you next.
Speaker 3: Yes. Good evening, Mayor. City Council. Thanks for the opportunity. My name is Troy Hosmer.
Speaker 2: I retired from.
Speaker 3: The Coast Guard as a senior officer after a 26 year career and decided to make Alameda a home at that point. Currently serve as the.
Speaker 2: Maritime Port Security Director of the Port of Oakland.
Speaker 3: And I appreciate the opportunity to continue serving on the Civil Service Board for a second term. So thank you very much. Happy to be here.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Alison Mullings, welcome.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I want to make sure you can hear me.
Speaker 0: Yeah, just fine.
Speaker 1: It's perfect. Oh, great. So thank you, Mayor, and members of the city council and city staff.
Speaker 4: I'm very excited to be a part of this and join the Council on or the Commission for Persons with Disability, a long time Alameda resident.
Speaker 1: Proud parent of a couple of jets.
Speaker 4: And very dedicated and invested in. Progression in the area of accessibility and inclusion for persons with disability and by way of resumé. I'm an attorney as well.
Speaker 1: And work at Intel and have enjoyed the benefits of.
Speaker 4: Alameda and have been on the forefront of this area. And thank you for the opportunity.
Speaker 0: Thank you for serving jagannath and.
Speaker 4: I didn't think the mayor and council members.
Speaker 1: I'm Jagannathan.
Speaker 4: And I lead an early childhood.
Speaker 1: Collaborative in Oakland and prior to that.
Speaker 4: I worked for the City of Oakland and their Human Services Department on Early Childhood, put their Head Start program as well as the violence prevention programs. And my.
Speaker 1: Family and I moved here.
Speaker 4: About six years ago. I have two children and super excited to be able.
Speaker 1: To serve on this shrub.
Speaker 4: And really want to support the social service needs of our residents in Alameda.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. And so thank you to all of you. Again, we are so grateful for your service and lovely to have you all introduced and sworn in tonight. So take care. Stay safe. We'll see you soon. Thank you. Yes. Right. Okay.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, everyone, for that. Agenda change because we didn't want to keep our appointees waiting too long. So then we go back to the agenda and we move to item five C, which is the consent calendar. Items are routine and will be approved with one motion unless a removal is requested by the council or the public
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Adoption of Resolutions Reappointing Troy Hosmer and Appointing April Madison-Ramsey as Members of the Civil Service Board; Reappointing Arnold Brillinger and Jennifer Linton and Appointing Allison Mullings as Members of the Commission on Persons with Disabilities; and Reappointing Christine Chilcott and Appointing Priya Jagannathan and Anthony Lewis as Members of the Social Service Human Relations Board.
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_10202020_2020-8338
|
Speaker 1: Recommendation to authorize the interim police chief of police in consultation with the city manager to implement pending and future updates to the Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to be curt with best practices and statutory requirements.
Speaker 0: Okay. And who's presenting on this one?
Speaker 1: We're promoting this stuff now. Okay. There's quite a few coming on, so. All right.
Speaker 0: I see Alan Cohen from city attorney's office. I see Brian Foster from PD. I see Captain Jeffrey Emmett from APD. You need a bigger screen. Yeah, this is good. And John Lee from the city attorney's office. And we have the acting interim chief Randy fan. Hi, everyone. Thank you for joining us. Okay. Please feel free to. And you take them themselves, correct, madam Kirk?
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So whoever is taking the lead on this, uh, Mr. Cohen, is that you, Mr. Shin? Okay, we want to keep things moving, so don't make me guess too much. Just stand up or speak out. And the floor is yours.
Speaker 2: Madam Mayor. That's me. Randy Cohen, the interim police chief.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Chief.
Speaker 2: Good evening, mayor and council. In June of this year, Council directed that no change be made to the APD policy manual without bringing the changes before Council for discussion. The Department has a longstanding contract with flexible to create, maintain, update and publish a policy manual for the department. As part of their service. Flexible provides regular updates to policies to their over 8000 client agencies. These updates are a result of their ongoing review of changes to federal law, state law, court case decisions, and changing best practices in the field of public safety. Tonight we present to you 16 policies that have been identified by like support for updating. The reasons for these particular updates vary from grammatical and formatting formatting fixes to compliance with changes in law. The proposed changes were reviewed by department staff. Civil War also forwarded to the City Attorney's Office for additional review. Of note, the use of force policy is included in the 16. The proposed changes reflect the intent of the California Legislature in the passage of separate several recent bills, including Senate Bill 230. Senate Bill 230 created a government code Section 7286. The department is required to comply excuse me to fully comply with Government Code 7286 on January 1st of 2021. These updates proposed tonight will bring us in compliance. Staff is requesting council implement the proposed changes to the 16 policies. Staff is further recommending that I be given the authority to, in consultation with the City Manager, implement further updates as necessary to ensure the Department complies with law, including case law, and follows best practices. It should be noted that staff, including myself, recognizes the council's and the community's concerns as it relates to the change and implementation of department policy. Further, we are committed to working with the City Manager to ensure council is informed before policies that have the potential to significantly impact the community are changed or enacted. Of course, I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Too thin. Anyone else want to add anything either from the department or from the city attorney's office? Okay. So before we go to our public comments, are there any clarifying questions among the council? Councilmember Pelosi, your hand.
Speaker 4: Chief. Ben, thank you for your presentation. I had a couple questions. The state law says that we need to be in compliance by January 1st. Is your understanding that we need to have. It's not just the policy, correct. We actually have to have it implementation ready, meaning that training needs to be updated and everything in order to be in compliance.
Speaker 2: Yes, that is correct. Of course, we have to have the policy, but of course we need to promulgate it as well, which means we have to be able to distribute it and ensure that our staff understands it and is able to follow it by that January 1st deadline.
Speaker 4: And I know that there's a number of different policies, obviously, that need updating. Probably the one that's going to be, or I would assume have the most feedback would be the use of force policy. And my question relative to that is, was there I know I know and appreciate the the citations and the changes on the policy . To your knowledge, is there any changes in terms of the training and techniques that are going to be occurring in conjunction with this policy?
Speaker 2: I can tell you that the department has been engaged in training actually this month discussing the changes to the recent changes from the California legislature, including Senate Bill 230. We've just held off on the actual particulars as they relate to the Alameda Police Department with regard to this policy. So we're waiting, of course, for this to be enacted to to kind of finish that training. But in answer to your question that has been happening, we have been implementing these things, again, as best practices and of course, following the law as necessary.
Speaker 4: That's all my questions for now. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Villa, any other clarifying questions from the council? As I said, you're not quite.
Speaker 5: Thanks. And I sent a couple of these ahead of time, so hopefully you're not surprised. But I'm wondering if we can get a little discussion on first. There are changes to the shooting at moving vehicles. In my understanding. My memory is that in June during the eight can't wait discussion council, not formally but fairly with with consensus said that we did not want to see a shooting at a movie vehicles policy, but the policy that it's coming forward for change actually does allow that. And I'm wondering if we can talk about how how that decision was made within the confines of our previous discussions. And then further, my reading of the policies related to kind of high speed pursuit seems to loosen up the ability in my reading. And I'd like to understand I'm not sure that's the intent, but I'd like to understand how we thought about that. Knowing that high speed pursuits are in urban areas and residential areas like Alameda are not generally a very good idea. It struck me as odd that we are kind of making it easier for officers to make the decision to pursue through our streets at higher speeds.
Speaker 0: To answer your question is with regard to the.
Speaker 5: Like I just like clarification if that was the intent or if that's something that we need to go back and look at.
Speaker 0: And the changes to shooting at moving vehicles policy and high speed pursuits in urban areas.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Chieftain, are you going to take that?
Speaker 2: Yes, ma'am. So starting with the shooting at moving vehicles and let me just start by saying I share your concern about shooting at moving vehicles. Rarely is it an effective police tactic in reviewing. Obviously, I was here in June, but in reviewing the council discussion on the eight can't wait. And this particular issue came up. It was also brought up that unfortunately there's been a bit of a phenomenon worldwide and in a few instances in the United States where vehicles were used as a weapon in terrorist incidents. And so the discussion, as I understand it, was to allow in that rare circumstance, the ability for a police officer to attempt to stop the vehicle as the driver in the vehicle, as the weapon intent on hurting people and killing people. So our our our training, as I understand, from staff, continues to be that this is, again, not an objective tactic in general to get out of the way of moving vehicles. But again, with this narrow application, we do not want to remove the ability and again, Alameda having such as the 4th of July parade in these high profile events where large groups of people gather, giving officers the ability to protect them.
Speaker 0: Sorry. And then the high speed Internet areas that that's somewhat different than shooting at really vehicles, correct? Certainly accidents.
Speaker 2: Yes, ma'am. So that's in reference, of course, to the vehicle pursuit policy, which is also included in the 16. And there were significant language changes mostly to bring us in compliance or rather consistent with the state post peace officer standards and training or governing body for training so that our language was consistent with their language. I talked about it with staff we don't see. I understand how that might give the appearance that somehow we loosened the rules. We don't believe that we've loosened the rules. In fact, that we believe we continue to have a very narrow policy. There has to be some room for discretion, for supervisor intervention, of course. But as a general rule, we don't we don't pursue and we would prefer not to have pursuits here in Alameda. So if, again, we believe that the language is consistent and has not changed the standard that we hold our officers to, but we're willing, of course, to have a further discussion.
Speaker 0: Alex. Thank you, Chief. And was that all for you this year?
Speaker 5: That was for now.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Kelso Brody.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I have a question regarding 468, which was the First Amendment related. What? We'll see. And then it's in for 68.7 and a page five. I noticed there was a discussion about oleo resin capsaicin, which is pepper spray. I thought I recall that the council gave a direction that if we were ever called for mutual aid, that our officers would not be the people using pepper spray against residents or in demonstrations in other cities. Is that is that something we can put in here? I personally don't like pepper spray at all, but we didn't give direction on using it in Alameda. I'm afraid on this one because I was a government official before.
Speaker 0: And these are clarifying questions now about this, Jeff, before we will get into discussion, deliberation. But your question, Counselor Brody, is.
Speaker 2: Why didn't we not or we aware that we had that discussion? In a way, is it not in there?
Speaker 0: Yes, I recall tear gas. Did we also. I'd have to look back at meeting notes.
Speaker 2: Okay. And then the second question was. The next paragraph. You know, it kind of goes into some discussion about demonstrations and some people being innocent and some people that. Becoming violent and, you know, treating people differently. Is there a reason why that was taken out? And if so, are we still going to have some type of way to make sure that, you know, protesters that are not violent are not targeted? Yes. So my understanding is that those elements are covered elsewhere. And certainly we would not use force against nonviolent protesters because they would not we would not legally be allowed to use force on those who are not breaking the law or otherwise. Falling under that definition. Okay. Well, thanks for those clarifications. I'm finished with my.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember, decide anything from you. Okay. I think I got everybody right. Okay. So no further council clarification questions. Now, how many public speakers do we have?
Speaker 1: If I could just ask the members of the public to at least raise their hands now, because so far we only have two. And I know more people indicated that they were planning on speaking, so. Sure. Um, so looks like we're up to just four. Okay. I guess it's just four. So they do get 3 minutes each?
Speaker 0: Yes, exactly. That's what I would say. As long as we have less than six speakers or six or less read, if you get 3 minutes each. So let's get started at Genesee. Evening, Denise.
Speaker 4: Hi. Yes, Janice. Thank you all for being here this evening. Haven't seen you guys in a while. It's nice to be here. After the hours of public comment regarding racism as a public health crisis, we were told that the process needed to be altered to here to wait for the findings of the recently formed committees. Now we're finding the police policies are coming up. Without that committee's findings, a lot of people have an issue with the way those committees were formed. People on both sides of the policing issue. And yet here we are with another kind of secretive agenda. As far as the best practices being adopted. I feel very strongly that chokeholds should be banned without exception. Other cities have or plan to ban both chokeholds and strangle holds, and I believe Alameda should join them as currently written. None of these best practices come even close to the eight count items, several which several of you touted after the Watkins incident. And while I think it cannot wait, it doesn't demand enough. It is the bare minimum that our city should aim for. All of this talk about training officers for better use of force. If training is so effective, then they can be trained to not use chokeholds and strangle holds and. Regarding the vehicles used as a weapon. I'm just curious. We've seen that used primarily recently in attacks from white supremacists against protesters. And I'm just I know we can't ask questions or get questions answered, but I'm really curious about the stats on how many of those incidents have been stopped by a police officer shooting out of a moving vehicle. That's all I have for this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Jay Garfinkle.
Speaker 0: Is regarding.
Speaker 2: Well, again, I wouldn't want to second what this previous speaker said about these policies going by the committee that was specifically set up for this function. If there are issues that we're required to do by law, then I would think that those could be put into effect if that's what's necessary. I also want to expand, Councilman, his point about if we are participating in a shared activity with another community, how are we going to react? On any of these issues, whether we are in the other community or whether the other community is assisting us. I remember a few years ago, I think it was a deputy sheriff engaged in a high speed chase through Alameda that ended up with somebody going to the hospital. When I address it to the police chief at that time, there was really no comment.
Speaker 3: The previous police chief.
Speaker 2: There was no comment. So I want to know how we. We'll be interacting with the Sheriff's Oakland Police Highway Patrol when they get to our border. Do they have to slow down and drive safely or can they continue on a high speed chase if that's what their policies allowed?
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. garcia, and our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Savannah, cheer is cheer.
Speaker 0: Good evening. I. Can you hear me? Yes.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. Thanks for having me on tonight. Just want to make two quick points which have kind of been made by the previous two speakers. But the timing on this seems pretty bad. You created a subcommittee to review this specific issue. So making changes now kind of in front of whatever recommendations they have is just a pretty bad look. Obviously, it totally negates any work that they might have done on these specific policy points. And if you have this I think I heard a January deadline or something, it doesn't seem like now would be the necessary time to do this, that it could certainly be taken up at a later date when you've already incorporated the recommendation and actions taken by those subcommittees. And then the second point I have is just regarding the use of force specifically. So while I understand that you might have to come in line with state law, it seems like just doing the bare minimum to meet that law isn't really what a lot of the residents of Alameda have been asking. They're looking at a more specific and a much more protective role that those particular policies might take for people. And it doesn't seem like just kind of meeting that basic law standard would do it again. What you said about chokeholds and stranglehold seems like an obvious choice. And you know that not being in here is disappointing, obviously. And last just to say that. You know, none of these changes really go far enough in protecting people from police violence. And that's something that clearly the council felt was an important topic to take up by creating those subcommittees. And so I think it's really important that you wait on this and take the time to make sure that all those voices are being heard, that we're working so hard on it and and not just kind of push this through, it's extra troubling that it was just going to be a consent item where no one would even get a chance to see it or say it. And certainly if some of us had not pointed that out to the community, you know, this wouldn't have come up. So that is all I have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Alexia Arogya.
Speaker 0: Let Mr. Roger.
Speaker 4: Hi, everyone. Thank you all for being here. My name is Alexia Roach and I've been a resident in Alameda for years with my family. I have several concerns about this similar to the previous speakers. I feel that moving forward with anything regarding the Alameda Police Department while the subcommittees are still meeting feels a bit contradictory to that process. Granted, I had and still have many concerns about that process, but there's been so much emphasis on it. I feel actions should pause until recommendations come out. Aside from that and being aware of legislative changes, I still fear. I feel there is lots more that councilmembers could enable our police department to do or better yet, to not do. These policy changes enable a great amount of discretion, which I find to be problematic. Language should be clear. Campaign zero has several policies that could be looked at and analyzed instead of just going with flexible. The ACLU has repeatedly actually criticized lexical and how problematic they are and how fault their faulty policies have actually exposed police departments to costly lawsuits. To quote, Lexical is described as a private for profit company that sells boilerplate policies to public safety agencies. Personally, that's not who I want ensuring policies that affect our local community. It was just mention that these aren't acquired until January. And though I hear it being said that people need to learn how to follow these, I don't really understand how any of these are so complicated that it would take several months to learn these changes. I also want to respond to the comment about the supposed phenomenon of vehicles being used as a weapon. These vehicles have predominantly been used by white supremacists and sometimes even the police themselves. So I don't believe this is actually relevant to Alameda. And I think in Alameda we can actually do a lot better and more people should be heard before any sort of decision is made on this topic. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Roach. Your next speaker.
Speaker 1: That was our last speaker. We have no other speaker.
Speaker 0: No more handset. Okay. Correct. So with that, I'm going to close have a comment on item five D and I want to start out with an explanation and an apology. When we did the agenda meeting a couple few weeks ago for tonight's meeting, I, I did ask about why this item was coming back to us and why it was on consent. And what was explained to me, and I think it is mostly correct, is that these were required policy changes required by law. There was an imminent deadline, and that's why we were doing this with the benefit of 2020 hindsight in reading the staff report, because when we do our agenda meetings to place things where they go on the agenda, we don't have finished staff reports, but with 2020 hindsight, I would have put it on the regular calendar. It is not a matter of trying to sneak something by because the public does as was demonstrated. Get the agenda. We have a 12 day lead time for agendas coming out before a meeting and they do. They immediately start communicating with us. And so this was one that was sure to be pulled, if not by members of the public, by members of the council. But in a perfect world, it would have just sat on the the regular item that here we are this evening. And so what I would like a couple of questions answered by whomever, maybe the city attorney's office or the city manager, because our speakers and granted, it's not Q&A, but I have the same questions many of you had about how should we have this process in place. We've got some very hard working community members. We've got a really impressive bunch of community members, and they're putting in a lot of time and effort on all kinds of things in addition to our boards and commissions. But so this process is moving forward. We've got the five subcommittees. One of them happens to be police policies and procedures. So how does how does that mesh? How does that coexist with what we're doing tonight? So city manager or city attorney can, can you help the public and the council understand that? Mr..
Speaker 3: Yeah, I can start. So there were several actions by the City Council back in June and July. One of them was as laws became implemented at the state level or other issues, they became, to our knowledge, especially legislative issues, that we could bring back these policy changes to the Council like we did tonight, to have approval through the city council, which is so unique because typically city councils don't approve these policies, but they would come back through the city council and which we did tonight. Most of these actually do define narrower or restrict more. Most of these policies in the direction that the city council was talking about. They may not go as far as people want them to, but they go in that direction. And then this police department is actually giving multiple presentations to those subcommittees in November, and those subcommittees will be able to go through those. And many of these policies could actually come back through the subcommittees and actually be enhanced even further from where they are. So I saw these policies as actually moving in the same direction. They may not move as far as you want them to, but they definitely move in that way. And they definitely bring us in compliance with state law because also in June and July, the state made several passed legislation on policing in a variety of ways. And these are the laws that are coming out of that that need to be implemented by January.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Levitt. Council and City Attorney's Office. Did you want to add anything, Mr. Cohen or Mr. Chairman?
Speaker 2: I mean, I would have to look at the managers.
Speaker 0: Well, it might be too strong a word, but go with it.
Speaker 2: We have. We have nothing that.
Speaker 0: Is that? Is that a consensus?
Speaker 3: I thought they even had something.
Speaker 0: I did too.
Speaker 2: No, I said that. I have nothing to add to the city manager's presentation.
Speaker 0: All right, that's fine. Thank you. So council members council voted is your handicap.
Speaker 2: Okay, I just had a question looking at these again. And 402. Know, we took out immigration status. Has something that was inappropriate. I mean, it is. Was that fixed somewhere else or. Because we added the words actual the perceived characteristics. But then we took out immigration status.
Speaker 0: And Councilmember Odie, are you referring to a specific app.
Speaker 2: Or to dash one of the definitions of of bias based policing.
Speaker 0: Okay. If we're to exhibit 13, you are correct.
Speaker 2: Well, it's policy tomorrow, too. Yeah, that would be. October 13th, right?
Speaker 0: Yeah. And so far, 2.2 million.
Speaker 2: 11.1 year.
Speaker 0: Or two. Yeah. Definitions. Okay.
Speaker 2: Okay. Answers it.
Speaker 0: Okay. And so you're saying why did immigration status. Why is that window?
Speaker 2: Well, we know why that lined out. And are we somehow accounting for that protection somewhere else?
Speaker 0: Okay. Who would like to answer that? Hi. Did your foster. Tell me. Tell me your rank. I like to be accurate when they refer to you for my me. Your rank.
Speaker 2: I'm a lieutenant.
Speaker 0: Lieutenant. Lieutenant Foster, please.
Speaker 5: Yes. So that is one of the policies that was changed to bring protected.
Speaker 2: Class language in line with the remainder of the policies. I believe immigration status isn't listed under California law as one of the protected classes, and it falls under those that might be discriminated against for immigration status fall under protection from various other methods of protected class.
Speaker 0: And is there language in these policies that does accord protection based on immigration status?
Speaker 5: Not in immigration status.
Speaker 2: In and of itself, no. But race or sexual orientation, etc., is all covered in there, which I believe based on the way protected class language is across. The entire policy manual was was deemed to be consistent and redundant. I mean, are we required to to.
Speaker 0: Revise.
Speaker 2: That is to make it consistent?
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, could you repeat that when.
Speaker 2: You say.
Speaker 0: So? You're asking through the curiosity, Lieutenant, what would happen? Or the lawyers maybe, or the lieutenant asking.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter to me who answers.
Speaker 0: You know what? What could could the immigration status language be left in there?
Speaker 3: Let me just interject for Madame Mayor, if it's okay. I'll just I'll just have to. There are policies within the APD policy manual related to taking action, related to not taking action against someone based upon their immigration status. None of those policies, with the exception of bias, which which we haven't yet reviewed, but none of the remainder of the policies related to immigration status are before the council tonight. But but I do know, having read most of the policy manual, that that there are several provisions related to not taking action based upon someone's immigration status . And that I had reviewed some of those policies to make sure that they were consistent overall with the city's sanctuary resolution, which adopted several years ago, and that they are consistent with the sanctuary resolution.
Speaker 0: And I question that. I would just interject for you, Mr. Cohen, and actually, Councilmember, really see what you think the the language in for 2.1.1 charts that an inappropriate reliance on actual or perceived characteristics. And I'm not sure what the actual or perceived characteristic would be that gave someone's immigration status away. I could be really facetious and say maybe children in cages, but I probably shouldn't go there. But I mean, if someone were walking down the street, it's because when you look at the other enumerated characteristics and notwithstanding, as Lieutenant Foster told us, that these are actually part of law, they are things like race, ethnicity, national origin, religion , sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, etc., etc.. But I think your concern is is deeper than that. Is that correct? Councilman Brody?
Speaker 2: My concern is why this is being taken out. And if it's not required to be taken out, I'd prefer that it stay in there. I mean, we. We all know who people target when they when they go after people that they think are undocumented. I mean, you just have to go on Twitter or listen to a Trump rally and you'll know who people are targeting. So I don't know if I would I would go so far as to say you can't have an actual perceived immigration status when a lot of the targeting is being done or they think people are coming from or what language they speak.
Speaker 0: The city manager, I think, wants to come in one day.
Speaker 3: One thing you could do on a policy like this is just defer, take this policy and defer it to later action and have it be researched and come back to the council at a later meeting in November. I mean, that would be an option if you want to do that.
Speaker 0: And hold that thought. Counsel And the other thing I wanted to raise with Mr. Levitt, because he is overseeing the subcommittee process, is, is there a means by which the subcommittee, specifically the Subcommittee on Police Policies and procedures, would have a chance to review and comment on at least some? I understand the experience of provisions that are required to be in place with training and everything else by January 1st. But for those that might have a little more flexibility, is there a way to bring this to that subcommittee?
Speaker 3: We can definitely. Like I said, we are having multiple presentations to them in November and we could definitely on the policies you want, have those. Go to them and see if we can get that through their process before before the end of the year.
Speaker 0: Let's see what the council thinks must be voted. Another question off the floor. Yes. No, please.
Speaker 2: So and then in the use of force, I think it's going to be a little more discussion on this. You know, there's a there was a comment from the audience or the public that we took it away, chokeholds from gathering evidence, but left it in there. I mean, a can you comment on that? And then you can kind of describe more what these pain compliance techniques are because it's, you know, those are are allowed for the public's benefit in.
Speaker 0: Who wants to take that? You can.
Speaker 2: Sure. I'll start. Yes. So the governor with signing the law in September and I'm sorry the assembly bill escapes me. He banned the use of carotid restraints and neck restraints. So that's why it's been removed from policy, because it's against the law. So that's why it's not even covered. And then in terms of. Living in some language that allows us to prevent someone from trying to swallow contraband. There is a notion as well as protecting people from ingesting something that may harm them. And I will let Lieutenant Foster speak to the techniques and all that are employed by the police department. Four Train together.
Speaker 0: Lieutenant Fortune. Then we'll go to your accounts from every other council. Somebody does still have the floor. But if you have a question.
Speaker 2: I'm done with questions. I'll let you have my time after this answer and then come back to me.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, Lieutenant Foster, if you could in mute.
Speaker 2: Sure thing.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Just by way of background, I'm.
Speaker 2: In charge of our use of force defensive tactics program here at the police department. The Pink Point's techniques you're speaking of are techniques we teach our officers to cause momentary discomfort in an individual without having to resort to strikes, punches, kicks, other, you know, use of force tools. And these pink plan techniques allow them to cause momentary discomfort to distract or to encourage compliance and getting in a police car walking direction they need to walk, etc., without substantial risk of causing injury to the subject. It's merely discomfort. So it's they're important techniques we can use that are a lower level of force that still accomplish our goal of gaining control and compliance in an arrest.
Speaker 0: Hey. Thank you. Councilmember. Glad you had your hand up.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's AB 392. It was a labor bill that went through this past year. And then which has to do with use of force and use of deadly force, I think is is there were two there were two bills that essentially went through. Relative to the carotid hold. And I guess I have a couple of questions because it seems like we're we're spending there's a lot of policies here. But to the mayor's earlier question, there are a handful of policies that I think are possibly more there's going to be a more in-depth conversation that's needed and more review. So I'm wondering, you know, is there a way to kind of prioritize these? Some of them there's very minute minimal changes, literally references to statutory law that's changed, things like that. Those seem to be more ministerial in terms of the changes that are occurring and not substantive. But I do think that there are a few policies where getting getting it prioritized. I think for the the committees are these community led groups. And I think letting them know about what the timeline is so that they can prioritize them as well would be helpful. I am wary of the fact that it's not just that you have to have the written policy in place by January one, it's that you actually have to have things trained. So what does that mean? That that means not just that you're reviewing the policies, but that you're actually going for training and saying, Hey, we taught you all of these things before, but now you need to remove them from your repertoire and understand that this is the assessment in the continuum, and that's much more difficult to do and to get people scheduled because you can't just bring every officer in at the same time to do that training. And then the tactics training needs to be reviewed up through chain of command and in compliance with everything. Plus, I believe there's going to be some Nazi updates as well. Do we are we part of that is my other question in terms of it seems like some of the posts for.
Speaker 0: The public, including the mayor and well, so the acronym stands for.
Speaker 4: I don't want to get it wrong, but it's it's essentially the standardized training and related to also onboarding. We're also going have to update our post training, correct. My understanding is there's going to be some updates to that as well in terms of like academy trainings and everything else. Do we? Because we send people out to train to get trained elsewhere. Correct. For some of these things, we do the tactics training in-house, but then for for some of the other training, we we contract. Correct.
Speaker 0: Anybody wants to end this film?
Speaker 2: Sure. So we send, of course, trainees out to go to the basic police academy and we use generally one of three. And so they all have to be in compliance. I'm not sure what their exact timelines are, but of course they are under the mandate to comply with, for instance, 10:00, 230 as well by January 1st.
Speaker 4: Right. But but the other issue is that if our policy is more or beyond that, how do we address that issue?
Speaker 2: When they graduate from the police academy, they come here for two weeks of in-house. Me before going out into the field to basic academy training and then get up to speed with our policies and procedures here.
Speaker 4: Right. And so my concern is that essentially with with new trainees, we also have to factor that in relative to the training and the updates, which is going to be on a different schedule. So I'm just I'm wondering, like working with that timeline and understanding that potentially some of these policies may have to be maybe there's going to be some level of input now from these community committees, but that there could be more input later. Might end up being the reality because of the just because of the logistics involved with training. One comment that I had in terms of the use of force policy, some policies that I've seen have noted that the use of carotid holds is banned based off of state law. Whether that's a footnote or a side note or something in there that might be helpful or some definitions, because I think some of the questions that you're getting tonight are around basically explaining like what what different terms mean. And so there might be, you know, it might be helpful to have some like a definition section that outlines or references for crossover cross references, some of the training tactics. Just to give a little bit of a definition, I think Lieutenant Foster gives a good explanation to Councilmember Otis question, for instance. And I think also noting that the carotid holds are banned under state law and also obviously banned by the department might be helpful to alleviate any confusion with the public in terms of the policy about the the pursuit of vehicles. I we had a long conversation about that, but that also predated our conversation and our vote on the community led subcommittees. So I, I, I feel like we gave a lot of direction, but then we also gave direction about going to these community led committees. So I'm, I'm fine kind of flagging or having these go to the community led committees to the mayor's question earlier so that there could be some input. But I think we need to let them know what the timeline is and help them prioritize because they might not be aware of that.
Speaker 0: Of being Councilmember Bella. Okay.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: His next council. And by the way, just as a reminder, I mean, I know the council knows this, but just to make sure that the public nurses to the subcommittees have been meeting and will continue to meet, I think we're going to get an update maybe next month from the city manager about the process, how it's going . And when they come back to us, which we anticipate being, I believe, early next year with recommendations to the Council for council is still going to make their their final decisions. But we're going to make informed decisions with all this information. So Councilmember Desert question your next why we haven't heard from you. Councilmember Jason. You know what? I think you need to add yet another layer.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. It seems as though for me, the practical consideration is to move forward with staff's recommendation with regard to incorporating the policies that the state has adopted. So our state legislators, as they always do from year to year, adopt a range of policies and procedures with regard to policing that we would presume are, you know , best in class when it comes to policing. So it seems to me that we here in Alameda should move forward in adopting those changes. There there are already state law. So we should put them in our in our books, so to speak. And I think that's what the whole point of the 16, 16 items that are before us tonight, if there are issues or concerns by residents with regard to improving the or any of the 16 items, including, for example, use of forests, either improving it or clarifying it, I don't see how that whole.
Speaker 3: Should hold up.
Speaker 6: Adopting the 16 items tonight, because the 16 items are, at a minimum, their their state law. And so if we want to make them even better through the input of the residents working with the city manager, you know, we can certainly do that. But but I think it would be best to adopt the items tonight, put them in our books so that our staff, the people who train our folks and the people and if they have to interact with people from outside of the city of Alameda, they have ample time between now and, say, December 31st, 2020, because, quite frankly , January one, 2021 is just around the corner. So from a practical consideration, it seems as though we should begin the process of adopting and implementing the 16 items that are before us tonight and on a parallel track, be open to improving some of those with the input from the residents so that everything is ready to go by December 31st, 2020 or January 1st, 2021. My concern, though, is that if we hold off until I don't know what date, you know, November 10th, 2020, you know, that closes that window for our men and women to be best prepared as possible come January 1st, 2021. So I would I would like for the city of Alameda to move forward, recognizing that we can improve the items before us with further input. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember They said first mayor and that's politics. So you hand it back.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. I what I agree with Councilmember de song in some ways, but I but I mean, I'm struggling around the policy number three because I think that there are some things the state has required us to do know that are now illegal and need to be cleaned up. But I do also believe that, you know, I'm not unfortunately, the way in which it is presented is very difficult to tell what has changed and what has not in some of these policies. You literally have to go and read sentence by sentence to find out what has been changed. So my druthers tonight, I think, would be that if there is an easy way to point out the things that need to that are going to change our training, and my understanding is our training already says you can't use chokeholds. I believe that was a talking point of our of our chief back in June and May when these conversations going. So it doesn't actually say if chokeholds are already banned, then changing the policy can happen pretty quickly because the training is already telling people that they can't do it. It doesn't sound like a training change. So I'm wondering if there's a way to bring back those things that need to be made before because of state law changes at our next meeting. And it can be on consent because they are legally required changes, but that we can take that back to the mayor and others recommendations that we would actually engage the community policy groups and in the discussion further before making some of these changes. I want to reflect just a few things because I have a couple of specific comments as well, the staff report. I think it's always important for us to step back and think about kind of the system in the in the ecosystem that we are in. When I hear that a company is providing us policies that it provides for 8000 cities, what that tells me is the policies we have in our city are the same policies that all the cities across our country are using that we are really talking about as being problematic and unclear. And so I actually I disagree with the comment. I believe it was city manager's comment that that somehow this was it's different. You know, I mean, it is different perhaps that we're asking to have a discussion about policy changes, but I don't think it's problematic. I think this is a healthy conversation. You know, for the most part, I'm going to support a good, meaningful policy that's going to keep our officers safe and keep our community safe as well. But I'm not going to support just making policy changes willy nilly. I think that, you know, small, minor tactical changes. I'm happy to move almost all of, you know, probably 14 of these. I'm happy to move forward tonight because they are really just small changes that are really not changing the policy themselves. In fact, I wouldn't even say they are policy changes. They're changes to the text of the policy, but not meaningful actual changes in the way we institute implement the policy. So I will not be supporting a recommendation tonight to to remove our direction. That policy change should come to the Council first. At the end of the day, it's the only way that we can ensure that our community has the opportunity to know what the policy changes are, to give input on it if they have problems, and just to make sure that there's a conversation, I don't think that's controversial in any way and it concerns me when I hear that somehow that's problematic. That openness and discussion about the policies in which we we do this around planning, we do this around public works. Our policies are often brought before the Council for discussion and change. So for me, policy number three is the place I would focus. I think that there are some places that we need to change the language because of the carotid chokehold. Quite honestly, I can't tell you what that language is. That that that I would agree moving forward just because we do need to make that change. I don't like that in the vehicle pursuit policy that we're calling for. You know, we're really calling out school zones as an example of a pedestrian zone in Alameda. All our neighborhoods are pedestrian zones. We are a pedestrian city. I don't think we need to specifically say that there are special places in Alameda we're driving fast. Needs to be a concern. I would like when this comes back at some point in time to have a conversation about why we are saying that the speed limit in the speeds of the vehicles are no longer shall be considered but should be considered. Again, I think, you know, one of the things that we have as we talk about accountability is that every time we loosen up and give more and more discretion, courts make it more and more difficult for us to to hold a behavior that is unacceptable accountable. And so I think that there are some places where in a community like Alameda, we don't want people driving really, really fast. And, you know, I do think that there is some flexibility that should be given, but I think that it should be very tight. And I think that there should be a real concerted decision that's made. When that conversation is going. You know, additionally, we heard multiple people or or community who came in and talked about this. Our city has communications channels and I'm really unclear why it's not being used to broadcast and discuss the fact that these policy changes are coming forward. There was a blog post today that identified that for the first time our our city communications channel seemed to be spending more time talking about the fact that crimes are happening with no information that the community can act on in less time. Actually giving them information on what the city is doing about crime and less time on what the city is doing on steps they can take to help us address crime after the fact. If a crime it's happened is not a very useful thing to do, and it is very telling to me that that started in June. The same period last year, 11% of our social media posts were about crimes that had happened since June this year. 60% have been about that. It's no wonder people think that crime is rampant. So let's get back to being reasonable and talking to our community and having conversations. And I think one place that we can start is making sure that when we are making policy changes around vehicles, around shooting of vehicles, around removing chokeholds and whatnot, that we're engaging people in that conversation and bringing them into the conversation so that they can participate into a little bit further. So I will support what it sounds like, at least from the mayor and from us as he, Ashcraft and Councilmember Vela were suggesting, is sending much or most of us to the to the committees for further refinement. I'll be looking for that. And like I said, I personally would appreciate it if if there is a motion to remove council for review and approval. I would appreciate if we could by four get those two votes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And just for clarification, since I was referenced in your remarks, Vice Mayor, I, I will want to have probably the city attorney's office in whichever member or members of the police department just help us go through item by item, because there are certain ones that really are time critical and have a date and we need to be compliant with state law. I think you agree with that. I know I could see our city manager. Mr. Levitt, you wanted to speak to did you run it?
Speaker 2: Oh, I.
Speaker 3: Was just going to clarify two things. One is the main thing I was going to clarify at this point, I guess, is that we brought all of the changes that we were doing to the policies. So I would agree with the vice mayor that some of them probably would not be defined as policy changes, but they are changes in the policy manual. And so to be transparent, we brought them all forward to the council.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember o.T.
Speaker 2: Thank you. One quick clarification. I think the state reports that there were 16, but I kind of 15. There's fiscal 15. 15. Okay, good. So when I looked at these, there were four, eight, nine, ten. I mean, ten. I think we're ministerial. I would probably put jewelry also as ministerial. And then there were four others that were, you know what I would say, non-ministerial. Like 300 about use of force, in my opinion, for oh two taking out immigration, because all of the other policies that quote unquote conformed with the state definition of protected class didn't have immigration status taken out. You know, it just rearranged some words. You know, the First Amendment one I think means a little more community discussion and then, of course, to be able to pursue it. So, I mean, I'm fine with, you know, moving forward, these ministerial ones, which you can correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but that's 102 2338. 1059 804 343 2328 1000 1002 And you know, 1044 you know, there's a lot of a lot of, you know, changes that still looks ministerial to me. And I don't know if that really impacts people.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry to interrupt you, Councilor, over that was just a little bit slower.
Speaker 2: Okay. Again, these are my interpretations of ministerial. Others may have different opinion. 100 220. 338. 1059 Sorry to jump.
Speaker 0: 804 That's when you get more accurate.
Speaker 2: 338 1059 804 1803 40.
Speaker 0: Three 2340. I really do go back and forth.
Speaker 2: Sorry. 328. 1000. 1000 to and 1044. I mean, arguably four to his ministerial if you didn't take immigration status out. But I have a problem taking immigration status now. So.
Speaker 0: So what? That leaves. Am I, if I'm reading this correctly, is policies number 303.
Speaker 4: 4404.
Speaker 0: 68 and 042 because of the immigration base.
Speaker 2: And that's my personal issue. And as far as going forward. I think we did decide that we wanted to have these come to the council to review. I mean, the ministerial ones are really not interested in having a full blown regular agenda item on they could either be put on consent or, you know, delivered in some other form of communication. But, you know, these are at least three of these four, you know, deal with the issues that we've been wrestling with for, you know, four or five months now, the use of force and protesting against First Amendment and, you know, vehicle pursuits. So I'd like to see and I think the mayor talked about it and others of my colleagues, if we have to pass something to comply with state law, let's pass it. But for the most part on these, I think they need to go to these committees that we set up and that we delegated this responsibility and we're trusting to evaluate them. So I'm not really interested in short circuiting in that process, but if we have to do something now to comply, let's do it. But with the knowledge that these committees are going to look at these these these policies in particular and make them better. So that's kind of where I stand.
Speaker 0: In council, really. I agree with you on both points that you raised. I do think we need to move forward to comply with law. And I also think that we need to bring some of these more controversial ones, if you will, to the subcommittees. I don't think they're mutually exclusive propositions. We I think we need to keep some things moving forward to be compliant with state law. And then, I mean, we will always need to be compliant with state law, but I think we can get a little more individualized tailoring perhaps for this community within our ability to do so. Councilmember Dela.
Speaker 4: Yeah. And notwithstanding the changes required by state law, the committees have asked for significant amount of data and are reviewing the policies, is my understanding. So even if we did approve something, they're subject to the review or an input by the committees. It is what I've been led to believe.
Speaker 0: That's why energy. Is that correct, Mr. Levitt?
Speaker 3: Yeah, no. I would agree that they are reviewing different things and they could definitely review any of these that you would approve. Yes.
Speaker 4: So my other question is, have they been made aware about the the timeline for changes when they had their first meetings? And were they do they know that these proposals or were they alerted that these proposals were put on our agenda?
Speaker 3: I did tell the steering committee that we were coming forward with some of these basic changes based on the state law. I was not at the last step, at the last meetings where they had with the various committees, because it was scheduled during a city council meeting. So I couldn't be there. So I couldn't say whether that was communicated. Again, any of these changes could be go back to them. Our policy manuals, approximately between 708 hundred pages. I think, you know, in other organizations I've been in just in a thorough review of policies with a team of attorneys and people out of the police department. I've seen those reviews go somewhere in the neighborhood of a year and a half to two years before you get to a conclusion, and that's with experts in the field. So so I think they need to follow course on different policies. And I think what you're doing here is the same type of focus they should be doing to.
Speaker 0: And can somebody.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was going to make a motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. Could I just make a comment really quickly?
Speaker 2: Of course.
Speaker 0: What I was going to say is, I think I heard the vice mayor suggest that we get some of these quickly to the policy committees and come back on November 7th, the next meeting. I don't think that's really practical for this reason that the short turnaround time for this staff report to go out. So you stop and think of getting some substantive material to subcommittees. They need to convene me, review it, get it back to staff. And I don't think that it works to come back to us on the seventh, but I, I think there may be a solution. I don't want to speak for other people, but that may satisfy all of our our concerns. Back to you, Councilmember. Oh.
Speaker 2: Well, let's try this. And if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. So I'd like to move, first of all, approval of the one, two, three, four, three, the 11 ones that I thought were ministerial. If someone else has a disagreement, they could they could adjust that. I'd like to move approval of 402 without striking immigration status from the policy and then with approval of 300 468 and 314, but also refer those as high priority items for the Task Force Less Community Committee with a note that we want to see an amendment to 300, whether it's a footnote or some other item, noting that the state ban the chokeholds and then. Yeah, but the. I'm open to any other suggestions specifically, but I really don't want to get too much into the weeds on telling the committee committee what to do and those other three.
Speaker 0: But essentially you were moving them all forward, some with caveats.
Speaker 2: Yeah, moving forward for 40402 striking immigration status and the other three, you know, moving forward also, but doing it in a way that we give them to the committee right away and say these are three that were approved. We want you to weigh in on these in a kind of urgent basis, but also with some direction that on 300, which is the use of force we do when it comes from the rebels suggested and note that even though these things are not listed in there, they were banned. Just so the public understands that they're banned, whether it's a footnote or whether it's not in the policy or whatever, it doesn't matter to me.
Speaker 0: And I have a question for stab it for the city attorney's office. So are you all working or at least consulting with the subcommittees so that if they come up with suggestions for modifications or additions, modifications to policies that they would pass legal muster.
Speaker 2: We we'd be happy to work with the subcommittee and our colleagues to provide our legal advice at all levels, whether it's with our colleagues on the staff level, with the committees and with the council.
Speaker 0: Thank you. City attorney Shane Katz everyday. Thank. And at that other microphone Tony.
Speaker 6: Just a question to clarify the motion on the floor. And the question is, are would we, in effect, move all 15? Although in the text it says 16. But would we, in effect, move all of the policy changes, both ministerial and the more substantive ones? Is that is that at a minimum, what's on the floor?
Speaker 0: Maker of the motion.
Speaker 2: Everything would be as is with the exception of not striking immigration status from 402 and putting some some note in 300 about what the state banned. Oh, okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Did you want a second? Okay, I don't want a second. And then count my marriage next. Right.
Speaker 5: I will second the motion.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further discussion?
Speaker 5: Can I can I ask that? I just I would like to cancel my permit. I would like the motion to include just the caveat because I we had comment about that chokeholds and we know that we're moving some some things forward because we have to. But there was interest in going forward that this is not the end, this is just a step. But that that doesn't mean that we will not be taking future action as it relates to it. Can't wait and whatnot. As well.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Like that.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Right. Yeah. And as I noted earlier, the council will take action once we've heard from our subcommittees on a number of things. Yeah. Okay, great. All right. So we have a motion by Councilmember Odie. It's been circulated by Vice Mayor Knox White. Any further discussion from our police and legal folks? Anything you want to add?
Speaker 2: No, thank you. No, thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. All right, madam, may we have a new. Excuse me? A roll call, please?
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Knox White.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Odie.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Isabella. I may or as he Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: All right. I want to thank everyone involved with this matter, all the members of the police department, city attorney's office, city manager Levitt, the Council of our Public Speakers. Thank you. I will you know, I will say we are learning as we go. And I think that I do think we are communicating more, but we can always do better and we're going to move forward. So thank you all for your time and attention to these important matters. All right. With that, let's see. There was one other closed calendar item we pulled.
Speaker 3: By.
Speaker 0: J5j.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Madam President. Five J.
Speaker 1: C recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with Res Electric for the signal installation at Harbor Bay Parkway. North and South Loop Road and Harbor Bay Parkway and Penumbra Place and South Apron in an amount not to exceed 280,894. Total expenditure of 873,690. An adoption of related resolution.
Speaker 0: Okay. Council Member Did you want to have a report on this or did you just want to know?
Speaker 6: I have more quest questions that are kind of comments, but question the issue at the same time. Go ahead. Okay. So my my my question is, just because I wasn't I wasn't sure in terms of the email response that I got. Now, did we spend $592,800 and then realize that we need to get 280,890 more? Or had we not yet spent the initial 592,800 and still realize that we need $280,000 more? Because I'm asking this question, because it seems to me is that if we spent 589,000. $592,800 and then realized, oh, my gosh, we have to do 280,000 more. And I would have a kind of a problem with that because it would kind of speak to did we really carefully scope out what the what the issues were with regard to this this project? So that's the first thing. The second thing is I will pay for it with the second thing in law, if we had not spent the $592,800 yet and still realize that we need 200 anymore, if if it's this situation, it seems to me, should we not put it out to rebidding? So anyways, that's those are my questions.
Speaker 0: And those are good questions. I had some of the same questions that I asked earlier, and I see that we have our city engineer, Scott Wickstrom on the screen. But City Manager Eric Leavitt, did you want to speak?
Speaker 3: Yeah. I'll just say real quick. Yes, it's I believe it was a 592 and that there were these issues which are outlined in the staff report, which Scott can definitely go into that created that we needed. We have had an excess on the project of 280,000 that we needed additional 280,000. It was not when the project started. It was as the project was ending that this occurred, this project one over time. I think this project was initially approved back in 2019. So Scott, if you could outline some of the issues that it faced that created this need that be great.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 2: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, Scott Wickstrom, city engineer. Just a brief outline. And it was it's kind of halfway between your two options. Councilmember design. We got the project started, and shortly after we got out there and started drilling the foundations, we realized that we had some problems with some some some sand that were not characterized properly in our initial evaluation. And so we ended up spending a significant more amount of money on the foundations. Now that's after all the polls and all the equipment's already been ordered, a lot of that stuff. As for traffic signals, you have 20 week lead times, so that stuff has already kind of preordered and on its way . We were almost too far to go back. The issue with the AMP and the power services, you know, that was the act, as you can say, that we did not have clear enough communication with AMP as to what our true power source needs were and where our power supply was, which required a significant amount of additional attention . That is certainly a communication issue that ultimately falls on public works. We're not getting that identified in advance for sure.
Speaker 6: Okay. Okay. No, I just wanted to raise this question. Well, to me, I kind of felt the staff report wasn't clear as to whether or not we already spent it. And now we need more or we realize that, you know, it wasn't properly built out. So I think with the clarification that you provided, I understand. And and I do think that if staff can talk among themselves as to kind of internally, what kind of procedures you might take to kind of, you know, catch these situations earlier rather than later, because it seems as though you call it at the $592,800. And so and I recognize that, you know, things like this happen. And but, you know, we have to be very careful about the public's money. So unless anyone any other council members have any questions, I'm more than happy to move the staff's report.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Desai, I appreciate you raising those questions. And just for the public that's listening, this is a really busy thoroughfare out of our Harvard Business Park and the intersection that goes into the penumbra complex, which I think is our largest private employer. And it's kind of scary out there at shift change around 330, 4:00, I was out there. And so this has been something that has been it's taken a while to go through. And when you do construction, there are sometimes those surprises when you start digging down. But thank you for raising those questions. And, Mr. Wickstrom, thank you for the explanations. Okay, we have a motion to move it. Councilmember Bella has seconded any further discussion questions. Do we ever will call the police?
Speaker 1: And somebody said.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Knocked right.
Speaker 2: By.
Speaker 1: Odie.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Avella by mayor as he Ashcraft high that carries by five.
Speaker 0: I thank you, everyone. Thank you Mr. Webster to you. Okay. Council, we've already accomplished item six eight. So we will finish the consent calendar. We're going to go into item six be and I think.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we'll have the public information officer and the rec and park director coming in and it's a recommendation to receive an update. Oh no, I'm reading the wrong title is a recommendation to establish an Alameda Youth Council commission.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Recommendation to Authorize Interim Chief of Police In Consultation with the City Manager to Implement Pending and Future Updates to the Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to be Current with Best Practices and Statutory Requirements. (Police 3111)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_10202020_2020-8362
|
Speaker 2: Good evening. Good evening, Mayor. As the Ashcroft vice mayor, not white members of council, this is an update. It's a recommendation to receive an update on our procurement process for the Integrated Waste Franchise Agreement that we've been negotiating. As you all know, that covers our waste recycling and compost services that happen in the city. It's a it's an important agreement. It does affect all residents and businesses in the community. It's also important because it's a pretty significant cost. It's currently running around $20 million a year, and the duration for these contracts can exceed ten years. They can go along at 20 years, which is as long as our current franchise agreement is running for. So it's a significant cost. It also helps us achieve some pretty fundamental goals for the city. Our Climate Action Plan has goals associated with our franchise agreement, and there are new laws coming down on a regular basis related to zero waste and other waste management initiatives. So it's an important agreement for us. And I'm also we're also going to share the results of a customer satisfaction survey that we had done. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Liz Acord, our public works coordinator extraordinaire. Liz has been instrumental in this effort, and she's going to provide us with a little bit more detail and introduce the rest of our consultant team for this project. I'll turn it over to Liz.
Speaker 0: Welcome, Mr. Accord. Nice to see you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And thank you, Assistant City Manager. Good evening, Madam Mayor. And members of the City Council. I was accord public works coordinator. As I mentioned, tonight's topic is returning to council with an update on the sole source negotiations with ACA. Alameda County Industries for Alameda, this new solid waste franchise agreement. The focus of tonight's presentation again is to share with Council the results of a customer survey that we conducted in July. And before I turn it over to Curt with three, I'll just provide you with a quick update on the negotiation process. So since we've updated you in July, we've continued to meet with ECI with a focus on scoping programs in the new agreement and completing the detailed cost forms. We were hoping to have more information to share with you this evening regarding cost proposals. Unfortunately, due to the recent fires, our schedule has been slightly delayed and we do not currently.
Speaker 2: Have.
Speaker 4: The firm cost parameters to share with you. So as such, we aren't able to provide more of a robust status update this evening other than to say that we are still underway. And I think importantly that at this time the schedule delays are not of great concern to staff working closely with ACA to keep moving forward. So with that update, I will now turn it over to Curt with F.M. three and then the curtain. I, as well as Rob Hilton with age up and age, will be available afterwards for any questions that you may have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 2: All right. Oops. So. There we go. All right. Great. Thank you, Liz. And good evening, Mayor. Members of the council. Nice to see you again virtually. I'm a little SFM three research and I'm going to go through some highlights from the survey we conducted this summer. This go to the next slide. So a quick note about our methodology. We were given a list of customers provided by MCI that had residential customers and a smaller subset of commercial customers. We gave the same survey basically to both sets of respondents there. For the residential customers, we did offer English, Spanish and Chinese per other recent surveys conducted for the city and and like the same methodology, we offered respondents an opportunity to take the survey both online and on the telephone. For the residential survey, we did a little over 500 interviews, so roughly four and a half percent margin of sampling error. The margin of error for the commercial customers is large, so don't worry about that as much. Go to the next slide, please. I just want to kind of put a little bit of an introduction on what we're going to go through here. The slide deck is longer, but I'm just doing the first several high level slides focused specifically on the residential customers. I'll touch just briefly on the the results of the commercial customers responses that are in more detail in the appendix. And they've been very, very dramatically here. So with that, let's get to the slides. And I think that they're all going to sound pretty consistent. On the next slide. We shall see the so the residential customer reviews slide five here we presented a random order, whether on the phone or online, a different utilities and quasi utilities that residential customers here might interact with. And we asked them, well, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of them? The shades of green or favorable opinions, shades of red or unfavorable? The darker the color, the more intense the feeling. And you'll see here that Alameda County Industries, I mean, this use the name itself, 83% of residential customers had a positive or favorable impression of them. Only 11% had an unfavorable impression. So this is a really high number and significantly outpaced utilities like PPG, ENI and Comcast. Next slide, please. So one way of asking about this is by name. In the event that people weren't as familiar with ACR by name, we also asked basically by service and we asked, How satisfied are you with these different services electricity, natural gas, your waste and Internet? And you'll see here that a pretty similar number here, 89% said that they were satisfied with their garbage recycling or organics removal, including 56% who were very satisfied. So satisfaction levels were were very high as they were for electricity and natural gas. We often see this in other communities when we ask about waste disposal services. Next slide, please. We also asked, well, rates, do you feel that what you're paying is reasonable for those same for services and you'll see here that there's a pretty high positive numbers there as well. You essentially have three quarters or more who thought that electricity rates, natural gas rates and waste disposal rates were reasonable. 74% specifically for garbage recycling, not against removal. Much more of a split opinion on the Internet. That's not the topic of this particular survey. But you see here, again, favorable impressions of ECI. Favorable impressions. Satisfaction levels are high for the service and three quarters of respondents feel like what they're paying is at least somewhat reasonable. Next slide, please. We did ask an open ended question. So if you said that you are satisfied with your waste removal services, we said, well, tell us in your own words or type in your own words why? And then for those of you of ten, some of our surveys like this, before, we do our best to kind of put things in the categories and you'll see the reliability was the top of the list. More than half of those who were satisfied cited reliability as one of the reasons for explaining it. And also just generally do a good job and the customer services is solid as well. These numbers do add up to more than 100% because an individual could have mentioned many different rationale for being satisfied. The next slide, please. This is for only that sliver. You know, roughly 10% of us who had any sort of negative things to say or satisfaction levels were negative and tip top of the cap to your staff who suggested that one of these items might be on the list, which has been problems. They seem to have a pretty good pulse on things. But of those who were dissatisfied, putting the bins were creating a mess after pick up was one of the things that they mentioned and also some concerns about rates. So while overall there's not a lot of concern about rates that most people feel like they're reasonable, those who do have some levels of dissatisfaction, the rates seem to be one of the contributing factors. Now, keeping in mind this slide, that this is only of those who are dissatisfied, which is a pretty small percentage of residential customers . Next slide, please. We did asked respondents to unpack a few specific elements of the services here. So picking up the carts on the service day, providing instructions about what goes where. Responding to questions, you know, customer service essentially, and picking up illegal dumping. And we see for those first three categories, the satisfaction levels, again, were consistently high, particularly for picking up on there on the data. So the reliability issue, we saw that a couple of places in here. Customer service and instructions, that's actually positive in other communities. That can be a little confusing with the different bins and and whatnot. Illegal dumping. This sort of stuck out here as something that the satisfaction levels were low but sort of satisfaction because that gray bar is huge. 60% said I don't know what's the takeaway could be that there's a lot of residential customers don't really understand that HCI plays a role at all in picking up illegal dumping. Next slide. So this kind of wraps up the presentation here, at least for the part I was planning on going over here. But overall, positive impressions feel like I was doing a good job. Feel good paying for is reasonable. The only real material concerns were around costs and leaving a mess or having bins put in weird places after a pick up here. But those were a distinct minority of respondents. Not a lot of understanding of their side does play a role in addressing the legal dumping. We did also ask a couple of other questions I didn't cover here that you'll see later on in the survey, but I just touch on them here, just for brevity sake here. We did ask about keeping us an office in Alameda, and there was broad support for that, as well as hiring someone to help educate customers here . And even though we did say that those things might cost a few extra dollars on their bills, we did go through a variety of other recently adopted or proposals you're considering. Regarding waste reduction. I touched on that a little bit here in his introduction there, and I think the response is there are roughly two thirds or more of all the residential respondents supported all those different policies that have either been recently adopted or are being considered here. Some of the ones that had the highest levels of support were supplying recycling organics containers in public areas and having giving renters a free, annual, bulky pick up in terms of the commercial customers. Again, I'm not going to go over that in detail because there were very similar responses or just distinctions and in intensity. There was one exception in there, and this is, again, only 50 people or companies were able to get a hold of one of those. There was a little more the vision about whether or not to charge a fee to residents of businesses who do not properly for their compostable or recyclable material. Support levels for that policy proposal were much higher among residential customers and roughly an even split among commercial customers. So with that in mind, that brings us to the end of the presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 0: Big. Thank you, Mr. Gallo. Councilmember Desai, I see your handout.
Speaker 6: Just a quick question. Was there ever a variable that was satisfied? You have very satisfied and you have somewhat satisfied. Was there ever a variable that was just satisfied?
Speaker 0: You're a musician?
Speaker 2: Yes. So the way we structure that question is that we ask initially, are you satisfied or dissatisfied? And then as a follow up, we say, well, is that very or somewhat? So if you aggregate those together, that would be the total satisfaction number. But we try to push people a little bit to the different intensity levels. Hmm.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Hey, everybody.
Speaker 2: Thank you. You mentioned about having the office, and one of the reasons I like it is that that's where you drop off your batteries if there was no office. Now, what would people do with their batteries? Do we do we know this.
Speaker 0: Is, of.
Speaker 4: Course, something that we can explore as a.
Speaker 2: Contract component.
Speaker 4: For an alternative pickup resource?
Speaker 2: Okay. Well, I'm not advocating closing the office. I'm just saying, you know, that's one of the benefits of having an office. Not to mention, if you're late on your bill, you can run it down there without having to travel to another city. And then the other question I know well, two questions. I know that. And it's tough place. We talk a lot about, you know, the diversion rates in multi-family units. And I appreciate that there was that. The need for a bulk pickup because sometimes those bins fill up as someone needs to live in a multifamily unit. We working with staff, waste it all on helping achieve their goals and improving the diversion rates at at these multifamily units.
Speaker 4: Rob, I'm going to ask you to jump in on that one.
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel. Yes, that is one of the things that we're we're looking at a combination of solutions for. The multifamily generators as well as our our commercial generators. And that's part of the question that was in the survey about providing a staff resource to go out and provide some technical assistance from the multifamily property owners or managers. And the the businesses need a little bit more hand-holding because their waste needs are more complicated than they are in in the residential single family environment. So that's a piece of why we're looking at that. And it's also a piece of why we're looking at that that bulk item program to prevent illegal dumping.
Speaker 0: Will you just introduce yourself? Tell us your affiliation, please.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Rob Helton with age. I have an age consultancy.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I appreciate that. Because they're also newer to, you know, the sorting, you know, relative to, you know, single family residence. In the last question, there was a bullet point about enforcement. And I know that some police, they have some programs where, believe it or not, there's cameras in the bins and you can see what goes in and tell whether it belongs or it doesn't belong there. And, you know, have we reached out to stop ways to work on some of these enforcement things? Because, you know, they can actually enforce, you know, issues with people sorting and not sorting property.
Speaker 0: Okay. That's a suggestion. And any other, you know, benefit. I didn't ask if we had public speakers, but we're still on the council clarifying questions, I think.
Speaker 1: We do not have any public comment.
Speaker 0: Or public comment. Okay.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. That was kind of a question to see if there's been any. I'd be happy to jump in and respond to that. So the sister company to ECI is the one that did that pilot project that you probably heard about at the Stop Waste meeting out in Livermore. And so we've got some really good data from that. And it's one of the things, as we're talking to them about the contamination, monitoring and management that we can introduce into the discussion. The the challenge with that program is the cost. So each of those cameras in the bins has its own cellular service attached to it, and it's got a monthly fee attached to that. So as you saw, one of the concerns was related to the rate impact of things. And obviously, as we're negotiating the contract, one of our concerns is about the rate impact of things. So, you know, as in the Livermore situation, it may be a targeted approach to using that, but I like the idea and we could definitely bring that up. Thank you.
Speaker 0: It seems to me you talked about the education piece. I think some more resources directed toward customer education might go a long way to and probably be less costly, although that's kind of intriguing about the camera in the barn I just can picture. Does anyone remember Oscar the Grouch from Sesame Street? Dave just writing about the garbage cans and.
Speaker 2: That's pretty much how it is. Yeah, I watch some of the video entertaining, but. Yeah, well.
Speaker 0: We'll have to we'll have to see that other comments questions council. Councilmember Daza. And twice.
Speaker 6: Just a quick question. So is it.
Speaker 4: Staff's.
Speaker 6: Request that the council consider doing a Sol, doing the contract, you know, completing the contract for the next 20 years on a sole source basis? So as opposed to going out for an RFP, is that the bottom line recommendation?
Speaker 2: Know, the the conversation tonight is really just an update. We were with counsel starting in February of 2020 to discuss the sole source versus not sole source. And we were exploring the negotiations with API. And if that was not going to work, then we were going to shift to a competitive bid process. But what we are finding is that the negotiations are going well with API. We don't have those numbers that we were hoping to have this evening. Our public works coordinator, Liz Acord, made reference to it in her comments. There have been just some unfortunate personal situations that have arisen because of some of the fires where some of our API folks, and so they just need a little more time to develop those numbers. But the sole source negotiations are going reasonably well at this time. We're not talking about another we're not talking about a 20 year term for this contract. It will be shorter. We can't we don't know the exact numbers yet. It affects the rates that will be bringing forward for council consideration. If we can stretch out the amortization frame for for the equipment and things like that, it helps it helps the rate structure. But there's certainly a lot of good momentum right now, positive momentum in our sole source discussions. And there isn't, at least at this time, any thought to shifting gears and going to that competitive process. If things change, we'll certainly be back to report, back to council and talk that through the burden.
Speaker 0: Any further questions from council? So this is a report for us to receive, as I recall. Um, anything anyone wants to add with me or next week?
Speaker 5: Thank you. It was a good, good report. And I appreciate it. The survey data as as as was noted bin placement know rated about where you would expect it to be based on the comments we read done online and the emails we receive as we're going through the discussions and whatever else. I think looking for a metric that might relate to, you know, I'm not looking for perfect bin placement, but I can definitely say there are some times I come home and wonder what the heck happened with the bins, you know, that somebody must have picked up the bins and move them half a house up multiple of them . It doesn't quite align with, with, with my experience with what I would expect of the thing is just picking up and putting it down over and over again. So I just wondering if there is some way to to address some of that. On the other hand, it is very clear that ECI is getting fairly high approvals. And I and I don't make these comments as if somehow they are doing a terrible job. I'm just saying, if there was a place for improvement and I think the single family homes that they that would probably be the one that we hear the most about. And so thinking about through our conversations with them, how we might address that would be great.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'll just say this is anecdotal, but it's personal information out there. You know, every once in a while, not very often a Ben or two don't get picked up at our house. And I've always found this guy, folks at the office, when you call to be just top notch and pleasant and efficient and they're out there, you know, as soon as they can be. And I don't know. I always think it's kind of miraculous to get your bins out and then, voila, there, they're empty when you come home. And I'm also aware that in many cities, and I'm sure Asia is having these challenges, you know, some places are picking up glass. They're not accepting glass for recycling anymore. And they're limiting what, you know, what they will take. So, you know, so far we've had we've managed to keep doing what we did. But this is a challenging market. Okay. Well, if there is nothing further that people want to add. Okay. We won't quite move along.
Speaker 4: Heard everything that.
Speaker 6: I think the one comment that I always have to double check now, the one comment I would make is, you know, even if it's not a 20 year contract, let's suppose it is, it's a ten year contract. I have to you know, I mean, at a minimum, the value of that contract is going to be $200 million over ten years timeframe. It's hard for me to see a sole source contract even as good as ACA is. I. I just think you have to test the market, so. But. But don't get me wrong. I think ACA does a good job from what I can tell. But it that aside, I think you still have to test the market. But I'll leave it at that. That's my opinion. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Anything further from any would be okay with that? Um, we, we have received the update and I will close this item. Thank you all for for being here for your presentations. Good to see you guys. Mr. Burton. Good see you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Have a good night.
Speaker 0: Good night. Okay. We are moving on to item six EA.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to waive the encroachment permit fees through October 31st, 2021 for the Commercial Streets Program. DeLay short term temporary special event street closures along major commercial and side streets, and accept the September 2020 status report on transportation and adoption of resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for up to $75,000 in county to County Transportation Commission COVID
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Receive an Update on Procurement Process for Alameda’s Integrated Waste Franchise. (Public Works 274)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_10062020_2020-8343
|
Speaker 1: Okay, perfect. With that, we move on to our regular agenda item. And this next one is a very fun one. This is where we are going to adopt resolutions, and I hope we can just do it as one vote on all the resolutions because we are going to approve appointments to the Golf Commission, the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board this evening. And Council Riviera has your hand up. You want to and.
Speaker 5: I just wanted to go ahead and make a motion for approval and to thank the mayor for her hard work in in terms of I know you went out and interviewed a number of key and it took time to interview the candidates and also thank all of the applicants who put in and who are going to be serving in this volunteer position. So with that, I move approval.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Do we have a second question? Every second. And I just and I've said it before, I have just been overwhelmed by the amazing and very generous and community oriented members of our community who have wanted to serve. And so let me introduce them to you now as they as they appear on the screen. We have been thinking Binder, who is and you appointed to the golf commission. And we have I see Elizabeth Calata and Basheer Hadi and Kenji Tamaki are all appointees to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. And there is four dame sit down the court he's appearing and what about okay there's Sandra kay figured that there's the housing authority board of Commissioners right there. And then coming up on screen for the the planning board are Ron Curtis, who is our incumbent, who's returning for another term. And Seema Cisneros is also an appointee. Is Ms.. Cisneros in the house?
Speaker 2: We we don't see her name on the list of attendees. If you are here, if you could raise your hand, perhaps hear something under some other name or university.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So tomorrow, if you're out there, raise your hand against your hand either. That's okay. We will make arrangements to administer the oath. But first, I believe we need to. So we can.
Speaker 2: Just can take the vote, and then I can administer the oath. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So we've we've we've had the motion to approve this ordinance or the resolution appointing all these fabulous people to their positions. And maybe we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 2: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 6: We're there already. Thank you and welcome. Yes.
Speaker 2: Odie.
Speaker 3: Congratulations, I.
Speaker 2: I may. Or as the Ashcroft.
Speaker 1: I think, five eyes. All right. Perfect. And now I believe these folk will administer the oath of office. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Correct. If you don't mind standing and raising your right hand. Sorry. I know it's a bit to juggle with the Zoom situation, but if you're able and then if you raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that you'll well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which you're about to enter?
Speaker 6: Yes. Yes, yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Congratulations.
Speaker 1: All right. Well, thank you all so much for your for starting your new terms. And we are grateful the community is grateful for you, for the hard work you're going to do on behalf of all of our residents. So many thanks to all of you. Take care and stay safe.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. And then we will move right along to item six B, which is a recommendation to appoint as our new Alameda Poet Laureate Kimi Ciccio OC. And I want to tell you a little bit about this.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Ben Finkenbinder as a Member of the Golf Commission; Reappointing/Appointing Bachir Hadid, Elizabeth Kuwada, Sandra Kay, Kenji Tamaoki, and Vadim Sidelnikov as Members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners; and Appointing Xiomara Cisneros and Reappointing Ron Curtis as Members of the Planning Board.
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_10062020_2020-8336
|
Speaker 1: Okay. All right. So with that, we will move on to item six C.
Speaker 2: Recommendation to receive an update on a strategic plan for addressing homelessness in Alameda.
Speaker 1: And who is presenting that? Oh, look, we got her back. Our wish was granted. All right, whenever you're ready. Go ahead. And Mr. Potter.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, yes, it is my last meeting. And so I have a really easy job tonight, which is introducing Anna back to us, who is our new development manager in charge of homelessness. And she's going to provide a presentation. And she and I, along with Lois Butler, who is the who will be standing in as the interim committee development director next week, are all available to answer questions. With that, I would ask Ed, we have we have a she has a brief PowerPoint, so hopefully we'll get that set up. Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Start screen sharing. Looks good. Take it away. Hi, Miss Baptiste. And my bet is you need to unmute. Prager, can you hear me? We have perfectly.
Speaker 4: Perfect. Okay. Good evening, Madam Mayor. And members of the City Council. It is difficult to follow Ms.. So Gilchrist's poem and her presentation. But I will try. And I really appreciate what she said about Alameda being a community for for everyone, its community together, because addressing homelessness is really about addressing it as a community. Thank you for this opportunity to give you an update on homelessness in Alameda. And on March 28th, 2018, which was my first week as a city employee, council, adopted the first Alameda Strategic Plan, and it's called Alameda Homelessness Report. This was jointly developed by the Social Service Human Relations Board and the Housing Authority. We have been using this report as our strategic plan for homelessness in Alameda. And please move onto the next slide. So you'll see in this report there are four policy recommendations that were presented to address the immediate needs of our unhoused residents, as well as develop long term solutions to end homelessness. Today, the city of Alameda offers 20 different programs, of which 14 were made possible through the $725,000 in Keep or Homeless Emergency Aid Program funds allocated to the city by the state as well. City Council has been funding the public outreach program since 2016 and has dedicated funds for initiatives such as the Parking for the Homeless Parking Meter for the Homeless Program Planning Grant for the Health and Wellness Center on McKay Avenue. And the new program that will be starting in Alameda at the this month called BLOCK by BLOCK. To be able to end homelessness, however, we need housing. Eden Housing 20 unit for low income seniors opened this year. Their next project, a 70 unit housing for low income and homeless families, is opening next year. About 300 new housing units for the homeless and low income are in the pipeline and are expected to become available in 2 to 5 years, including North Housing. The Alameda Health and Wellness Center and the Reshape Project. If we plot these projects along a continuum of care and evaluate how we are doing with the policy recommendations in the homelessness report. This is what it would look like. Next slide, please. As you can see, we have done a great job with policy area number one, which addresses the most immediate health and social service needs of our unhoused residents. However, as the report noted, these services do not end homelessness. For policy area number two, temporary shelters, we have a big gap. We currently have four FEMA trailers that are being used for shelter to shelter elderly and medically vulnerable unhoused individuals during COVID, which will be at our disposal at the end of the pandemic. This could get us started with a temporary housing or community cabin option. The city manager, the mayor and staff visited navigation centers at community cabinets last year to see what might be possible for Alameda. On the other side of the continuum for policy, recommendations to wait for housing is coming, which is the ultimate solution to end homelessness . But these are 2 to 3 years away. So where do we go from here? Next slide, please. Council had a retreat in December and again in July, where you identified homelessness as a priority for your 2020 2021. Under your focus area three. Supporting Enhanced Livability and quality of life. You ask for the development of a long range plan for the homeless. In a sign this test that the Community Development Department staff went to the Social Service Human Relations Board and asked them to help guide the planning process, which they approved last week. We will be seeking a consultant start of work this this coming fall or this fall. We will be soliciting input from community stakeholders and we will be exploring ways to fund projects.
Speaker 1: This long range plan.
Speaker 4: Which updates our current strategic plan, we will need to identify three things. Number one, how to sustain the programs beyond the heat funding or the Homeless Emergency Aid Program, which is ending in March 2021, especially the programs and services that are preventing individuals and families from becoming homeless. We need to address the big gap in our homelessness strategy by exploring short term temporary housing options. A 2 to 3 five way, two or three five years of wait for permanent housing is a little bit too long, while our encampments continue to grow during the development of this long range strategic plan. Staff will work with the Social Service Human Relations Board to explore the feasibility of establishing a cabin community or tiny homes. This is an important strategy to move people out of encampments and street living into a housing option that can bridge and ease their transition into permanent housing. In January of next year, we will come back to Presents the Council with a plan that includes how the project will be funded for a community cabin option or some kind of a shelter. Finally, we need to look at our housing policies to prioritize our most vulnerable residents. The homeless is a population that face enormous barriers that make them ineligible, not prioritized or not ideal for housing as tenants in this long range strategic plan. We will look at other cities for models through ordinances, resolutions and partnerships, such as working with the housing authority to break down these barriers. In late spring or early summer, staff will be presenting council with the final plan, which updates our strategic plan that includes strategies to sustain our supportive services, establish temporary and transitional housing, and explore housing policies that prioritize the homeless population. We will be seeking your approval to adopt the plant at that point. Thank you again for this opportunity to provide you with a status on homelessness in our Altadena community. And at this point, we welcome your questions and comments. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Miss Practice, do we have any clarifying questions from the City Council before we go to any public comment? I guess I should ask the city clerk, do we have public comment?
Speaker 2: So far we have one speaker.
Speaker 1: Okay. So any clarifying questions? Councilmember Otis, your head's up.
Speaker 3: Sure. Thank you. Thanks for that presentation. Just a couple quick questions. So I know we you mentioned Project ROOMKEY and the staff report related to the FEMA trailers. Is there any other effort in Alameda to participate in Project ROOMKEY? I know there was some discussion about one of the hotels. I'm Marina by Marina Square.
Speaker 4: Correct. And Marina village in is still part of the project Roomkey and that there was a an intent to purchase that property so that we could turn it into our we believe the county could turn it into permanent supportive housing after the pandemic. The county applied for funding to purchase the property and unfortunately during this first round of funding, the project did not get approved. However, the county is still optimistic that there may be some funding available to move forward with that purchase. But right now, it's it's uncertain.
Speaker 3: Okay. And then my second question, I think you mentioned it also in the staff report about the warming shelters, which are opened in November. And I recall two years ago when we had the fires, there was a lot of issue regarding homeless being exposed to the to the smoke and the warming shelters hadn't opened yet. And now this year we have the fires in September and October. So can you maybe share what we're doing to help some of the. Vulnerable unhoused neighbors. And you kind of get into some place where they can breathe during during these times.
Speaker 4: Yes, yes, yes. Fires have been really devastating this this year at two things. We are very fortunate that that the day center is now open. So during the day, folks have been going to the day center to take refuge and the out of the smoke. And also what we've had heat waves. The day center is actually a good place to be because they have air conditioning, which is pretty rare in Alameda. The other option that we are considering actually for the warming shelter and we have some funding for CARES Act as well as through help. The Homeless Emergency Aid Program is issuing some emergency motel vouchers. We have been in conversation with Building Futures, which operates the warming shelter about how to make sure that there's a safe distancing at the warming shelter, because last year there were times when we really had too many people, and this is before COVID. Now that we have COVID, we are looking at how to contain the number of people at the warm shelter and that what do we do with the rest of the folks who we know will be in shelters? So that's still a conversation. And we are working as well with Christ Church where this program is hosted and how to maintain safe distancing, maintain the number of contain the number of people to make it safe at that and then other options that we could offer for folks who are not able to be at the shelter that evening.
Speaker 3: Okay. And, you know, you know that homeless people were identified in our Karp as, you know, most vulnerable to, you know, things like climate action, climate emergencies. And then the last question, you mentioned the Boise case in the staff report also. I mean, can you tell us a little bit about, you know, what what boundaries that establishes and then how we're trying to get people services and temporary housing within the constraints of the Boise case?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah. So the Boise, as many of you know, is what constraints such as to get some of the folks out of encampments because you have to have an option to offer as an alternative to where they're living right now, which are encampments set up on the streets. So with establishing a tiny cabin community or or some kind of a temporary shelter there, those options will be offered to folks at the encampments and other streets. And the initial sort of conversation we had about about these kinds of temporary housing options is that we can have up to we can house up to 20 individuals using tiny cabins or community cabins, and that's housing on site for staff. So when we have these kinds of options to offer, then we can present to our how to our unhoused population. Moving them into one of these units that are available. And if they decline, then we need to make sure that, you know, that that's documented. Because at that point, since we have housing available and if the idea is to abate at the encampment, then we will continue with the abatement. Of course, we will follow the rule of the rules and the law regarding those kinds of action. And we will be working with the city attorney's office and Alameda Police Department in moving forward with that kind of action.
Speaker 3: Okay. Um, I had another one, but I'll save it for later. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, everybody. Does anyone any other clarifying questions from the council? I have a couple on the staff report. Um, my temperamental iPad will let me in. Okay. Um, so thank you for the presentation, Ms.. Badges. This is a very important and complex and not easily understood topic, so I want to direct your attention to the staff report. Page three And there is just the reference and you're the bullet point trying to talk about the other funded initiatives include the next paragraph talks about the city council approves the parking meter donation collection program coming soon. And I would just comment that whenever it comes, I don't think it's going to raise a huge amount of money. So I know we've waited a while, we can wait a little longer. But what I was really interested in within the last line of that paragraph where it said partnership with the county's health care for the Homeless has also brought the mobile health clinic, which I'm well aware of, which is wonderful. They come out when they do the dining connect events and they it's it's an amazing mobile clinic that provides all kinds of services and street health program. Where and in what capacity are we seeing the street health program operating in Alameda? Yeah.
Speaker 4: So that street health is another, as you mentioned, another program of the county's health care for the homeless. And it is a medical based model kind of similar to the mobile, but they actually are not on wheels. They actually got flipped out of the encampment. Yes. Yeah. They go to the encampments. They go to wherever the homeless folks are located and they're working this team is working side by side with our existing outreach team here in Alameda so that they can show up and introduce them to the unhoused population and start building that trust so that we can connect or they can connect the our house population to primary care, mental health services, dentistry, you know, those kinds of services that we've not had before here in Alameda. So we've been really fortunate to bring that for a group here.
Speaker 1: And when did we first bring that here?
Speaker 4: This is like I would say three weeks ago. And they started at at the day center, actually, they had two nurse practitioners that met with folks there, and they set up a small room for consultation at the day center.
Speaker 1: And do they have a regular schedule of, you know, certain days of the day center, certain days out in the field or had a heads up?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So we clarified that with the street team this week because we we thought that they will be at the day center on a regular basis, like a regular schedule. And they said no because their intent is to really be out there in the community and mostly around encampment. So they're working with Operation Dignity. I know they're scheduling some visits at these account beds and then at some point that, you know, once they establish a routine and they have established some relationships with folks, they will go up their own to this account.
Speaker 1: Okay. But on a regular basis.
Speaker 4: On a regular basis, exactly.
Speaker 1: Like a few times a week.
Speaker 4: At least once a week.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. And. Well, that's good to know. They it's one of these programs that has an impressive track record where it does operate. And then my other question about the staff report comes from page six, note five, where the first full paragraph of page five talks about as part of this process, staff work with the Social Service Human Relations Board to develop a transitional housing option. I think this is talking about the possibility of tiny homes or community cabins such as tiny homes, community cabins which could be implemented ahead of and separate from the strategic plan that the residents could live in the community for up to six months while working on securing permanent housing . And my question is, what happens if it takes more than six months for someone to secure a permanent housing? Is this is this following the model of the the navigation centers that I guess, if I recall correctly, do set a timeframe? But if you could just back.
Speaker 4: This short clarify that. Yeah. So it is sort of following the model of the navigation center and also community cabin that are in Oakland, mostly the ones that we have visited, operated by Operation Dignity. And they do set a time limit. However, it's not a fixed time limit because there are some situations where folks would need more than six months. I think the the the the the most important part about the putting a timeline is that they need to be able to see progress. And also it gives incentive to the clients to really work on and be engaged in ending their homelessness. So there's a timeline that kind of gives them that sense of urgency and to really, you know, work with with the staff. However, you know, we will we will, you know, it's up to the discretion of the provider to look at the situation and review on a case by case basis and extend that as long as they're continuing to work and be engaged in the process.
Speaker 1: And you're right, that is following the model of the navigation centers that we visited and the idea being there would be really intensive outreach and work with these individuals while they are in these transitional housing, supportive housing. And so they have work with caseworkers helping them to find housing, connect them with medical, mental health services, substance abuse , whatever they need. And the idea is that they need to see progress because after all, there's a whole other cohort of sheltered individuals waiting to be able to be assisted by a program like this. So thank you for that clarification. So any counsel clarification questions before I open this up to public speakers? Okay, madam, let's have our public speakers, please.
Speaker 2: James Downey.
Speaker 6: Downey Fox. Thanks for having me on again. I have two clarifying questions. I'll ask them both and then I'll step back for comment. One would be, what does the budget decision or how does the Boise decision prevent us from cleaning up waste? Just garbage, just the waste that accompanies being unhoused? And secondly, I often hear us conflate the issue of homelessness, drug addiction and mental illness as backed up. By your own admission, some of these folks have told you or our teams they don't want to go into housing. Have we considered re allocating funds to focus more on the mental illness and more excuse me, mental health and on the drug addiction issues versus building homes? Because I fear we could have all the homes in the world and there still will be a subset of folks who, due to their condition, you know, I use to defeat my mental illness. I have mental illness, so I use it. There will always they will always be there. And I think we could reallocate somewhere, often funds towards those services. What have we considered in regards to doing just that? Reallocating funds from homes to mental health and drug addiction. Thank you.
Speaker 1: And Mr. Downey, just for clarification, for other public speakers, this is public comment. It is not Q&A, but thank you for posing those questions that our staff definitely works on and could be answered in a different venue. Perhaps the communication with the city manager. Do we have another public speaker this way?
Speaker 2: No, that was our only public speaker.
Speaker 1: All right. So then at this point, this is not an action item so much as a minimum.
Speaker 6: We had another speaker put their hand up right as the city clerk was saying there was nobody else.
Speaker 1: Well, then we will reopen public comment.
Speaker 2: Tamika Perkins.
Speaker 0: Hi. Good evening.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Mr. Ricketts.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Councilmembers Mayor Ashcraft and Debbie. I worked to Debbie and she will surely be missed. And I just want to make a comment. I am with Operation Dignity, and I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that there are no quick fixes when it comes to homelessness and we have to start somewhere. So I know that issue is on the table about community champions and it is a way to stabilize folks who are in the.
Speaker 6: Process of.
Speaker 0: Getting their lives together. It allows the Operation Dignity Team as well as other providers to address folks immediate needs. Right. So before we can deal with the bigger issue, we have to deal with the immediate needs. And that oftentimes is getting them document ready, getting them connected to mental health and substance abuse programs. Right. And getting them family reunification. So all of these things kind of takes place and the community cabins offer an opportunity to do that without being moved around from place to place. When you're in an encampment, right, or having their items stolen, they're able to kind of go in somewhere where they can lock the door and have a key. And also the other thing I wanted to mention was I would say, as we look to programs for housing, the unsheltered, that we'd be mindful that we don't unintentionally exclude them by placing additional barriers on them when it comes to low income and affordable housing for most, low income, affordable housing that I've seen is not very affordable and that very low income and especially with dealing with our particular population, right? So working with our policymakers and our housing authorities on relaxing some of those rules when it comes to criminal background, income eligibility and rental evictions. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Perkins, and thank you for all the good work that Operation Dignity does. You're a valuable partner to the city of Alameda. Miss Potter, please.
Speaker 0: So I thought I would just quickly follow up on some of the points that Ms.. Perkins made. I think it's considered in kind of the industry that the Housing First model is a best practice. And the emphasis on Housing First is to make a point that the key is to stabilize folks. When you get people stabilized in transitional or permanent housing, then you tackle the drug addiction, then you tackle the mental illness. Back in the day, the model was clean and sober, right? That you had to be clean and sober before you got into housing. And I think that that model has really been replaced with the best practice, which is called the Housing First model. And that is why what you see being reflected in our recommendations in this strategic plan is the emphasis on permanent supportive housing, and that is consistent with the work that the county does with the everyone home, the plan that everyone at home does. So I just want to underscore that point about the importance of that best practice of the Housing First model.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Potter. Very true. Do we have any more public speakers in this part of.
Speaker 2: We have no more.
Speaker 1: So what is public comment at this time then in I'm going to lead off just because housing is an issue that is so near and dear to my heart. I want to just give you a couple of examples of real life examples and I'll just preface surprising. Homelessness is a complicated issue, and I think there is more I know there's more homelessness in our city of Alameda even than is apparent to the naked eye. And it is not just the encampments that are so visible on the approach to the tubes, it is those families living in their cars. And we do now we've opened our safe parking at Alameda Point and I saw the statistics for August, which is the first month of statistics, and we're off to a good start in just giving people a secure place to live while they work to find housing. And we need more housing. We just need more housing so badly. And it's hard to see measurable success. I mean, the people from Operation Dignity and Building Futures who work with these folks are certainly seeing it case by case. So the examples I want to tell you about are the Marina Village in and I've got my fingers crossed that some funding is going to be found to to keep that is permanent supportive housing because right now I think the council knows there are both residents from our Midway Shelter, domestic violence victims and their children, and also women from some of the encampments who would have been very vulnerable had they gotten COVID 19. And they're living there. And at first, we had a little bit of pushback from the neighbors. Why don't we talk about this? What this trash is this? So our supervisor, county supervisor, Wilmot Chan, convened a town hall and she asked me to be their city manager. Was there like this on Zoom? And I was just ready to hear all the different complaints, the neighbors. And they almost moved me to tears because. But the outreach, I give huge credit to Anabaptist, Kerri Abbott from the counties, she's the county's homelessness person and Alice Varella from Billy Futures, who had gone out and done the outreach, met with the neighbors, found it with the problems, were met with the residential manager, got them address to the point that these residents to a person and the manager of the Oakland Yacht Club which is a neighboring property all spoke up and said, wow, this is so well managed. We just heard that they didn't get the funding. What's going to happen to these people and how can we help? How can we help these children? Can we can we do school supplies, we do tutoring? And then Luis Varela told me the next day that they reached out to her and said, we want to do a holiday drive for these residents. So, you know, kudos to all of you for stepping in. And it's not easy to just put people in a place and walk away. And then a year or so ago, the assistant city manager, Jerry Bowden, and I had a chance to visit a community cabin in Oakland down near the the Civic Auditorium, used to be called anyway. And Mayor Libby Schaaf was telling us that the first thing for and they're just they're very rudimentary. But you get a key and you there's cots and you go in, you can have pets. And she said the first thing people do when you give them their key and they just walk in and realize it's quiet, it's safe, I can lock the door. I'm safe if they burst into tears. And the second thing they do, she said, is they lay down in the car and they sleep for 48 hours because they have not had a night's sleep where they weren't sleeping with one eye open. They're going to be attacked. Everything's going to be stolen. Am I safe? And so these are the things we need to do. It's not easy, it's not pretty. But these are human lives and it is possible to make things better and we've all got to work hard together. So for me, let's hear from the others in the council. Can't Somerville. I said your handout. This is my colleague on the Housing Committee, Economic Development Committee of the League of California Cities.
Speaker 6: Councilmember Avella.
Speaker 5: Yes. And also your, your partner, when we were going to do the homeless count this past year. And, you know, I think many of us on the council have participated in the the count of where we go out. And we we actually tried to countywide count all of the unhoused individuals. And I want to talk about trauma for a second because I think that that's inherently part of this in. Our conversation. And I heard a speaker say, well, you're conflating homelessness with mental health issues and drug abuse. And the reality is, is that there is trauma experienced by anybody who is having to experience life in an unstable or insecure way. And I think a lot of the conversation around either the cottages or the cabins is is really around creating a sense of stability and a foundation for that to actually address the trauma that occurs . Not everybody who becomes unhoused has mental health issues or drug issues at the start, but they certainly lose their sense of security and safety. And I think that that's been a big part of what we've been discussing, whether it's around reimagining policing or the services that we want to provide. And it's certainly part of this conversation. I think it's inherent in this part of this conversation when we talk about the unsheltered population and the vulnerable population in our own community. So I just I want to make sure that when we when we talk about that, that's really what we're getting at. And we hear the conversation about the different services. That's really what it's geared, geared towards. And there are a number of individuals who I've spoken with. I've had students who were unhoused or unsheltered. It's all walks of life, and there is a complete loss of security and safety. And the point gets brought up all the time, the sense of being able, even with our secure with our trailers and your parking overnight and the sense of security that people get because they know nobody's going to come and attack them or take their things or hassle them in the middle of the night. And that's something that many of us take for granted. And I certainly hope that that remains a focus of our community. I've seen in our community exercise compassion and empathy, and this is all part of that conversation. So I appreciate all of the work that's gone into this report. I think that that this is tremendous progress from from what we had a few years ago. And I also want to thank our staff. I was on Webster today talking with some of the business owners, and they said, you know, Anna and Debbie and Lois, they were all out here handing out these cards, letting us know about these programs. And I want to thank our business community, because it's not a sense of we need to get these people out of here so much as we want to make sure everybody's taken care of and has a place to go. And on these bad air quality days and with with the different weather, that they have a place to go. And I hear that a lot from our business owners. And again, that's that sense of compassion and empathy and wanting to find a place for people. But it also takes our staff who we don't have a lot of going out there and making sure that the resources that we're funding as a council are actually being used. So I want to acknowledge that work that's being done and just let the public know that that our staff is literally the boots on the ground getting the word out about the different services that they discuss in this report. And they've been very much a part of the solutions. I want to I want to acknowledge that work as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Bella Council Brody.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I want to thank our staff. I think you mentioned how complex this issue is. And I appreciate all the work and I and Lois and Debbie have put into this. I think my colleague, Ms.. Vella hit the needle on the head when she talked about these being compassionate solutions. And, you know, our community stepped up and was compassionate when we approved the respite center last year. So I know we have it in ourselves to help those that are less fortunate. And I appreciate the the kind of the emphasis, Ms.. Potter on Housing First. I mean, people can be many different things, but, you know, if your first title is unhoused or homeless, it basically indicates one thing, right? You know, you don't have housing and, you know, whether it's through, you know, mental health issues or addiction or, you know, loss of income or, you know, your rent got raised too high. You know, there's a lot of reasons. A lot of people are unsheltered. So I appreciate the focus on housing. That's why it's kind of interesting know I know we're wrapping up as best we can. You know, the first part and the third part I always thought was the hardest permanent housing. But I'm glad that we got things in the works, like the 90 units over over at North Housing. But the temporary thing, I mean, just a couple Q&A. I mean, do we have a timeframe on when we might be able to see some additional temporary housing services provided? Or do we not? Do we know or.
Speaker 4: I think that part of our planning process to identify timeline, of course, we will have to identify a location which will be, I think, one of the challenges in undertaking such a project. And then we will have to go through stakeholder input process and all of that. So but the plan right now is to come back to you in January with an actual plan. Okay. You will debt review and approve.
Speaker 3: Okay. I mean, because as you said, you know, we can't move people into a shelter until we have shelter. And I know there's many people that are concerned for whatever reason they're concerned about. But, you know, we need to get those temporary units up. And then the other thing, I hope that our community can be compassionate as you make those recommendations, because it's going to be critical that we provide them. Now, I recall six years ago, I started this job and I think we had 34 homeless in our in our count. And that could have been because we weren't counting everywhere. But, you know, last it was over 200. So, you know, it's definitely been an issue. But I remember that there was just a statistic that, you know, the large majority of people that were counted in the census actually are alamitos. I mean, is that still pretty much the the truth or the fact?
Speaker 4: That is still the truth. And the county, Alameda County appointed time count for 2019, which is the most current one. In that report, they found that majority all over Alameda County are from this county. Something like three quarters of the population who are homeless are from the town or city or where they're living right now as homeless individuals.
Speaker 3: Okay. So what I think it's important there is. Now, these are our neighbors. Yep. So in a way, we're trying to find solutions for our neighbors. And I don't think there's going to be an influx of people coming from other cities to take advantage of our services. And if they are great because we're providing shelter. But let's let's make sure people understand, you know, we're trying to help our neighbors. And these are solutions for Alameda. And then I know there's been some issues with these these cabins with safety. So I hope when you put them together and I know there's some places in Oakland where they're women only so they can be, you know, protected from being sexually assaulted and things like that. So. And then I understand the question from the the public about trash. Maybe you can just touch a little on this because you know what? Someone may look as trash when you're driving by is actually someone's belongings. I know there's issues with liability about just removing things. Can you kind of talk a little bit about what we're doing, you know, for legitimate refuse and, you know, maybe sanitation versus, you know, what we have to do to respect people's personal property?
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're absolutely right. What might look like trash to some of us are actually belongings and property and probably the only property that folks have. So what we do is we work very closely, for instance, in the at the positive, which is that property is owned by Caltrans. We work very closely with our outreach and our outreach team, your locally to inform folks way ahead of time. And we and I just want to also announce that we have a cleanup scheduled with Caltrans on October 15th. So that's our next clean up scheduled. We work very closely with our outreach team to inform folks way ahead of time about where the trash needs to be placed so that the day of the pickup, the the the folks know exactly what to pick up and what to leave up and for properties that are left behind. And it looks like just things that have not been touched in quite a while. But somebody left, you know, lived there at one point. We will put a notice of that property and do some more outreach, you know, to see who might who the property might have belong to at some point. And and we kind of know our outreach team kind of know where they're located, even though they do look around and try to talk to those individuals to see if they are things that they want to get rid of or if those things are really just for trash, that we will do our best to put them in the proper place so that when the pickup happens, we know those are trash and not property.
Speaker 3: Okay. And then I think the mayor kind of raised this point. You know, being homeless manifests itself in different ways, whether it's, you know, in a shelter or whether it's in encampment or whether it's in your car or we also have folks living out of our bodies and such. And, you know, my understanding is if you have an RV, you can't go to the day parking. So. Can you maybe talk about what services we may have for folks who are living out of our RVs or campers? Because I know there's, you know, a few of them, quite a few of them past the ferry station, you know, out to the entrance of the base.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Correct. So are these are not included in the Safe Parking program. However, we do continue to work with everyone who's homeless, including the ones who are living. There are these with outreach services, harm reduction programs. If they need anything, it could be what they call this, a voucher for a motel. If they're if they really need some kind of a shelter besides where they're living now, we also provide them with food. If they need food, you know, whatever it is that that that we could provide through our outreach team, we we do provide that and as well, you know, we encourage them if they if we think that they need medical assistance, we encourage them to get in touch now that we have the street team to get in touch with those folks, the nurse practitioner. And if we need to connect them to primary care or doctors and what have you, we would try to make those connections as well.
Speaker 3: So. Okay. Well, thank you again. I want to thank you all for your hard work on this. And the mayor, who's a leader in the state on this, and Councilman Avella also with the League of Cities. And I would plead with our residents to show some compassion to our unhoused neighbors as we try to resolve this issue . And, you know, by compassion, you know, I mean, you know, let's not have a battle like we had over the respite center, right, you know, where people were saying, I don't want this in my backyard. You know, we're going to have to provide some temporary shelter and, you know, and compassion when it is to, you know, finding people services and getting people shelter and, you know, putting them in proper shelter. So I hope that, you know, in the next two or three months, as the time it takes to get to the point where we can provide adequate temporary housing, that that our community continues to show compassion like we have for many years for our unhoused neighbors. And I also thank you for all for working on this. And, you know, I think together we'll get through it. But, you know, it's it's very it's very sad to see, you know, what's happening, but it's very heartening to see, you know, the commitment that everyone on our city staff from the city manager on down and everyone on council has to, you know, finding compassionate solutions for this, for our neighbors. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Brody. Anyone else? Right. Fair enough. Right.
Speaker 6: So I'm learning to at least look like I'm fine in the movie, but you can tell. Thank you. So I want to thank I'm going to say in first off, every time I see him aspect is to do a presentation on these issues. I'm just constantly impressed and I feel very lucky to know that we have somebody with so much knowledge and understanding about this issue, not just, you know, specific programs, but actually understands the kind of holistic, comprehensive program and how everything fits together. So I just want to thank you for that. I want to thank everybody one last time as as this is your last item. Yeah. And I also do priority because Lois has been sitting on my screen for service. Butler has been sitting right here for so long. I just want to also acknowledge now is as you're stepping into the interim acting position, thank you for all the work you're doing on this as well, because right.
Speaker 0: Now you're the silent partner.
Speaker 6: Because you're somewhere in between there, whatever. But I know you've been very involved in a lot of these conversations because they really are. This is so thank you for that. I just also wanted to kind of touching on the housing issue again, because housing first as a as a as a solution tried to helping and aiding those who are unhoused is really important. But what we also know is that most of the unhoused in our area started off as housed. And we know that the reason they are unhoused now is because they got pushed out of the housing that they had and many of them were pushed out of that housing with with your not necessarily, you know, drug addiction and mental health issues, but that they may for all sorts of reasons that those get exasperated when you're living on the street. And so, you know, this is a great solution for addressing the issue that exists on our streets. But we also need to be, you know, kind of to Mr. Downey's point a little bit, we need to be making sure, you know, I would say action to the opposite of his point a little bit, but not argument. Argumentative. I appreciate the comment. We need to be making sure that people are not getting pushed out of their homes so that we have this problem that we have to deal with very much. I am ready and I know Councilmember Isaak has comments but I'm ready to support the staff recommendation. I really appreciate it. I remember speaking with Inspector Simmons. Potter I'm going to go with July kind of as we before we went on the August break, kind of about this issue and my hopes that we could be kind of talking about some real solutions here in October. And I was very pleased when I talked to the city manager and to hear that that was staff's staff's goal. And here we are. So I really want to thank you for that. I really want to encourage us to make sure that this strategic planning process, as we go forward, that we are communicating out very clearly to the to the council, and also that we are very clear with our timelines and our dates so that we know we have a lot more planning to do. I think if we can get these community cabins in and whatnot, we're going to end up back in here. Okay. Now what next? And I think that the more that we can be thinking about as we're doing that planning, what are the other things that we can also be looking to reach out and instill in the community? I just want to encourage staff to make sure that they're there. You know, if they're off agenda items and we're not just keeping us in the loop so that we can be supportive and help leverage our voices or help make decisions when the when there are decisions to be made that will help move us forward. But thank you. This is again, great work. I really appreciate it. We're lucky to have a county with a really good plan. We're a city with a really good plan and it's really good to see a lot of these things moving forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Behavior Council member Jason.
Speaker 6: Great. Well, thank you very much for your presentation this evening. And I especially liked the discussion regarding, you know, trying to put more emphasis on temporary shelter, whether there are the FEMA trailers or whether they are the cabins. I think that kind of temporary shelter is especially important when it comes to assisting those who are in the encampments around around Posey Tube. But I think the other great part about tonight's discussion was the range of carrots that have been discussed in terms of outreach, medical assistance, things like that. So I think we're we're moving in the right direction with regard to generally dealing with the matter of of homelessness. But obviously, you know, specifically, let's not kid ourselves putting in the strategies to deal with the situation right outside of the Posey to be encampments there and with things like the temporary shelters in the form of FEMA trailers or or the cabins that were discussed. If we do put more emphasis onto that, I think we can definitely begin to deal with the campaign issue in a very compassionate issue. By the same token, it seems to me that I also heard that we are carefully working within the framework of of Boise, of the Boise decision . And to me that that's important because it shows that, yes, we are putting a lot of carrots out there. But, you know, Boise clearly says that if you do have shelter available, then a city can work to do to exercise what it considers to be public safety concerns. And this might be an issue certainly outside of of those tube. But I think the range of carrots that were discussed tonight, I think, should really hearten a lot of people that we are beginning to move forward, especially on the encampment issue. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. They said, okay, by my calculation, all the council members have spoken, so we are being asked to receive an update. So we received an update and and staff you've heard our comments and our praise and our thanks for your hard work. So please continue to do what you're doing and we look forward to hearing back from you about your progress. All right. Thank you. So with that, we are going to close item 60. Okay, Council amendment of decision with 9:00. Now, we started at seven, although we really started at 530. Do you all want a five minute break from that five minute break? Five minute break. Okay, so everyone, we will be back in 5 minutes. Council, I recommend you put your microphone on mute and you can do whatever you want with your camera. Okay, 5 minutes. We'll be back. Thanks. Everyone. Let's see. Lara, are you there?
Speaker 2: Yes, I am here. I'm ready.
Speaker 1: You ready for us? Yes. All right, then. Everybody ready to go? You're back. Okay. So with that, we are back from our break and we have item six D.
Speaker 2: Recommendation to authorize the city manager or designated negotiate and execute rent relief agreements with commercial tenants and city owned Alameda Point properties via a $1.5 million loan conversion assistance program and implement an Alameda Point nonprofit and Spirit's Alley Business Rent Relief Program in response to the COVID 19 pandemic and adoption of related resolution.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Receive an Update on a Strategic Plan for Addressing Homelessness in Alameda. (Community Development 267)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_10062020_2020-8313
|
Speaker 3: a while. And now we're going to talk about the concept of landfill obsolescence. So the recycling plan is currently in the process of being updated, and I should have more to provide as that's taken care of. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Great. Okay. So then I will move on to Item 10-K, which is the last of my board and commission appointments. I have done lots of interviews, but I've enjoyed them all because as I've said more than once, we have amazing residents. And so here are my three boards and commissions that I'm filling vacancies for. The first one is the Civil Service Board, and I am recommending there's two terms or two openings that I'm recommending that the incumbent, Troy Hayes Murphy reappointed. And Mr. Hosmer is actually a retired Coast Guard commander and has been a valuable member of this commission and would like to spend another term, serve another term, and we would like to have him do that. And it was we had amazing candidates. It wasn't easy to choose, but I have selected April Madison Ramsey as my as my appointee for the new position on the the Civil Service Board. And Ms.. Madison Ramsey is an attorney, an amazingly qualified attorney. She currently is on the staff of legal counsel to the Stanford Medical Center, which is besides Stanford Medical Center, Stanford Hospitals of the SEALs, Salter Packard Children's Hospital, Family Medical Center and more. She was senior counsel to Dignity Health before then, where she handled employment, litigation and risk management. She has a very full resume, but a few highlights that are very relevant is she's worked in the Oakland City Attorney's Office and also in the San Francisco city attorney's office where she served as legal counsel to the Civil Service Commission. So you can imagine the Civil Service Commission in a city city county the size of San Francisco is a pretty big deal. But she is happy to volunteer to serve as a. Member of the Civil Service Board in Alameda. So those are my two appointees for that board and then the Commission on Persons with Disabilities. Again, just a very inspired group that applicants. And so I am these are my appointees. There were three openings to fill. So Arnold Berlinguer is the incumbent and Mr. Berlinger is a former schoolteacher. He's a former school principal. He is is in a wheelchair because he's lost a leg. He is an advocate for disabled individuals. And when it's not times of COVID, he is a frequent user of public transportation. But he's just you know, he's in a vulnerable category. And so he's had to curtail his use of public transit for the time being and also reappointing another incumbent. Her name is Jennifer Linton and Ms.. Linton, like my other appointee, Alison Mullings, they're both parents of children with special needs. What if the child has had special needs since toddlerhood the other because of circumstances became disabled as a teenager. And but yet they're passionate advocates for their children and bring so much awareness of what it's like to just navigate through daily life in school and living circumstances as someone with disabilities. So we are happy. I am happy to nominate them, introduce them to you for my nominees to the Commission on Persons with Disabilities. And then we have our very busy. They're all busy. But the Social Service Human Relations Board, you heard from Ms.. Baptiste earlier, they're going to be doing some more work, looking into programs around homelessness. So I am pleased to reappoint the incumbent, Christine Chilcote. And Christine, chocolate is well known around town because she is the executive director of Girls Inc of the island city. She also has worked closely with the school district on the mental health awareness programs and the studies and assessments that were done of the mental health needs in our school district. And so she is and she has a master's degree in education and so and reappointed is Chilcott and they are very excited to appoint two newbies and one of them is create and then create. You might have met her because she's the mother of what is the Butterfly Girls. You remember the Butterfly Project, but pretty impressive. In her own right, she has an undergraduate degree in biology from UCLA, a master's in public health from the UC Berkeley School of Public Health. She's currently working in Oakland in a program called Starting Oakland Starting Smart and Strong, which is a cross-sector early childhood collaborative focused on improving urban care in education in Oakland, especially in the most underserved areas. She has worked in the city of Oakland, Department of Human Services and the Violence Prevention Unit and in Headstart. And she brings a wealth of skills to the set of Social Service Human Relations Board. And then we have Mr. Anthony Lewis, who has worked as a vocational rehabilitation counselor for the state of California, assisting people with severe disabilities to achieve employment. He's retired now, but he is a volunteer with the Institute on Aging and help staff their San Francisco call center. And so he was telling us about how they're definitely hearing from seniors, many of whom live alone, who are experiencing loneliness and depression from the shelter in place requirements. And he's also a member of the Paratransit Advisory Committee of the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Mr. Lewis is also blind, and so he is a also a frequent user with his golden retriever of public transit. And I said AC Transit and he said all forms of transit. So those are my. Nominees to the Social Service Human Relations Board at our next council meeting on October the 20th, you will have a chance at the opportunity to meet them and to vote on them. And so then Councilmember Odie 410 be that you kind of give us your stop waste topic three.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think so. I apologize for news out of Turkey.
Speaker 1: You know, it could have been a council communication. So I would say with that that end and we will adjourn this council meeting at 11:00. So well within the same day we started. Thanks, everybody. A lot of work. A lot of good work. Thank you for your time. Take care. Stay safe. Let's see at the next meeting. Thank you, staff. Great job. Good night. Thank you so.
|
Council Communication
|
Consideration of Mayor’s Nominations for Appointments to the Civil Service Board, Commission on Persons with Disabilities and Social Service Human Relations Board.
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_09152020_2020-8279
|
Speaker 2: Okay to the let's go back to item five. I, um, this is the clerk. I don't want to step on your toes. What is this item?
Speaker 1: Adoption of resolution supporting the schools and local communities funding act on the November ballot.
Speaker 2: And I believe he could remind me whose staff report this is. That one is.
Speaker 1: It's the Sarah Henry, the POW. I think we're trying to admit her.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you for bearing witness.
Speaker 2: The lady with the bookmarks.
Speaker 0: See? There she is.
Speaker 2: Get them to us momentarily. Councilmember Desai, did you have questions about this? Comments? Did you want to hear the staff report?
Speaker 3: I don't have questions or comments, but if the staff member wants to. Perhaps for the purpose of the public. Very briefly, describe what five is. I believe it has to do with Proposition 15.
Speaker 2: Sarah, you're muted.
Speaker 0: Molly. I am here now.
Speaker 2: This is, by the way, Sarah Henry, our amazing public information officer. She also staffs the Commission on Persons with Disabilities. There's a whole lot more so. Oh, yeah. And keeps up with our legislative agenda, both state and federal. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So I didn't prepare a presentation tonight on this item, but this is the Proposition 15 on the November ballot supporting the Schools and Local Communities Funding Act. It is taxing the commercial property an annual or every other year assessment of actual value versus when it was sold. And the city has to gain what stands to gain about $7 million a year from this, the school district would gain about $5 million a year from this. And then, of course, our transit agencies and other municipalities would gain a lot as well.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Thank you. Miss Henry, there's another Sarah. I have a meeting with her tomorrow. Councilmember Desai. Any questions? Great. Just let me just comment.
Speaker 3: I don't support the split role tax approach. I believe we need to, because this is all about modifying Proposition 13. And I get and I understand that there's an argument that commercial and industrial wasn't meant to be part of Proposition 13 when it was passed in 1978. But the reality, though, is that especially in the times that we're in, it's particularly the very small businesses, the small mom and pop type of businesses who would be affected by this? Sure. The city of Alameda or even the school district stands to gain from this split roll approach. But I believe as a matter of principle, I believe Proposition 13 should remain intact, as it was originally put together back in 1978. It served businesses and residential quite well, and I would hope to see it continue the way it is in terms of dealing with funding issues. There's a whole range of other approaches that that I believe California ought to take. And so I'm not supportive of this flat roll approach.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And just a thank you. And then perhaps one of my colleagues whose hands are up might want to clarify some of the provisions in Prop 15. But I thought the vice mayor stand up, then Councilmember Vela, then Councilmember Ody. I'm pointing to where you.
Speaker 0: Are and I.
Speaker 2: Don't know where you.
Speaker 4: Are. I won't say much. I will say vice mayor, vice mayor, former vice mayor and current vice mayor. And actually, we were going to bring actually a referral asking our council to adopt this this evening. And so I just wanted to give my thanks to the city staff for actually seeing the importance of this and the council weighing in on this and bringing it forward. You know, I think what we know about Prop 13 is that there were loopholes that were left in that have unintentionally removed billions and billions of dollars each year from our schools, leaving our local communities underfunded in ways that many of us. I didn't grow up in California, but people of my generation benefited from, and then we removed it from them, transferring the tax load from companies who used to pay for it to homeowners and individuals today. I'll let my other colleagues weigh in, but I just wanted to thank our staff for bringing this forward.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Vella.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify, there were some statements made that I think don't accurately reflect what Prop 15 actually does with regards to small businesses. Prop 15 exempts all commercial property below $3 million in value, which is pretty significant. And it provides a tax cut on business equipment that will actually mostly benefit our small businesses. So I want to clarify, there's a lot of misinformation out there that this is going to hurt small businesses. It's actually not geared at them at all. In fact, this is about having places like Disneyland pay their fair share. Disneyland is paying almost nothing per acre and they have lots and lots of acreage, as well as large parking lot owners and folks like that who have, you know, large scale commercial properties. These are not small businesses. These are businesses that have considerable wealth and equity in their property. So if your individual property is exceeding $3 million, then you will not be exempt from Prop 15. So I just wanted to clarify that. I did want to echo the vice mayors statements, and I'm very glad that staff brought this to us. I think this very much needs to be done. This loophole needs to be closed. Our our youth and students and everybody who works at public schools and in public education deserve this. This is an investment in our future and making sure that large corporations like Disneyland pay their fair share. So I'm going to be supporting this today.
Speaker 2: Thank you. By the way, it was the mayor and staff that brought it forward. But I know I thought we would be mostly supportive, but we thought that it's good to bring it up to vote. And Councilmember Ody had his hand up. Then I'll go back to Councilmember Days. I can't remember that.
Speaker 3: I will also thank the mayor and staffer and Sarah for bringing this. Henry sorry for bringing this this up. I mean, as much as we all would love to be back in 1978, I mean, we're not. Times have changed. I mean, one example of that changes. In 1978, our school system was in the top ten in the nation, and now it's in the bottom ten as far as funding. So I spent the better part of the last month talking to almost any almost everybody running for election this year in Alameda County. And, you know, with COVID 19, there's a lot of issues with funding. And you saw the staff report. We'd be. To receive $7 million, which would be a good shot in the arm for the city of Alameda to deal with all of our unfunded obligations. But, you know, some of our transit agencies are hanging by a thread. And that 24 million that would go to AC transit may make the difference between having a transit agency and not having the transit agency. And then you saw the others, whether it's Bay Area Air Quality or East Bay Mud or BART or, you know, the Park District, which, you know, we're going to be depending on heavily for some of our future recreational needs in the city. I mean, this is way overdue and I hope it passes the first time. If it doesn't, we'll go at it again.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Brody, let's hear from Councilmember Desai, then you, Mr. Henry.
Speaker 3: Just quickly, while while the owners of property who are small businesses generating no more than $3 million might not be subject to this. The small businesses will still be subject to this because many of them are tenants of larger properties. You could just go to South Shore Shopping Center, for example, their tenant. There are small businesses there. There are small mom and pop businesses throughout, not just Alameda, but California. And it's going to negatively affect a lot of businesses, those small businesses. And I think we need to be cognizant of that, especially in this economic environment. So and I just think there are other ways to deal with the school issue.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Desai. Councilmember Vela, briefly.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Just really briefly. It's not it's not for I for companies that bring in more than 3 million it's for commercial properties valued at 3 million or over. And I just want to add that this isn't more taxes, this is taxing everyone, the specific taxes on a relatively few specific people. And it will just it's basically 92% of the revenues generated are going to come from just 10% of the properties in the state. So I just think that those that those facts are very important.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And with that.
Speaker 0: I'd like to move the approval.
Speaker 2: Okay. We've got a motion and second move by Councilman Vela, second by Councilmember Odie. Quick, Miss Henry, before they take it away.
Speaker 0: Well, I was going to make the point that Councilmember Vela just made that such a large portion of the revenues is coming from a small portion of the commercial properties. But the other point I wanted to make to the general public, and I apologize for not doing this beforehand, is that properties right now are generally re-assessed when they're sold. And so the assessed value is less than the market value for commercial properties. They're sold on average every 30 years. For residential properties, they're sold on average every six years. So you can definitely see the disparities there. And that was all I want to just mention.
Speaker 2: Perfect. Thank you. We've had a motion. We've had a second. Any further discussions then maybe we have a roll call vote.
Speaker 1: So number data.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Not quite. By Odie.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: I may as the Ashcraft.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And then we move to item five K.
Speaker 1: Which is final passage of ordinance amending the element of principle code by amending Chapter 27 development fees by repealing 27 dash for only two point development impact reads in its entirety. And we have a speaker on this item.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Adoption of Resolution Supporting the Schools and Local Communities Funding Act on the November Ballot. (City Manager 2110)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_09152020_2020-8292
|
Speaker 2: returning. He is the current president of the Public Art Commission. Tierney Ringer is a newcomer, extremely talented women worked for the Smithsonian when she was back in D.C., worked for the Exploratorium. When she came out here, mom of two preschoolers, you know, one of those with lots of free time, but willing to share her time and her talents. And then do we have some of our others or who could make it?
Speaker 1: We were told they were going to make it. So I just want to make sure if if anybody on it, maybe under a different name, that any of them could raise their hand because we could only find Adam. Okay, we got one more, Jerry. Yeah. They told us they were going to be here, but we were having trouble finding them on the zoom.
Speaker 3: Is on this, and.
Speaker 1: It's. Oh, Jerry, you found Jerry.
Speaker 2: Okay, there's Thomas. Saxby Thomas is an architect. He's on our historic advisory board. Where do you see?
Speaker 1: I think we're finding him, too.
Speaker 2: Where I see Jerry Boden.
Speaker 1: In in the attendees. We're looking in the list of attendees so we can.
Speaker 2: Promote that speech.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Okay, guys, here comes Jerry, 70, reappointed to the Public Utilities Board.
Speaker 1: Yet.
Speaker 2: To be in charge of engineering for the Port of Oakland. Anthony Ally Parent who is, I know a really strong supporter back there. I'm not biased, but our kids start elementary school at Payton together and we've done lots over the years. And Isabella, remind me who Isabella is.
Speaker 1: Maybe Samantha, right? That's what we're hoping. Yeah. Is that you were hoping she might have been using a different registration.
Speaker 2: No. NOM de plume. Hi. You want to reveal your identity? Hi.
Speaker 0: I have the honor of Abigail Cafe. I'm Joan in your.
Speaker 2: Um.
Speaker 1: Sorry. We thought it was okay. Clearly not. No. Okay. She reached out. All right.
Speaker 2: Okay. Well, Samantha souls, if you're out there, raise your right hand. Maybe she took my advice and went for a hike.
Speaker 0: Yes. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Just before we do the if we'll take the roll call vote just to have the vote on first.
Speaker 2: We've moved. Did you get who moved in second?
Speaker 1: Yes. Camera Odie moved in. Nice. Very nice. Split second.
Speaker 2: In. Perfect. Okay. That was to approve all of these appointments. Then maybe we have that roll call vote.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Knock fight.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Odie. Hi, fella. Mayor as the ashtray. I. Okay. If you will all stand and raise your right hand, I'm not sure how feasible it is to stand, but.
Speaker 2: On camera.
Speaker 1: And say, I love you. Just a fact. Yes. Okay. Do you solemnly do solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California, and that you are well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which you're about to enter?
Speaker 3: I will. I will.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you all so much for. Thank you for stepping forward. And we are delighted to have you on board. I know the various staff have already let you know when your first meeting will be. And again, I was we're all just so appreciative for you as to you for doing this. So enjoy. Take care. Stay safe.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Bye bye. Bye. See you right. All right. That's always a fun one. And next well, at the end of this agenda, I will announce my next nominations, and we'll do this all over again next week. So item six B.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to approve the D Pave Park Vision plan.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Adoption of Resolutions Reappointing Thomas Saxby as a Member of the Historical Advisory Board; Reappointing Adam Gillitt and Appointing Tierney Sneeringer as Members of the Public Art Commission; Reappointing Gerald Serventi as a Member of the Public Utilities Board; and Reappointing Samantha Soules as a Member of the Transportation Commission.
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_09152020_2020-8277
|
Speaker 1: Recommendation to approve staff's approach to developing a city of Alameda Racial Equity Action Plan for the organization, including joining the Government Alliance on Race and Equity.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And Assistant City Manager Bowden. Are you presenting, aren't you? Yes.
Speaker 3: Yes, I am. This evening.
Speaker 2: Good evening.
Speaker 3: Hi. Good evening, Mayor. As the Ashcraft vice mayor knocks white members of the city council. I'm Jerry Bowden, assistant city manager. And we're either being joined or will be joined with, ah, by the director, Nancy Bronstein here, our senior analyst, Sabina Netto, and our acting police chief, Jeff Emmett. And I'll give a shout out to Amy Wooldridge, who's also been working with the director. Wooldridge has been working with Rec and Park Commission on this topic as well. So the team is starting to form around this. Obviously city manager and city attorney are with us as well. So it's an exciting new project where we're looking forward to getting going on on an action plan to address the resolution that declared racism a public health crisis in the city of Alameda. This was on July the 28th. And part of that resolution asked the as the city council asked staff to come back with an initial and ongoing action plan to address this topic, this crisis in our community. And so and with a real focus on the organization. So at this point, we have started to develop that comprehensive race and equity action plan for the city of Alameda. We've joined the Government Alliance on Race and Equity, and that's the organization known as GEAR. And we're exploring other options as well. And I'll touch on those just briefly this evening. But the the main focus of the presentation this evening is on is on gear. And gear does help government organizations across the country. They're the way that they put it. They develop a pathway for entry into racial equity work. And then they do offer the resources to help organizations, government organizations sustain it. So we believe that gear can be an effective partner for us as we develop our Race and Equity Action Plan. The purpose of the plan will be to foster a safe and inclusive workspace and workplace for our employees and to ensure that race and the race and equity lens is used to inform our policies and our programs. And I just want to acknowledge the link between the conversation we just had on the prior item and in the work that would go into our are our programs, policies and processes with the with a race and equity lens as we're doing this work. So our police department personnel would also be included in the gear training as part of the overall organizational effort. But due to the unique nature of their job, we also wanted to make sure that we infused the work plan with something that was a little more specific. The the hiring and partnering with a group called Fair and Impartial Policing is what we're suggesting. That group is different than gear. They provide implicit bias training and other training to police personnel. And the option that we're probably most interested in in terms of the fair and impartial policing work is how they deliver the training with police personnel and with community stakeholders involved simultaneously. So it's a way to bring police and the community together as part of an implicit bias training exercise. I'm aware of the national, local, regional conversations about implicit bias and and whether or not that's an effective tool or technique. But it is we are looking at a multifaceted approach, and we do think that this is a component that can be helpful as we as we move forward. And I'll talk a little bit about our community led process and how this might interface with that work as well. So the third component that we're so we've got gear, we've got fair and impartial policing. We also reached out to the Alameda County District Attorney's Office. They have an alternative to arrest pilot program that is being developed at this time. We don't have a lot of detailed information on the program right now, but we we do understand that the pilot program will be designed to provide law enforcement with the ability to link individuals in need to behavioral health services as an alternative to arrest. And so we're going to continue to explore that. And to a certain extent and maybe even more directly, this one ties into the fourth and final component that all discussed this evening. We have a community conversation happening right now. The steering committee that the city manager appointed is is off doing their work. Now, the five task force committees have been established. And so as the the the work of the community led process starts to be brought forward, we anticipate being able to merge that in with our organizational efforts and specifically with the the that the work that the police department, the opportunities that will be in front of the police department in the coming months. And so at this time, we're very roughly a. Estimating a budget of about $75,000 for this work, which we would incorporate into the October budget update. If there's council support for what we're suggesting this evening. And with that, staff is recommending that the City Council approve the proposed approach to developing a city of Alameda Race and Equity Action Plan for the organization. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Bowden. Are there any. I'm. I'm going to assume that we have public comment on this item. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Mr. RISINGER At this point, no one has raised their hand, so we do not.
Speaker 2: Well, but just go to your. That is.
Speaker 1: Now, somebody raised their hand. So we have one.
Speaker 2: That's okay. We're going to open this to clarifying questions from the council and vice mayor next. Blake. I just hand it first and then I see council member already. So in that order, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Assistant City Manager Bowden. My question is, it's pretty simple. It seems to me that what you're asking for is, are you asking for us to adopt or. To approach to to to approve the city joining Gary and also for the city to move forward with the filth and the the implicit bias training. Or are you asking for us to prove $75,000 in the general approach that you have outlined? And that's a very good question. You know, Carol.
Speaker 3: I'll I'll start to answer. And then others on the team can can join in the the the work program that is attached to the staff report associated with gear includes workshops. We would be picking from that menu of workshops in a logical order to deliver the content to the organization and then to get into our policies and procedures. There are also department specific efforts that were mentioned in the staff report I didn't spend a lot of time on. So it's the work program, it's the gear program, the fair and impartial policing, and then an estimated budget of $75,000 that we would return to you for formal action on the budget component with. But we didn't want to leave out the budget discussion this evening.
Speaker 2: Does that answer the question, Mayor?
Speaker 4: Yeah. I guess I'll just ask, because I thought you were going one way and then you went a different way. But it sounds like you are asking us to approve the specific work program with flexibility for which workshops, etc., and also the use of the RFP. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Correct.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I mean, there were a couple emails from the public on this that kind of concern me on the fifth. I mean, I don't know if you had a chance to look at them, but, you know, there was some issues raised about, you know, interview that that one of the leaders had with an online magazine and talked about how this was used in Minneapolis, in New York. And there still hasn't been a change in behavior. And, you know, who's who does the training. So, I mean, I'm just wondering what you know, what would you say to people? About those concerns, especially when, you know, we've kind of given a community advisory committee this job and now we seem to be like picking their solution for them. Yeah. So so this is this is definitely I appreciate the question. I, I tried to infuse a little bit of that into the presentation this evening. I think that the conversation around implicit bias training gets mixed reviews. And there's no there's no question about that in terms of how the media and the the general public and the results, frankly, of fairness of of implicit bias training have have panned out in recent years. But what I would say to that is the there is an organizational approach to training our employees that we do fair, we do implicit bias training currently. And the question is, how do we want to deliver that training going forward? We're still at work. We're going to continue to deliver implicit bias training. I believe that that could change. And that, I think is the the community led component of the conversation. It could change. But in the meantime, we're trying to establish a work plan for our organization. And implicit bias training is is an important foundational piece from our perspective as we did the research on this topic and and the, the, the individual group that we've selected happens to bring in the community as part of that conversation. It's not just in a conference room training session. So there's an opportunity to build relationships between the police department and the community with the fair and impartial policing approach to implicit bias training. And so that's the reason that that particular group was put forward in this work program for the organization.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Burton. And I was going to ask if I could put any of our other staff on the spot who might want to comment. But is this is the program that has been used by any other cities in the Bay Area? Mr. Levitt.
Speaker 3: You? Yeah. The implicit, implicit bias training regarding the second group that Jerry Brown's talking about actually has been used extensively in Berkeley as my understanding, and has had a lot of success. And they have seen some change in Berkeley based on it. Obviously, we're talking about long term issues that have been going on in our society for a long time. So you aren't going to change it overnight. But they I've seen and heard favorable reviews in Berkeley and they still continue to use this program. It's not just a one time training. It's to try to create it as an integration into the organization overall. And actually, you can go beyond the police department if we find success in that program.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Anybody from H.R. want to comment? Not necessarily. Okay. Kills them every day. So, guys, see your hand up, please.
Speaker 3: Great. Well, thank you. So my understanding of what we're dealing with tonight is we wanna put together a race and equity action plan. And in putting that together, we're drawing on resources like something called gear and something called also fair and impartial policing. So they've got the background. They understand, you know, the types of questions that need to be considered. And they will help us staff and any other stakeholders involved in that process and putting together a fair and equity action plan, all of which will cost, we believe some are roughly around $75,000. So which is well and good. My concern I just want to make sure that we have an evaluation component within the within the plan that we come up with and that the resources we're drawing on for assistance, whether it's G&A or whether it's fair and impartial policing or, you know, maybe some knowledgeable community member, the resources that we draw on help us kind of identify how we might go about evaluating the Race and Equity Action Plan once it's designed and once it's implemented. And I think the evaluation component will be important because if we need to like change course somewhere in midstream, you know, we will have a basis for doing so. And the reason why I want to harp on, on, on kind of having some kind of thought through evaluation and evaluation process where we get the input from Gair or from, from fair and impartial policing or from the county DA's office. The reason why I think the evaluation part is important is because. You know, several years ago in the San Francisco Chronicle, there was a major newspaper article about this racial equity training for youth. And it was talking about, you know, how that this project, you know, it would bring in high school students from throughout the San Francisco Bay area to spend several days in the Santa Cruz Hills. And this and this was extensive right up in the San Francisco Chronicle front page. And and I have the link to it. But the punchline of that article, though, was that the trainers themselves might not live. And you know that the techniques that they used were kind of iffy. And so we want to make sure that obviously this is going to be done professionally, but it's also going to be sensitive to, you know, the different perspectives that I got being involved in the process. But for for I think for this to ultimately work, I think we need to be able to intentionally think through how we're going to evaluate and kind of track ourselves so that if we have to make any adjustments as we're implementing the Race and Equity Action Plan that we're getting, that that we have a shared basis for doing so. So that's why I will really stress having that. The process by which we're involving Gare or fair or impartial policing or the county DA's office, that they also help us think through how we're going to evaluate the race and equity plan that we ultimately design and implement. So that would be my $0.02 evaluation.
Speaker 2: I have been like 24/7.
Speaker 0: And I have.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Vela, did I see your handout?
Speaker 0: I was just going to ask if we're in council discussion or if it's just council questions right now. And if we had a public speaker.
Speaker 2: We're in free form. Well, the last I heard from the city clerk, we didn't have any public speakers because that status changed.
Speaker 1: Yes, we have two now.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay. So council, we can still entertain any clarifying questions about the staff report on that thing. And then let's hear from our public speakers and we'll come back to wrap up our discussion. Okay.
Speaker 1: Alexia Rocha.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mr. Roger.
Speaker 0: Hi. Good evening, everybody. I am concerned to read about these recommendations specifically related to the fair and impartial policing trainings. First, I'm confused because the racism as a public health emergency didn't go through this summer as initiated, since folks felt the community hadn't been heard. Then the subcommittees were created so that the community could be heard. But then, here we are with proposed plans directly related to these subcommittees without their input beforehand. Second, this LLC, considered for the bias trainings, have been used in multiple cities where cops are still killing black and brown folks. Bias trainings have often backfired and instead had the opposite effect reinforcing biases which has been studied and is easily Google evil. I'm very curious who the city manager has been hearing reports from as to their success in Berkeley, because I imagine if you asked folks of color, they wouldn't agree. This all goes towards reform. And as we have seen over the many, many years that policing has been problematic. Reforms do not work. They maintain the status quo and perpetuate the inequitable treatment between people of color and white people. Not to mention, these trainings are incredibly expensive. Instead, I believe we should be looking at how we can reroute these funds for people so that services are actually without the funds from police, so that services are actually working for the people and not against them. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Rasheed Shabazz.
Speaker 2: Hello, Mr. Shabazz.
Speaker 3: Peace be with you. I'm there.
Speaker 2: With you.
Speaker 3: Hey. Hey. I wanted to just comment as far as the overall racial equity plan and then suggest another organization that may help with some of the evaluations specific for the police department. So first, I think in another correspondence I suggested the Government Alliance for Racial Equity. And I think, you know, they do a lot of great work. And I think for some aspects of them, some of the larger frameworks that may be helpful for some of the things internal to city government specifically related to FEP, I don't know if people call it that. I think just with the concerns that people raised about the independent investigation into the incident with the party room, Ollie Watkins, and the concern around the law enforcement sort of entanglement, I use that phrase with that organization and it being confidential. I think the similar concerns are going to come up with another organization that takes a research approach is the Center for Policing Equity. And what they focus on is more about data. And so I think that because I don't know to what extent the issue has been studied in Alameda, analyzing the data by race, by gender, by location. Without that, I don't know if just doing more training or not having evaluated past training will let folks know if there's a problem, the extent of the problem, etc.. So I would suggest an academic organization like CP in the Center for Policing Equity at UCLA, and I think there's a couple of other ones and other institutions that can provide that level of data analysis that can help inform the community process and also what your oversight is as a city council.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chavez. Are there further public comments?
Speaker 1: We have one more chair. Johansson.
Speaker 2: Mr. Johansson. 15 view. I'm sorry. There you go.
Speaker 1: I'm doing that.
Speaker 2: There you go.
Speaker 1: I'm a little concerned.
Speaker 0: That this is kind of cutting off the community input that we have, the community committees that we're formed to kind of give us guidance on this question. And I'm sort.
Speaker 2: Of afraid that.
Speaker 0: If we do this tonight, then you're kind of tied their hands.
Speaker 2: So I think maybe we.
Speaker 0: Should listen to the community first before we go ahead with some of us. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Johansen. Any more public speakers, Madam Clerk?
Speaker 1: That was our last speaker.
Speaker 2: Okay, then I'm going to close public comment at this point, and I'm actually going to ask staff to comment on some of the things that we have heard. First of all, Mr. Bowden or whoever Mr. Leavitt, whoever wants to take this, is this proposal, does it somehow hamper or preclude the public process that has started what appears to be a very robust process?
Speaker 3: Yeah. And I, I can I could start and I could I would one alternative I would recommend in addressing some of these comments is the committees are looking and working toward trying to bring a interim report back to the city council in December. At this point, it took a little while to get them together. So they're trying to bring some report, an interim report in December. So one option would be to maybe get is a little bit separate is separate from the policing committees. And so I would one alternative would be to go forward with care and we could take and maybe go forward and continue to research the district attorney's program that they're instituting. And then we could take the other part that people have more concerns about, and we could actually move that out to December, because I think between now and December probably is not a lengthy time. We're talking about something that we're trying to create a change in dynamics going forward for for a for the organization as a whole. So waiting until December for that, for the fair and implicit bias could be something that we wait till December and have those committees review it. That would be an alternative to this.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And I will just share that. I had a conversation with the district attorney, Nancy O'Malley, in the last month, and she did mention this pilot program that the county and her office had started, which would be to it actually has a lot of resemblance to the code program that you probably all hear. Tired of hearing me raise. But it does have a lot of merits. And 31 years old now. So anyway, I said, oh, please talk to our city manager, because I would be very interested in in having Almeida participate in something like that. So I think both the city manager, maybe the city attorney have had some conversations with her. And so thank you for that input. Mr. LEVITT. Councilmember Vale, I throw your hands up.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I, I'm a few things I'm supportive of generally the air program. I have a lot of reservations about implicit bias. There was actually an article in NPR about the NYPD study on implicit bias training and changing minds. And ultimately the conclusion was that it doesn't necessarily change behavior. And as a lot of law enforcement departments are looking at either changes in policy or potential reform, one of the most common responses has been to basically have folks take implicit bias training. And, you know, some of the original people behind developing implicit bias training, including some of the professors from Harvard, have said that ultimately they have a few concerns. One is that they worry about the quality of the implicit bias training for police and that there are a lot of concepts that are out there by different folks, but they're not necessarily all the same. And there's a certain degree of expertize that's needed. The other comments that that I thought were relevant and important was that, you know, the training itself, this was another psychology professor was that the training itself probably doesn't hurt, but there's an opportunity cost to consider that, especially in an effort to fix implicit. If the effort is to fix implicit bias in officers, it really often displaces other kinds of training that could be more effective and also can give cities an excuse to ignore factors that are external to policing but probably have a greater impact in the overall results. And so, you know, the suggestion has basically been that really this is not necessarily about looking at certain types of implicit bias training, but really that we find levels of intervention relative to overall office culture, which is, I think, what Gary is more geared at just, just in general, and that we are also looking at understanding the reasons for certain communities to have more encounters that are negative or with police, such as poverty or housing policies, that that end up concentrating particular ethnic groups into areas that then become designated as crime prone. And I think we've heard a lot of comments not just at this council meeting in our public comments, but in other council meetings of kind of the bias that exists in our community. And there's also kind of a widespread focus now nationally also on looking at kind of understanding, you know, different policies that we have in place, whether they're housing policies or different laws that we've enacted, that that cause people to really focus on trying to criminalize survival. And so, you know, I think I guess my concern is twofold. One, that I want to give room for this community process. So I would appreciate kind of holding back on the Fed and letting that process take place. But I do think that there's value in Gary specifically because it's more, as I stated, geared at that overall cultural approach within within the city or the organization and kind of addressing that and helping us focus on a process to really address those things. If we do partner with the city attorney's office or that's something that's on the table, I will have to abstain from that. My my employer represents the rank and file district attorneys at Alameda County, so I will not be be commenting or voting on that. But I just wanted to put that out there. And I, as somebody who has represented does represent people that are in law enforcement, I think that there's a lot of good intent behind things like the CIP, but I think that they ultimately take away from from broader goals and detract from the larger conversation, which is maybe where we want to spend the bulk of our time. So, you know, I do appreciate staff trying to move forward on this. And I think that there's a lot of misinformation out there that that the city is kind of dragging its heels and not trying to respond. And so I really appreciate this being on the agenda and that this is continuing to come back. To us. I think you heard from us that we wanted to see action. And so I think that's why there in particular is coming back to us. So I want to acknowledge that that that isn't just staff motivated. That was really coming from council in our conversations this summer, but that I think that there is room for kind of the specifics of that to be worked out through the community led process. And I think what would be helpful is also if the community if we could get some feedback on the community led process, like what sort of public meetings they might be having or opportunities for members of the public to to comment and be involved in that. I think I know that that's happening. I just don't want it to seem like the city is hiding that.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Vela, Councilmember ODA, you're next.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm pretty much going to agree with everything my colleague just said, except I will comment on the 3D alternative a little bit. So I'm fine with the. With the gear because I think that was something we specifically called out when we were still deciding what we're going to do with that emergency health declaration that we even passed that on the first day. And, you know, I've personally heard instances of of of racism directed at our members of staff, and that's concerning. So I think the sooner we can work on that internally, the better. I mean, we just went through this process to kind of center our communities of color on the solution and then to bring forward a suggestion for the DA's office and to bring out a suggestion from this fit, which is basically funded by DOJ grants. I mean, it's kind of, in my opinion, centering institutional law enforcement. And I mean, if I mean, I'm not in the community of color, but I would kind of take that as a slap in the face because that's kind of what I'm hearing we're not supposed to do. So I would like to see this committee who we trusted with this, you know, and again, whether it's, you know, this three D program or cahoots or expanding community, parent medicine or whatever the solution is going to be understanding that, you know, that solution or recommendations were going to come back from the task force as opposed to the council kind of picking and choosing winners and losers. So, you know, I prefer that that that part of this agenda item, it will kind of be be evaluated by the committee because the Center for Policing Equity, I mean, that that's something I don't know if we've looked at. But, you know, just looking at the website, you know, seems like something I'd be more inclined to to hear more about than this other stuff which some members of the community have raised concerns about. So I think we should take those seriously.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Oti, Councilmember de SAC.
Speaker 3: Well, great. Let me add to this conversation. Let me add this. I do think that because in Alameda specifically or across the country generally, the police force are especially implicated and the discussion about race and equity and how we treat one another. I believe that the process that would lead to the race inequity action plan that we're talking about tonight must involve the lens, the perspective of an organization such as fair and impartial policing. It doesn't have to be fair, impartial policing, but it has to be. I think the perspective of the police needs to be included in this process. And I say that especially because when it comes to race and equity type of issues that are related to police, I think there's something very special about the interaction between the possible interaction between police and and and persons of color and that and that quote unquote, something special has to do with, you know, issues of potential violence and harm. And so I think we definitely need an organization who understands the policing perspectives and the procedures and the policies, as well as an organization perhaps like Aguerre, who also understands, you know, the broader questions regarding race and culture and equity. So I think it would it would weaken the race and equity action plan that we're trying to put together if we do not include an organization that intentionally includes a perspective of of the police industry. Again, it doesn't have to be fair and impartial police and maybe it's someone else. But but but whomever I think that has to be involved because I don't know, for example, if government alliance on race inequity, if they have the subject matter expertize to be able to translate, you know, the questions, the questions and answers that they have with regard to matters of race and equity, if they can translate that into specific policies and procedures. Regarding the police force, I don't know if they have that subject matter expertize. So I do think you need someone like a FIP. It doesn't have to be them, but but it has to be someone with kind of a policing background. So so I will disagree with the city manager's suggestion that we hold off on including the FIP and move forward with the with Aguiar. I think we, I think we we we ought to move forward. And if we're going to hold off on the FIP, we ought to hold off only because we're in search of someone like FIP. I don't know if it's if it's the UCLA outfit that was referenced earlier today, but the fact that is associated with UCLA, I mean, does in my from my perspective, give it some semblance of credibility, particularly from an academic perspective, as well as from from policy and practice perspective. It doesn't again, it doesn't have to be that that that organization from UCLA. But but but I do believe it has to be someone who is intimately familiar with them with the practices and procedures of of policing and and how we can improve that through the Race Equity Action Plan. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember de so face paradox.
Speaker 4: I have to say, when Councilmember de SAC was saying about to say what his perception of UCLA was, I was really expecting this cal side to come out.
Speaker 3: So I held back.
Speaker 2: I think it's part of the system and I think you might have a familial relationship to that.
Speaker 4: So I just I said it. There's a lot that Johnny is and I was praising the UCLA system in this case. So I want to I want to step back and a couple of things. I have had the opportunity over the last few weeks to meet with our interim police chief and our in our captains to talk about some issues. And I have really appreciated the openness, the transparency and the commitment to conversation that that that I have that I have witnessed. And and I do feel that there is I say this talk for for the communities who is listening, a real commitment to openly talking about these issues in a way that that I have not seen up until this point. And so I just wanted to really acknowledge, you know, and appreciate the FIP process and the real attempt to. Be proactive. You know, I don't feel that I am the right person to decide whether PHP is the right process, whether implicit bias is the right process. But I do. And for me, I am interested in willing to approve the financed financial side of this on the FP issue. You know, my, my recommendation would be that if staff feels this is the first thing that should be done, that there should be some conversation with the appropriate subcommittee and steering committee, and then we should come back and hear what their feedback was so that I don't feel comfortable approving this program tonight. But I know that a lot of thought has gone into it, and I have read the studies to say implicit bias training is not useful. And I also know that, you know, the city of San Francisco who has gone, you know, you know, three young gun really strongly into this issue offers it. And it is a training that is that is encouraged for all employees. So, you know, I'm not going to micromanage with the rate with the right solution, is there? But I would like to make sure that we we hear a little bit more in this conversation. We've had lots of conversations about racism and what it is. And, you know, I think that there's still a lot of room for all of us to have conversations about how we can call out racist actions without accusing somebody of being an immoral, racist person. And I think well, Councilmember De Saag said that, you know, policing is kind of right there in the center in Alameda of kind of racial inequity and whatnot. And then maybe paraphrasing a little, you know, I don't mean on not not be correct, but quite honestly I think, you know, we just in case our police staff and enforcement effort here and we're having the same conversation about land use right now. We're having the same conversation about parks. I don't want to single out the police. There is a reason why they have been the focal point in part of it is because of what happened in Minneapolis. But part of it is what happened after Minneapolis with George Floyd and the conversations that we had. I, I do find myself wondering if there are some conversations before we start with implicit bias training that might need to happen to make sure that everybody is on the same page about how we're doing this and why we're doing this. But, you know, anger might be a place that can help the city. San Francisco has been a member of Dare. I have not personally gone through any of their programs, but I work with multiple people who have gone through their trainings. But the city has made a strong commitment to just putting cohort after cohort after cohort of people through their training. And that's that's I think what we need to understand is that this is not a one time cost for us. This is a commitment that we're making and that we're making for years and that a year from now, it is really going to be hard for us to out to do the important evaluation that Councilmember de SAC says it reminded us is important earlier today. So, you know, I strongly encourage us and have strongly encouraged us in the past to to join there and to get that underway. I would be happy to support the $75,000 with direction that staff come back when they have kind of something that they want to. I appreciate that. The I don't think Gare and RFP interlink. They are two separate things, but I appreciate that there's some interested in looking at how do we kick off some conversations here in the police department based on community feedback that we have received? I'd like that. I'd like both the police department and our community groups, too, to provide that feedback. Anyway, I yeah. I want to correct a couple of things that I heard tonight. We're two months in, and we have yet to have one single public meeting of these steering committee. In fact, a steering committee themselves have yet to meet. So we we don't have work plans. You know, I you know, in July, the council said, well, if we don't feel that they've you know, we've heard from them, we don't have information, we will we'll change course. I'm not expecting to change course. But I want to be careful that we are suggesting that there is a robust public process that is has happened because there has been zero public process. In fact, I can't even get the names of the people who are on the subcommittees at this point in time. And anyway, I just I want to be careful that, yes, we have a public we have public groups that are doing work. But until they start actually engaging the public, you know, we don't know what's happening. And that does concern me a little bit. I was one who said, hey, let's start talking about the city, how the city can start engaging on this. So I'm really appreciative of the the city manager, even though the council didn't actually support moving forward on this quickly. I saw the importance of this and brought it forward. And, you know, I think our city is is moving in the right direction. But I think we have some big questions and our timelines are starting to slip. And I don't know how to address that, but I think it's a conversation we should probably bring back some time so that we can, because now we're hearing our first report back from these committees will be in December when we were in July, going to be hearing back at least initial information in September. But I look forward to supporting this tonight with the caveat about the fifth and community input. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um, I don't think it's my imagination. Didn't we receive the spreadsheet of all the committee members broken down by the committee? The city manager sent them to us. And I don't think you were excluded just last week, I believe, Mr. Levitt.
Speaker 3: I did, but I will send. I sent it out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4: Thanks. I even just. I just looked for it, so I must have deleted it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: We get a lot of emails. I'll be the first to say if I haven't replied yours, please forgive me. So I think we've heard from everyone. So let me just chime in. Good. And I'll give you another chance if you want to. But thank you. Good. Good comments. I really appreciate Assistant City Manager Bowden putting this report together, doing a really deep dove. I know the city manager and I and I guess I've heard from business city manager Bowden mentioned a couple of times what good results Berkeley has had with gear. It's good to hear about San Francisco as well because I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel. And you know, when it comes to the Bay Area, Bay Area cities have certain issues in common and certain similar sensibilities. And so I think the recommendations are good about moving forward with the gear. I would concur with the city manager's recommendation that the fifth portion could wait until we've heard from from our subcommittees their input. And I want to address something Councilmember Otis said, because I didn't want to leave the impression that I signed up for being in this Diaz pilot, but I don't even know when it started. It was unclear whether it was even going to start. But sometimes if you don't get at least your foot in the door, then the opportunity, you know, closes. And so I chose the day this in Alameda resident but I'm really proud of this this work that we're undertaking. And yeah, it's taking time but there's the member is the steering committee and the whole big group they have on that and they have divided themselves into the relevant subcommittees. And I think we had about 200 expressions of interest from the community, which I consider a success right there, that there's so much interest in this, in this topic. And I was really pleased to see a wide range of folks who who are participating. But I yes, I very much favor approving the $75,000 expenditure moving forward as the city manager recommend. And I'm happy to if someone wants to make the motion, I think. Councilmember Kelly, did you want to say one more thing? I thought that had a good.
Speaker 0: Yeah, just that the update was sent out on September 7th and that the committee met on the eighth and the subcommittee members are all listed on the City of Oneida website. If you go to our website, it's, it's there under the policing review and racial equity. If you go to home residents policing review and racial equity, it also has the presentation in the agenda from the meetings with the the Police Reform Citizen's Committee's kick off convening from September 8th. And then all the names of the participants are as well as the selection committee are all there as well as their background. So I just wanted to put that out there, but I do want to recognize again the digital divide and the fact that just because it's on our website doesn't mean that people necessarily know about it. And so I do think perhaps in the city manager updates, if we can, at our council meetings, if we could just hear in advance if there are meetings, that sort of thing, I think members of the public would appreciate it.
Speaker 2: That's a good point, Councilmember Vela. And I think this weekend is when I do mine. I write my next article as you monthly articles, not for the newspapers. I'll try to be sure to include that one in there.
Speaker 0: Something about that as well.
Speaker 2: So with that, do we have a motion for moving forward? Councilmember Brody, you're leaning forward. 10 minutes. And that's to make a motion or.
Speaker 3: Oh, I got to look up. I got to open my eyes.
Speaker 2: The vice mayor's got is that.
Speaker 4: I move that we approve the city joining together and moving forward in developing a work plan and the and approved $75,000 for this effort including an effort to start engaging with our police force in concert in consultation with our both our police department and community enforcement subcommittees.
Speaker 2: Okay. We've had a motion I'll.
Speaker 0: Second that.
Speaker 2: We have a statement by Councilmember Vela. Any further discussion?
Speaker 3: Councilmember So would that mean that before whatever program or contractor or whatever we hired, it would come back to us? So or. You know how much they plan on that and what we would weigh. Yeah, we would.
Speaker 2: Have it.
Speaker 3: Outside of Gaza. We would wait on the on the other the fit, as people have called it. And we would wait on that until the police subcommittee reports come back. Or that's not my mom. Prioritize this or something.
Speaker 4: You're welcome.
Speaker 2: Mr.. Mr.. KNOX Wait. Just let Mr. Oteh finish his comments and then I will call on you. Counselor, O.D. You were say.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I kind of lost my train of thought because I was interrupted by Jim. It's okay.
Speaker 2: We're going to take a break after this, guys. So that's when I get a break. We've got more than that.
Speaker 3: So I guess I just want to make sure that, you know, the staff doesn't go off and pick somebody, you know, without somebody taking a second pair of eyes. On what the committee recommended. So we can make sure that, you know, whatever happens is aligned with with what the committee recommends. Not that I don't trust you here, but this is a very sensitive issue. And I think we need to work quickly, but also work smartly.
Speaker 2: And you want that community input is what I'm hearing.
Speaker 3: Right. And I'm going to make sure that, you know, we validate that it's been followed.
Speaker 2: Okay. Back to you, vice mayor.
Speaker 4: All right. So the motion was to actually allow the staff to have the flexibility to hire at the the appropriate consultant in consultation with the committees. I wasn't. We can ask we can add to it if you want, that it has to come back for council approval. That starts to feel like we're getting into administrative stuff, but maybe we can bring it back as an informative. My guess is the committees will let us know if something is moving forward that is not consistent with the recommendations.
Speaker 2: Okay. I understood that. Rody, does that satisfy your concerns?
Speaker 3: And may it be good to just add that to the motion. You know, I thought we were welcoming feedback from, you know, our bipoc communities on these things.
Speaker 2: So I think that's what the vice mayor is saying, are you not?
Speaker 4: That was that was in the motion. That was specifically what's not in the motion is that it's going to come back for council approval can.
Speaker 2: But the vice mayor is proposing this consultation with the subcommittees. Which are largely made up of our bipoc community.
Speaker 3: I'd like to say I still would like to review it and make sure that. Whoever is selected. I just want to have one more evaluation from the council before it selected. I mean, what if what if the staff refused declines the recommendation of of the committee. I mean, that's possible. Or the committee makes multiple recommendations.
Speaker 2: Oh, I don't know. Council members What do we think? Council Member Fellow.
Speaker 0: $75,000 is not not a lot of money. And so my assumption would be that if there's multiple suggestions that we go with multiple things, that that will come back to us. I also think that what we heard was that there's going to be a report back from the committee in December. And so I would expect as part of that report back from the committees, that they address the usage of the $75,000, as well as what their recommendation was to this. So I and I heard from the city manager that he plans to come back. I just don't want to hold this up as a matter of official council approval. But I think we've made it very clear that it needs to be in consultation with these committees. And I think that there are some very vocal members of our community who know how to get in touch with us, if in that who are involved. And specifically on the anti-racism process of this, I feel very comfortable with the folks that are involved.
Speaker 2: Okay. So and I would say my concern. All right. Well, and I think your concern will be addressed, but I appreciate you raising that. Thank you. So we've had a motion by Vice Mayor Knox White, seconded.
Speaker 1: By Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 2: That's her. Yes. Thank you. I'm glad someone's keeping track. Any further discussions thing, then? Maybe we have a roll call vote with.
Speaker 1: Councilmember De said. It's not quite.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Odie. I vla.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Mayor as the Ashcroft.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Like carries by five I.
Speaker 2: Thank you, everyone. A very good discussion. Thank you. Members of staff in chief Emmett Bronstein, the netto, our assistant city manager. City manager, thank you very much. I'm granting a ten minute break for us. We will be back at 945, be at 945. So you might want to turn your cameras and your audio. Councilor Odie council member. That I thought.
Speaker 3: Oh, someone need to shave.
Speaker 2: Oh, I wasn't going to mention that to. Okay. There she is. Hey. So, Laura, are you ready for us?
Speaker 1: Yes, we are ready.
Speaker 2: All right. And let's go live.
Speaker 1: Eight. So item six is introduction of ordinance amending the army to missile code by adding a new article. Okay, that one is 19/3 party food and how that's not 19 touch. Wait a.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: I used Roman numerals there. You're killing me right now. That's ten. But then it be v i v and it is. That's weird. I think there's a problem with that rating. I got to double check that. Anyway, to an article at third party food delivery of Chapter six Business Occupations and Industries establishing a temporary limit on charges imposed by third party delivery services during the locally declared state of emergency related to the COVID 19 pandemic.
Speaker 2: Is it? 29? Is that what that is?
Speaker 1: I don't know because I thought that was I x 29 was i x? That's what I tried.
Speaker 2: Oh, I didn't know. Probably some third grader will email us. But so is this. And this potter's.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Council members. Mayor, I have a very short introduction and the pleasure of turning the presentation over to Amanda Gursky, who is going to be giving the staff report. And with that, Amanda, myself and Lois will be available to answer any questions.
Speaker 2: Hi. So there's this butler. Okay. All right. You welcome this jerky. Take it away.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So good evening. My name's Amanda Garki. I'm with the Community Development Department. I'm just going to give a short presentation on the ordinance we're proposing tonight that would limit the fees charged to Alameda Restaurants by third party delivery companies. So by way of background, I know folks are aware of how hard hit the restaurant industry has been by COVID 19. Like many businesses, restaurants were forced to close in March, and many have turned to takeout and delivery as their main source of income. Next slide, please. So after the initial shelter in place, orders took hold. Third party delivery services like GrubHub, Postmates, DoorDash, they were. They actually played a really important role in helping our restaurants to come up to scale, to respond to demand and kind of the new COVID reality that many of the restaurants were facing. So they provide a variety of services. In addition to coordinating deliveries, they also help to market restaurants, bring their menus online, provide customer assistance and help with point of sale technologies among other among other services. They also pay credit card processing fees and for liability insurance and PPE for delivery drivers. So, you know, these services really offer a lot, but they also, at the same time charge a lot of the fees that these companies charge restaurants for. Services vary based on individual service packages, but they range from 20 to 30% of purchase price. And in addition to charging restaurants, they also charge fees to customers. One 2019 article found that customer fees ranged from 12 to 30% of purchase price. Next slide, please. So in preparing for this ordinance, we reached out to Alameda Restaurants and we heard from many of them that delivery and takeout are their primary sources of income at this time. These restaurants are already operating on pretty slim margins of the 20 to 30%. Fees represent a real hardship for them. We heard from restaurant owners who are not taking salaries, who are dipping into their personal savings to keep their businesses running, and who are relying on PPE loans, which are quickly running out. I spoke to one restaurant owner who has a very successful restaurant, been working seven days a week, and he thinks that if things don't change, he might have to start thinking about closing in December. And that was kind of a thread that we heard throughout this process. We also recently conducted a focus group of restaurants and retailers, and we heard that folks are predicting a wave of closures over the winter if conditions don't change. Next slide, please. So the proposed ordinance would limit fees on restaurants to 15% of purchase price. This number is consistent with ordinances that have been enacted by other Bay Area cities, including San Francisco, San Leandro, Livermore, Fremont and a number of other cities across the country. We're recommending that the ordinance be temporary so that it would end when the state of emergency is lifted or whenever indoor dining can resume at 100%, whichever happens later. We're proposing a wide variety of enforcement options, including civil, criminal and administrative. And there's also a few other elements that are included in the proposed ordinance not allowing customer or not allowing the services to increase menu prices unless that was initiated by the restaurants, not allowing them to garnish or retain any portion of the driver tip and not allowing them to charge for telephone orders that don't result in a transaction. So in preparing for this ordinance, we also reached out to the third party delivery companies to get their feedback on this. And we heard from them that there may be some impact on the services they can provide if we implement and or limits . They talked about reduced marketing for restaurants will be reduced delivery radii and also the potential to increase fees for customers. They said that higher fees to customers may result in fewer orders for restaurants through their company. So we we did run those potential impacts by some of the restaurants, and we heard some folks who had concerns about them. We heard other restaurants who weren't terribly concerned about it. One point I wanted to note that came up a few times was that some restaurants felt that if there were that it actually might be a good thing if fewer orders were going through the third party delivery companies, because it might lead to more direct takeout orders , which is actually more profitable and preferred by many of the restaurants. Next slide, please. So in terms of alternatives, know one possible one would be to do something slightly higher than 15%. And the city of Oakland, they did a 15% fee limit for restaurants, but then also allowed the services to pass on their credit card processing fees . Notes average about 2 to 3%. So it's kind of having a few limits up more around the 17, 18% point that just gives the companies a little more breathing room. In a similar vein, Berkeley and Los Angeles and New York and a few other cities have done a 15% plus five model. So that's 15% for delivery fees plus five for service fees. That comes out to about 20%. Council also has the option of, in addition to limiting the restaurant fee to 15% or some other amount of freezing customer fees at the current rate. So this option is recommended by our city attorney's office as a way to ensure that the costs aren't passed on to customers. And the research we did for this, we weren't able to find any other cities that have yet have passed a freeze on customer fees. So to my knowledge, at this point, we would be the first and I will say that we heard from delivery companies that if we freeze customer fees, that they may consider legal action against us or pull out of Alameda altogether. And then, of course, there's always no action. So that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to take any questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. And so you weren't able to find any cities that have capped the amount of fees charged customers that the city of Santa monica. Or were you looking at Bay Area cities?
Speaker 0: I, i we looked throughout the country, but we weren't able to look at all of them. I did not look at the city of Santa monica. So it's possible that that but that that they have done that.
Speaker 2: Okay. Um. Our city attorney has the connections in Santa monica. This is a very interesting, interesting item and timely because. Restaurants have been, as you noted, very hard hit. And then sometimes it seems like they just can't catch a break because just as our city council approved an and I want to really compliment the economic development department headed by Ms.. Butler, Mr. King, Ms.. Potter and air quality works with you. They've really reached out and worked closely with our business community, and just every week I could make the town call today, but every week there's a business townhall Tuesdays at 2 p.m. and really helping guide our businesses through some really difficult times. And then just as the public health department said, our COVID numbers are leveling off. So you can open for outdoor dining. And we set up these nice expanded spaces and our downtowns are closing off side streets. Then we get this horrendous air quality. Not today, but that kept a lot of people from going out and eating out. And then winter is coming. I know that the Game of Thrones, but that, you know, pretty soon we might have rain. I mean, I wish we'd get it tomorrow without lightning or wind, of course, but but that that's going to hamper some of the outdoor dining. So I think this is very timely will entertain any clarifying questions about the staff report. But I want to just check with the city clerk. Do we have public speakers on the side of that?
Speaker 1: We do not have any public speakers.
Speaker 2: All right. You'll let us know if we do. And so clarify, well, clarifying questions, whether kind of questions, because apparently we don't have public speakers. Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 3: Clarifying question. So in with regard to the city attorney's recommendation of also freezing on the consumer side, how pervasive was the response by potentially affected businesses when who said they might pull out? I meant, was that just one person saying that? Was that a across the board? How pervasive was that?
Speaker 2: And when we say businesses, you're talking about the Uber, the Lyft.
Speaker 3: Exactly who might pull out of because, you know, they don't want to they don't want to have their the consumer side frozen.
Speaker 0: Okay. We did hear from I think.
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 0: Three of the four we spoke to said that they would have major concerns about it. One, it hadn't come up at the time that we talked to them.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: As a clarifying question. No. Shaking your head. No. Okay. Something that I cannot remember where I heard this or read this. But the state not that I want to see Uber and Lyft go out of business, because there are other things that I try to keep in mind is that, you know, nothing is so simple as this is.
Speaker 0: Right, this is wrong.
Speaker 2: Because obviously people drive for these companies, Uber and Lyft, because they're trying to make ends meet. It's a way that gives them the flexibility. Sometimes in a household with two parents, kids, this.
Speaker 0: Is a way.
Speaker 2: That they can do that. You know, tag team parenting that is familiar to many of us who've done it and, you know, cover someone's home with the kids. Most of us aren't making the money. And so I don't want to I don't want to disparage that aspect of it. What I haven't been able to find out and you might know better, how are these drivers compensated? Is that what's the model? If if you know.
Speaker 0: So it it varies. They each seem to have their own method and they are rather complicated. They they use it. I'm thinking of one we spoke to that use an algorithm that included everything from the size of the order, the distance they had to drive, the time of day and demand that was happening. And then they and I know that they usually will have a minimum amount that they pay and then it kind of goes up from there. And then a lot of them also use bonus systems where they'll you know, if you fulfill a certain number of orders in a day, they'll give you a $500 bonus or something of that.
Speaker 2: And I know Councilmember Bella has some professional experience that might be what you're going to comment on. Um, Councilmember, then I think I see the vice mayor stand up maybe. Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I was just going to say, you know, in addition to the the chamber, the business roundtables that happen on Tuesdays, there's also a subcommittee of the restaurants that meet weekly as well. I happened to sit in to the the meeting with DoorDash and one of the more appalling things that was said, or I thought at least just the tone deafness of it, was that, you know, not all businesses are doing well right now. And that was said to our small business restaurant owners. And what we know is, is that some of these companies have billion dollar valuations. And to the mayor's question, how are the the drivers compensated? They're not compensated as employees. They don't get sick days. They don't have paid sick leave. They don't have worker's compensation. They don't have Social Security. So, you know, I think my concern is in seeing the price gouging. And that's really what this is and what this is about of our small businesses. And Madam Mayor, I think we were on a town hall together where one of our small business owners, a restaurant owner, came forward with a bill where like 40% was taken out. So he did like $1,000 in business and pocketed just under 600. That that really concerns me because what it means is that these large companies are taking money from our community. They're taking opportunity from our community. And they're not necessarily helping the individuals who are actually doing the hard labor of bringing and providing the service of bringing food from the restaurants to the customers. So I also think it was really interesting hearing from our small businesses relative to this conversation is where the deliveries are going. And Alameda is not geographically, we're not we're not geographically spread out. And a lot of the business is staying in our city and not going far out. So even for the deliveries that are going outside of Alameda, they're going to Oakland or San Leandro, not not tremendous distances away. So I think for many reasons, it makes sense for us to cap these fees. I'm really glad that we had both. I think Lois was on the call with the restaurants as well as Amanda. And I think as a council, we've taken a lot of steps to help our small businesses. And this is just another one of those steps that will really make a difference. And it's something that we can do that they've been asking for. I am interested to hear from our city attorney about what the city of Santa monica has done or may be doing relative to the consumer side of things. I do think that that's a concern. I don't know how many other cities are tracking this. I know that other cities like San Francisco and San Leandro have capped the delivery fees. But if we can hear from the city attorney a little bit about where his concern for that aspect comes from in terms of the potential for the money to get shifted on to the consumer. Could could you speak to that city attorney?
Speaker 2: Mr. Shin. Ah, you muted.
Speaker 3: There we go. I'm happy to share some thoughts. I believe that there is the one city out there that's actively considering limiting consumer charges in Chicago. I know that Monica has consistently looked at consumer charges as an issue, hasn't taken any final action. And my concern has to do with the fact that essentially these third party, these online apps, essentially delivery apps, takes in revenue from two sources, the restaurants that they charge and the customers that pay for the food. And so if we adopt an ordinance that only limits the charge in one place and does not limit the charge in the second place, Alameda residents could face consequences such as increased charges because it is likely that these apps will make themselves whole in some other way by increasing charges to our residents. And as a matter of example, I believe Uber Eats is the one example where they have increased charges to residents after a jurisdiction recall exactly which jurisdictions capped delivery charges. And the result is that the residents of the community ultimately suffer these price gouging. And it is for that and other reasons we shared with you in our confidential memo that we are recommending that not only the Council consider capping charges to restaurants, but also freeze and place the delivery fees that they're charging to customers. As of the publication of the staff report, which is September 3rd.
Speaker 0: Not your muted.
Speaker 2: I know. I just realized that the vice mayor had his hand up anyway to call on him before we go back to people who have spoken with the mayor.
Speaker 4: But I did want to. Councilmember Vela is a little humble after that meeting two and a half weeks ago that she she mentioned she was at she reached out and said, hey, do you want to bring a council referral on this item? And knowing that there had been some conversations about this, I just wanted to give my great appreciation. We reached out to Eric and the city manager and staff to ask if we could, instead of doing a council referral and delaying this for another month, could, if they could bring this as a part of what was originally going to be a COVID response, economic development response. And I know that there was a little bit of a last minute scramble to do that. But they heard our businesses, they heard they got the letter from Dabbagh earlier this summer. So I just want to get my great appreciation for that really impressive amount of work that went into this, the thoughtfulness and whatnot. I will echo the comments of Councilmember Vella. You know, these app based services are basically just shifting revenues and income from people who are doing really hard work to people who run apps. They're there. They're, you know, Prop 22 is on the ballot right now to make sure that they don't have to pay people and give them benefits, people who are working really hard. And so, quite honestly, while I believe they are providing some service mean we've had delivery restaurant delivery for for many, many years. And I'm confident that that will continue to happen. Whether or not it's through businesses that have been found guilty of wage theft, through stealing tips and everything else, through their through their services. We have heard all summer from our from our restaurants how important this is. I don't think that this is going to be an overly controversial thing. To me, I am less I will support the will of the majority as long as we cap cap the fees to restaurants and at least adopt the the within the staff report. You know, I do think at the end of the day, it's going to be the drivers who suffer if we cap their ability to charge fees for people to pick up food. And at the end of the day, if we're asking people to drive food around, you know, we should be paying for that. It generates a lot of traffic. The impact of these services is huge when when we're not in COVID times for the congestion and whatnot. And that would be to me, it's a trade off. But, you know, I would be willing to move forward without capping the the customer that the direct to customer fee as long as it is clear upfront what that fee is. So people know what they're paying. And it's not like using a credit card in a Oakland taxicab where all of a sudden you get a strange $7 add on for you and you get your bill. So I'm looking forward to this. I just wanted to say thank you to the staff for bringing this forward, because I know that it was a quick last minute sprint.
Speaker 2: Thank you both, Mayor Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Just a quick question and thanks to the staff, I know economic development is overwhelmed and they're working triple time to try to support our businesses. So I appreciate that. So when you go in there and you can give a tip that goes to the driver. Right. That's not hijacked by anybody. Right.
Speaker 0: That's right. There were apparently situations in the past where some of these companies were garnishing tips from drivers. I think that's a practice that most of them have stopped. But we wanted to include it in the ordinance that they couldn't, you know, just to have that in writing that they couldn't do it.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Well, a lot of what's happened, I would say, has been said. So I'm not going to repeat it. I would I would prefer option three where we can freeze it on the customers as well. Because I, I do think that these, these businesses will try to just cost shift. And I mean, in my discussions with small business owners, especially restaurants, they're concerned about this. So I'm glad that you guys were all able to put this together and not wait for referral, which was on my list to do also, but just never got done. So I really don't buy the fact that, you know, if we do this, they're going to get out of out of our city, even if one does or two does. I mean, the demand is there and the simple of supply and demand is that there's demand. Then people are going to try to find a way to meet it. And, you know, 85 was a big controversial thing. And I'm glad that we've taken some steps to give these workers some financial security and benefits. So. I just. I think somebody is going to step in and fill the need as long as it's unmet. So you saw where Uber and Lyft threatened over Ab5 to pull out of California, the largest state in the country. And then ultimately they. Fell through on those threats because they know this is a large market and they know that probably most of their profits come out of California. So I'm not I'm not I don't feel threatened by that. But I'd like to see number three because I don't want to see, you know, all of a sudden, you know, instead of 40% of the restaurants as 40% of the consumer. And this is only a temporary emergency ordinance. So I think everyone needs to behave. And if they're not behaving, then we need to create some emergency legislation to force them to behave.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Odie. Councilmember Daisuke.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah. I think we in Alameda have a rare opportunity to be leaders in terms of setting a freeze, both for a freeze on restaurants as well as freeze on customers. So I certainly appreciate it. I certainly approve both.
Speaker 2: And I'll just. I'm sorry. Did you finish, Kelso? Yeah. So I'm going to chime in and say, I mean, I look at this list of other Bay Area cities and think, why don't some of these pretty aggressive cities, why don't they also cap the fees on on what's charged to customers? I don't know. It seems like the right thing to do. And this is what I was starting to say and didn't finish. I have read somewhere or heard on a podcast or something that there are cities where bicycle deliveries of meals from restaurants to customers have have taken shape. And in fact, I think I've actually seen I can't remember if it's in Alameda or if I've been someplace else. I've been out of Alameda lately. But but the bicycles have, you know, either pulling a trailer or with special panniers with thermal containers and stuff.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Approve Staff’s Approach to Developing a City of Alameda Race and Equity Action Plan for the Organization, including Joining the Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE). (City Manager 2110)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_09152020_2020-8280
|
Speaker 2: And in fact, I think I've actually seen I can't remember if it's in Alameda or if I've been someplace else. I've been out of Alameda lately. But but the bicycles have, you know, either pulling a trailer or with special panniers with thermal containers and stuff. So the point there being if Uber eats and Lyft were to pull out of the California market, but I'm with you, Councilmember O'Day. I doubt that they will. And I mean, I think that there could be some creative alternatives that spring up in their wake. And so, I mean, I don't want to diminish the value of these services because for some, you know, I would always urge people when you're ordering takeout and I hope you are to take out from your local restaurants as often as you can. Please try to go and pick it up yourself. Walk when the weather there is nice to get some exercise. I drive if you must, but. Or take your bike. But. But there are some people, as we all know, who simply aren't able to do those things. And they they need to be home because they may be more vulnerable to COVID 19 for health reasons or age or what have you. So we don't want to minimize the value of these. And so, you know, to that extent, I hope and I'm confident that some services will continue to exist. But know I think it's time for some bold steps. These are the grand. And when you think of what we're looking at in balance, are restaurants that are just barely holding on, some of them. And if we can help put a little more revenue back into their into their coffers by minimizing the fees that are taken out of them by these by these delivery services, I think it's the right thing to do. So with that, Councilman Brody, you have you end up.
Speaker 3: Sure. I'd like to make a motion then to approve the emergency ordinance.
Speaker 2: That is the.
Speaker 3: Limit at 15% for fees charged to restaurants and freeze customer fees at the current rate per the city attorney's recommendation.
Speaker 2: By the way, what is that current rate for my desk? It's quirky. You have that.
Speaker 0: It varies based on it varies based on each of the companies and location and a number of different factors.
Speaker 2: Okay. But it would be frozen as of the date that this ordinance is passed or the second reading, I guess.
Speaker 3: Well, it's emergency, but that's I don't know if the report was published.
Speaker 2: Okay. Let's hear from the city attorney, then, Councilmember Vela. Are you seconding Councilmember Vela, the city attorney?
Speaker 3: Just to clarify, this was actually a regular ordinance that's brought before you.
Speaker 2: But but when the emergency is declared over, that it is okay.
Speaker 3: Exactly. But we're proposing the freeze occurs on the date of the publication of the staff report to Prevent Gaming, which is episode 21.
Speaker 2: Okay. All right. Answer my question. Thank you. Councilmember Geller, you had your hand up.
Speaker 0: So I do have a concern about that, capping the fee on the consumer, because I think in many ways a lot of these companies have hidden fees elsewhere. So for instance, like in San Francisco with some restaurants, if you go to their website, you scroll down and you order directly through their website, you'll get the actual menu cost. But then if you click on the order online tab on top, which pops up as part of the marketing and you go order through DoorDash, they charge you on every item on the menu, but they get around it because they still cap the fee. So I do have a question about how the capping works and if there's other ways around it. I'm just wondering if we could bifurcate this where we pass the ordinance as written tonight, but then kind of I would like a little more understanding of like how we can. Because it just seems like what they'll do is they're going to hide it in menu item. They're going to they could just price shift on the items. I guess that's just a question that I have for the city attorney, because we can't really regulate that. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: So a couple of thoughts, Councilman Councilmember Bhalla. One of them is that this ordinance does contain a prohibition on prices charging for a price higher than a price set at the retail establishments. And the language we would propose, and if I may read it for the council, I think will be broad enough to capture hidden fees. And we would propose something to the effect of it would be it shall be unlawful for a third party food delivery service to increase anything costs or commission or establish any new fee costs or commission with respect to customers beyond those established on September 30, 2020. And if the Council desires additional flexibility for staff, the Council could also add another provision that allows the City Manager to implement additional administrative regulations to to implement this ordinance, which would give staff additional flexibility to try to monitor gaming. But we are proposing fairly broad prohibitions.
Speaker 0: And then another question, and that is, if I know that there were some attempts, there was a couple community members who were attempting to see if they could essentially start a company or provide a service where they would do local deliveries, working with restaurants. If they started that before September 3rd, are they then prohibited from changing their prices if they need to adjust to account for what they're trying to do? Because they just started out.
Speaker 3: I think this ordinance would create that prohibition because it would essentially cap prices in place that was already charged as of September 3rd, if there aren't any. That would be a very different story. Obviously, if they if they've not started charging that, obviously that be a very different story.
Speaker 2: But there are currently customer fees that are in place and those would be allowed. They just can't be increased. Correct.
Speaker 3: That's correct.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I, I think my I guess my question is, I know that we have some folks that are trying to coordinate with local businesses. I'm just wondering if there's a way. I think what they're trying to do is very different from the other third party model. But but the the clarification seems like is that this applies to everybody. And we can't just we can't distinguish between those words proprietor owned and versus another third party service that that's employing or actually, I guess trying to bypass employment and contracting with.
Speaker 2: Well, it strikes me that if our objective is to protect our restaurants that are the ones that are struggling so much and also protect our residents who, you know, some of whom have been financially impacted by this pandemic, that we would want them protected, whether it's by. Large delivery companies or small community run ones that maybe the smaller community run ones wouldn't have the same needs to. I charge such high percentages that it's.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm just I'm just curious because I, I and I don't know what the, the local ones are charging. I don't want to see price gouging. And I think that that's our ultimate goal and I share in that. But I also want to make sure that the person providing the service is actually getting paid for their work. So if we're going to have, let's say, a bike delivery service or somebody tried it out, let's say by car, but now they want to shift a bike, but the cost might be more. Is that going to be permissible under this or is that not going to be permissible? Like if they if they mode shift? Does that make sense or is it just going to be the set the set rate? Or if they were doing it by bike before and now they're switching to car and there's additional costs, are they allowed to factor that in?
Speaker 2: Sounds like there's a cap on fees that city attorney or members. How do you see this?
Speaker 3: It's.
Speaker 2: Also, if I'm all right, I guess we'll go ahead and I'll I'll come back to my comment.
Speaker 3: And Councilmember, I'll point out one additional exception that we have put into the ordinance to guard against an unconstitutional takings, which is that any company, whether out of town or in town, has the ability to demonstrate proof that the limitations established constitute a concept, an unconstitutional takings, which is that we're essentially depriving them of the ability to establish a fair return, much like in the control context. And so any company who is able to demonstrate that proof is able to seek an exception from the city. So there should not be any companies that are not able to make the Constitution constitutionally reasonable return under the ordinance.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 3: I mean it mode shifting is a concern. You know we couldn't allow a higher fee for those that practice mode shifting in Alameda. I don't know. Maybe that's another way to incentivize it. Well, if you deliver by bike, then you can go to 18%. Just an idea.
Speaker 2: So I go back to the, um, the second sentence in second paragraph in the executive summary of this item, which is in order to ensure food security and to safeguard the welfare of restaurant employees and customers who rely greatly on restaurant industry, on the restaurant industry. During this pandemic, SAP is recommending that third party delivery service fees for restaurants be limited to 15% of purchase price until the local state of emergency ends or indoor dining resumes at 100% capacity, whichever comes later. We're not doing 100% capacity for while. I think what I would suggest is that perhaps the best course of action, because I think the need is immediate for established restaurants is to move forward with this. Now, we can always come back and modify if we find that, oh, these new delivery services are springing up and they're they're running into difficulties. But then we could actually have some documented cases rather than speculation. My thought. Councilmember Gilet your answer?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I just the reason that I'm raising these questions is, for instance, 15% of $15 is $2.25. And so if I have a $15 order from from side Street and I need to pick it up and bring it somewhere, the drivers driving over there, picking it up and then leaving. I just think there's also just a general concern in making sure and I do think that there's an inherent value in trying to find some sort of local, local run delivery. I just don't want to kind of throw that out with taking on these bigger companies that are price gouging and doing it to help their their shareholder costs and prices rather than the actual worker. So I do want to recognize the work in in doing the pickup and the delivery. And anyways, I'll support this either way tonight. I just want to be I would like us to keep track of that and to look at that. And if it does become a problem for it to come back to us, because I also think that this is a necessary service right now, especially with the air quality and the pandemic. And so I don't want to be in a situation where we we cut ourselves off.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you said, but I just feel that we could make a stronger ordinance when it's based on some actual documentation which may indeed be coming in. Councilmember somebody. I think I think that's right.
Speaker 3: I mean, I I'm sympathetic to that as well. But I agree with the mayor's comment that we could look at it again. But, you know, I've been to the Lyft headquarters, and I've just got to imagine that the overhead on, you know, four or five people in Alameda starting something up versus a company that has a huge building in San Francisco with hundreds of employees doing a bunch of admin and not delivering. I think it's got to be a lot less. And I think that their profit model would be different than than the larger companies. But, you know, if it's a problem, I'm happy to relook at it. So.
Speaker 2: Okay. Anything further to remind me? Do we have a motion? Councilor. Rudy, you made one of your about to. You made.
Speaker 3: I did earlier.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Was it seconded?
Speaker 3: Not yet, I don't think.
Speaker 2: Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I'll second I'll second to the motion provided that we are keeping track and that we monitor this and have it come back.
Speaker 2: With that direction. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 3: For me.
Speaker 2: All right. Any further discussion?
Speaker 0: I just want to add, I just really quickly want to add I'm sorry that these these big third party delivery companies are not hurting for money they've spent. They are spending $180 million trying to get out of paying their workers and paying their benefits. And I think that this is a strong statement that we can make that that's just not okay. And that in Alameda, you don't price gouge and that you treat your workers with respect. So thank you all.
Speaker 2: Thank you. All right. We've had emotion. We've had a segue and we've had great discussion. Thank you, everyone, for that. Madam, quickly, we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Not quite.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Rudy.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: Fella. Hi, Mayor. As the Ashcraft.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: That cares. Bye bye.
Speaker 2: All right, good work, everyone. Thank you, Staff. Thank you for all your hard work putting this report together. Thank you. Thank you, city attorney. All right, with that, we move on to item six e more Roman numerals.
Speaker 1: I got this one introduction of ordinance amending the municipal code by amending various provisions of Article eight Sunshine Ordinance of Chapter two Administration concerning special meetings, including the setting and noticing of such another meeting.
Speaker 2: All right. So this is coming to us. My iPad always freezes once in a meeting. So. Somebody went to jail for better mayor.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding a New Article XVIV (Third-Party Food Delivery Services) of Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and Industries) Establishing a Temporary Limit on Charges Imposed by Third-Party Delivery Services During the Locally Declared State of Emergency Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic. (Community Development 256)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_09152020_2020-8308
|
Speaker 1: Recommendation to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute a $1,000 contract with block by block to help in the economic recovery efforts for COVID from COVID 19 in Alameda Business Improvement Areas and negotiate and execute an amendment to the agreement with Creative Build INC to add $103,978 to provide extended hours of operation for the day center and related support services.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And oh, we've got a stellar team here. So you've met Debbie Porter, head of community development, Lois Butler, head of Economic Development. And Anna, back just here, we would be lost without in all our social service programs. So who is presenting this one to us society?
Speaker 0: So with that lead off, I am going to ask Anna to do a brief presentation. And then once again, Lois, Anna and I are available to answer any questions.
Speaker 2: Perfect. Thanks. You. Justin Bute. They tell me that all the time. It's too muted on the. Great. Perfect.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Madam Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Anna. Back to the Community Development Department. And first off, I want to thank you for your continued support of our unhoused residents, especially during this challenging times with the pandemic and then the fires and the winter is coming. And also, I want to thank you for your consideration to implement block by block in Alameda and to expand the Bay Center and safe parking programs. Both of these proposals totaling $203,000. We understand from your last meeting that you have some questions about the scope of the block by block program, and we're especially concerned about the coverage on evening peak hours after hours on weekends. You also wanted to ensure that block by block ambassadors have resources available to them to refer clients during these hours and on weekends. As we know, a lot of our service providers serving our homeless population do not work on weekends. So that's always a challenge. So bring in block by block will keep our downtowns clean, safe and welcoming, especially during this time of heightened public health concern. Because of the pandemic and expanding the day service center hours as well as the safe parking are especially critical during this time so that our house neighbors have a clean, safe and welcoming place to go as well. The proposal submitted by block by block includes coverage in early afternoons, evenings to 10 p.m. and also on weekends. In addition, the funding for the day center and safe parking the amount of $130,000 will also allow the village of LA, which operates the day center and Safe Parking Program, to extend its center hours to 8 p.m. and also at weekends. The safe parking will also be open with this funding from from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. seven days a week, and that would also include weekends. There will be a flexible account that will be available to pay for emergency motel stays, car repairs to keep vehicles operable, and other items that are ancillary to making sure that our unhoused neighbors are safe during the pandemic. And Village of LA will also be able to add additional staff to do more outreach. They will hire a driver that can pick up and provide rides on demand, which they currently do not have the capacity to do under their current contract. We hope that the information that we provided with you are helpful and answer some of your questions and concerns that came up at the last meeting, and we're here to address any of your additional questions. Thank you again for your support.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Ms.. Factors. And I will just add that inspectors has been present at a couple of meetings that the city manager and I have had recently with concerns arising from um, just difficulties with the intersection of and has two individuals with a preschool in the area of constitution way and some of our local businesses. So sorry I did that. So thank you very much for bringing this forward to us. Council Do we have do you have any questions or concerns you want to raise? While you're thinking of them. And again, I. I think you touched on this. This fact is and we've talked about this before that. Outreach is really important. It's not enough for staff to I mean, obviously, someone has to staff the data center. That's a very important function. But we do need to have people go out to where the and housed individuals are. And the groups that are working with these these organizations are very adept at the very complicated work of establishing rapport, establishing trust and relationships, because you will remember that this is it's got to be voluntary. We don't have a means of just removing people, although I will say that I have submitted my question to our supervisor, Wilma Chan's office as to whether with any properties that Project Roomkey acquires in Alameda motels, hotels, that if it would be possible to set aside a certain number of rooms to be available for Alameda unsheltered individuals. So I am told that they will get back to us with an answer. And then the other thing that I said before that I think is really important is it is vital that we have these hotels like the marina village in and others extended stay that are being used to get people out, some living in the bushes. I mean, you just think about with this air quality, they kept all of us in our houses, closing our rear windows over the last couple of weeks. Well, what if you didn't even have a window to close because you lived outdoors? But these sites still have to be supervised and make sure that the.
Speaker 0: Rules.
Speaker 2: In place are are being followed so that residents.
Speaker 0: In the area are.
Speaker 2: Not impacted. I think there's room for everybody that we just need to respect everyone too. So I think this is great and I really applaud staff and and city manager for bringing this back to us. So council. Are we ready to approve? Questions. Councilmember de Daisuke I just.
Speaker 3: Just a quick comment. I had not I did not support safe parking for the reasons that I said. I thought we ought to focus our money elsewhere. But and I still feel that way. I'm not supportive of I actually don't think it's safe to have people sleeping in their cars in the cold Alameda. And that if we're going to have limited money, we should focus on putting people into shelters. But I think what we're discussing here tonight is not just that, but also funding outreach programs that clearly our businesses have have expressed a need for. So I'll be supportive of this.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. And by the way, the city manager the city clerk just graciously reminded me that we don't have any public speakers to thank you, because I forgot to ask of Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 0: Just wanted to thank staff for their work on this. I know we gave a lot of direction and feedback at the last meeting, specifically around extending the day center hours into the evening and the weekends. I'm glad we were able to get that worked out and with that I want to move approval here.
Speaker 2: We've had a motion by Councilor Vela, second by Councilmember Odie. Any further discussion? Seeing that maybe we have a roll call vote.
Speaker 1: Please remember de. All right. Not quite. Hi, Odie.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: Bella. Hi. Mayor. As the Ashcraft I. That carries my five eyes.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That was an appropriate interview. That's another way we will help our business community and our shelter residents. And I will just add that it is no one's choice to have people sleeping in their cars. But. It is also a better choice. While we're finding other places for people to live because there is truly an imbalance of supply and demand for places to live, it's better to be in some place that has supervision overnight. And I know from talking to the women who stay overnight at the warming shelter in the winter months when it's open, that they're very fearful of things like sexual assault, when they just have their car parked on a street, that if they had unsafe parking where they.
Speaker 0: Knew there was.
Speaker 2: Supervision, that would go a long way to preventing the sexual assaults that if sometimes happens. And just.
Speaker 0: Letting people.
Speaker 2: Relax, get to sleep because they don't have to think. But I hope that we've got, you know, big issues to solve. And this is a step forward. And I thank you all for your time. Thank you so much, staff for your hard work, bringing this to it. Right. With that, I am going to adjourn this meeting. It's 1058, everybody. So we we definitely met our mandate of ending on the same day that we started. Thank you all. You covered a lot of a lot of territory. Good work, everybody. Enjoy the rest of your evening. Go read that good, clean air. Good night.
Speaker 4: It's at 20.
Speaker 2: Wow.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a $100,000 Contract with Block by Block to Help in the Economic Recovery Efforts from COVID-19 in Alameda’s Business Improvement Areas; and Negotiate and Execute an Amendment to the Agreement with Creative Build Inc. to add $103,970 to Provide Extended Hours of Operation for the Day Center and Related Support Services. (Community Development)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07212020_2020-8071
|
Speaker 4: Well, this year there is no management discussion of analysis because there was nobody qualified at the management level to discuss the results of operations. This, again, is serious. So I guess I will conclude with this. I hope that you see that this is a significant problem, that you give it the adequate funding. And I hope this doesn't happen again because this this this is this is bad. On a positive note, let's end on something positive. I wanted to thank personally Nancy Braunstein, who took over from her position as the head of h.R. And fulfilled this role as interim finance director. And I think for some, I think she did the best job she could. I got emails from her at all hours of the day and night. We had a lot of conversation and I think that she did a fantastic job in the breach. But. You know, putting her in that position, in my opinion, was a very, very tough assignment. And I congratulate her. And I just hope that the council feels that this is important, as equally as important as I do. Thank you for the time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Rooney. We do. And I appreciate you bringing these things to our attention. And I also second your thanks to Nancy Bronstein, who did an amazing job in the midst of all the COVID crisis. Madam Clerk, do we still have two other speakers on these items?
Speaker 1: Yes, we still have two more people with their Henrys. Hopefully we can clarify and make sure they want to discuss that. Next is Aaron Frazer.
Speaker 4: 30. Good evening. I was hoping to comment on non agenda items and.
Speaker 3: Sorry.
Speaker 0: We're not quite. No, no worries. It's confusing. We're not quite there yet. We're going to wrap up this special meeting on the, ah successor agency to the the old redevelopment agency, essentially. So hold tight and we will get back to you.
Speaker 1: Okay. And the other person lowered their hand. So they probably were also oral communications that we haven't gotten to yet. So. Okay. That is it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Very good. So then could we have a a motion to approve the consent calendar, which is items to a to be in to see vice mayor?
Speaker 4: Then I have a question for staff, please. The city manager, Leavitt, the auditor, noted a number of times that the city council needed to fund or provide the. But I guess my question here very quickly, I know that we have a lot.
Speaker 0: None of.
Speaker 4: It is there. I didn't see in the audit where it said we hadn't budgeted for enough staff. My understanding is that staff left and that we didn't have that. But we changed the budget so that there's a staffing concern that was out in the budget discussion.
Speaker 0: Mr. HARVEY.
Speaker 5: Yes, I can I can address a couple of those that question. I'll try to do it quickly. First of all, I agree with the city auditor on some of those concerns. I share those concerns and have. And so, for instance, this year, I'm closing the books. Well, right now we're scheduled to close the books, and that's a very technical term, but we're scheduled to close the books probably a good four months plus earlier than we did last year. And I think that's because of the excellent work Nancy's done in working with the staff. We had three key positions, two key positions just coming in in this calendar year, 2020. At the same time, the finance director left some of these issues, and my experience from past should never have happened. We're working to correct that, and I think we're putting the staff in place, including a new finance director, to to make sure that these things don't occur. Going forward, we are I think we did add one staff position, and I think that city auditor referred to that. We're trying to be cognizant of the budget and the budget constraints, especially with COVID and its impacts on the budget, but at the same time make sure that we utilize our staffing to the fullest extent. I think Nancy's working on that and we're recruiting, and he did refer to the two new accounts we're bringing in. So part of it was that it was budgetary. Part of it was we had several vacancies also on finance.
Speaker 4: And you.
Speaker 0: And I would just ask thank you for those questions, Vice Mayor. And I will note that as mayor, I'm interviewed each year by the auditor. And and, you know, I expressed some concerns. But, Mr. Levitt, could you just give the council and the public an idea of where you are in the hiring process? Because, as the city auditor noted, we are both without a finance director and I believe an assistant finance director as well. Is that correct?
Speaker 5: We don't have an assistant finance director position in the city of Alameda. And the person that would be sort of the second person in the city for accounting purposes, she came in after the first year. So her thing was typically this audit would have been done by January one. So her thing was trying to catch up. And I think she did work with the auditor on that, the the finance director themselves. Right now, as of today, we're in the process and probably in the next week will be offering a position to a finance director position. And if we come to agreement, we hope by hopefully Labor Day or shortly after that, we'll have a new finance director in place, or maybe even shortly before that, we'll have a new finance director in place.
Speaker 0: Okay. And so I imagine that council might like to have an update on this item. Just. Moving forward to today. Tell us what progress you've made. And I see Councilmember Desai with his hand out.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you very much. I just want to make several quick points. One is I just want to express my appreciation to the city auditor, Kevin Kearney, for for emphasizing the key points that were raised in the memo. I think that was exhibit seven. I think while there are several new key points, that memo also goes over some of the issues that were identified in previous years, including, you know, where we are with regard to how we handle those issues. So that's an important memo. The second point I want to indicate is, you know, it's really important to have complete full reports available for the public because that's the whole point of the the audit the audit, exhibit one. So I want to make sure to to double emphasized the need to have a complete and full report so that the public can can can look at the issues while we're on the subject of of Exhibit one. Their full 200 page audit. When I'm going over it, you know, the thing that I'm always looking for is the is especially the fun balance to see if if where we were at last year, we were relatively healthy. And I would encourage I mean, there's 200 pages. There's just so many things to look at. So. So I try to figure out, you know, what are the few things out there that to me, you know, that I should really be aware of. So in terms of the the reserves, I would certainly direct your attention to page 85 of 205 or 85 of 205. Yeah. There you'll find a nice table that that expresses where we are with regard to our reserve. The total reserve that we have on that page is $41 million, believe it or not. So so if you do the math, you know, we're doing we have a fund balance of more than 40%. So, you know, we have to we still have to be cautious because obviously COVID 19 is going to throw us a curveball, like it's going to throw many people a curve ball. But that's our total, the amount that we have not available or available like it's so the credit is so tiny is something like 20 million. So so we have like roughly $20 million of, of, of fund balance that's available to us and another $20 million. So I'm rounding the numbers here that we've already reserved, but, well, $41 million out of a total expenditure of $9,099 million or so is certainly something to be proud about. You know, I think things like the where the economy is now and where where we'll be with the continuing COVID 19, I think, you know, we have got to hang on to our reserves. So I just want to end by saying let's make sure to have the the full publications available to the public as early as possible . Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember this like any other council comments. All right. So Councilor Vice Mayor Knox White.
Speaker 4: I was just ready to make a motion to approve of the audit.
Speaker 0: Please do. Okay. I mean, actually, the whole consent calendar. Do you want to pull that one out separately?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I guess. Sorry. I thought we had several removed from the calendar.
Speaker 0: Okay. There will be one less roll call vote. If we did a consent calendar, we had a motion by the vice mayor to have a second second. It's been seconded by Councilmember De. So any further discussion since then? We have the roll call vote, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Knox. Wait, Odie.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 1: Bella.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Mayor, as the Ashcraft high net carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, everyone. Okay, so we now adjourn the the joint meeting of the city council and the successor agency to the Community Improvement Commission. And we move on to the regular city council meeting. Roll call, please.
Speaker 1: Rocco has been noted. Five present.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And so then the next item is agenda changes. And I want to throw out a couple of ideas council, but it's whatever the majority's pleasure is. So we are starting this well after we get past a rather lengthy closed I mean consent calendar over on page eight, we start with a couple of short should be fairly short items and on six day we have staff waiting literally outside. So we don't want to leave them there. Too long. I my suggestion and see what you think is that. Although item six C was withdrawn and revised and added to a revised special meeting because some new information was discovered that had to be added to the staff report that threw the timing off. I would propose that we hear this item about the proposed charter amendment, also known as Measure A after A and B, and then then we go ahead to hear the item six D, which is the the appeal of the Planning Board's decision on the K Avenue property. Then I would suggest, because I think there are a number of speakers that we hear the Jackson Park item after that and then the Greenway Golf lease and just then go into the rest of the regular items. And so fairly, fairly quickly, well as quickly as possible, move through those items. So if anyone agrees with me. But I don't want to spend too much time in deliberation because we want to just keep things moving along. Councilmember Vela. To send mute.
Speaker 3: I'm fine with those agenda changes.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm seeing a counselor O.D. nodding his head. Is that fine? Okay.
Speaker 6: Have you kept track of them, though?
Speaker 0: I did. And the city called the city clerk and I discussed this this morning. I was just trying to be efficient, so. Do we need a vote on this? We do. Okay. So was that a motion by statement? Okay. Vice Mayor move. Councilor Oti seconded roll call vote. Any further discussion thing then? May we have a roll call vote, please?
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Next, right. Hi, Odie. I Bella. Hi there. As Ashcraft, I carries my five eyes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, everyone. And so now the next item would normally be proclamation special orders of the day and announcements. This is what I'm going to do. This is kind of an accelerated adjournment. No, we're not leaving early. But it was my intention. And I think you would all agree to adjourn this memory tonight in memory of Congressman John Lewis, an icon of the civil rights movement who passed away last week at the age of 80. So I just wanted to quote one of his many quotes, and I haven't had the chance yet to watch the documentary. John Lewis, good trouble, but I've heard some great reviews of it. So. So look that one up when you've got a minute. But one of the things, one of his quotes and this is a man who was known as the conscience of the Congress and managed to reach across both sides of the aisle and touch and influence his colleagues in all parties. But he was known to say, if not me, who? If not now, when? And I think that's something that all of us take very seriously. And it just is all the more timely today with everything before us. So we will adjourn our meeting in his memory at the end of the agenda. But it's a long one in for anyone in the audience who might not still be with us. I just wanted you to know that we are going to do that. So then we come to oral communications, and this is where a limited number of speakers may address the Council regarding any any item that is not on the agenda. We are like 15 minutes for these public comments. Now, if they can't finish in that allotted amount of time, there's another time, another opportunity at the end of the agenda. So I think we may have a speaker to enter oral communications. Do we, Madam Clerk?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes, we do. First is Aaron Frazer.
Speaker 0: And can you tell us how many we have? Because that helps us.
Speaker 1: We have two and then I think we have one zoom comment to read.
Speaker 0: Okay. So it sounds like 3 minutes apiece.
Speaker 4: Good evening.
Speaker 0: Hi. Welcome back.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So I have some, uh, just to two quick things, and I'll, I'll be brief. The first is I would like to renew my call for all city council members to publicly state their opposition to any public safety unions conducting any independent expenditures or other campaign activity on their behalf. I think this is an easy thing as we're going through this special time for the city council to say, you know what, we're not going to take money from a special interest group that is opposed to us reforming them. I think it's pretty much straight forward. I know. I think actually a majority of you have agreed to this concept, but you haven't so publicly stated. So I encourage you to do so. That's comment number one. Comment number two is in contrast to the public health crisis. For discussion on tonight's agenda, I want to urge the City Council to take seriously the public health emergency of racism and declare such an emergency rather than take baby steps towards talking about, talking about.
|
Joint Consent Item
|
Recommendation to Accept the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Audited Financial Statements and Compliance Reports. [City Council/SACIC] (Finance 2410)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07212020_2020-8121
|
Speaker 4: It's one of the highest needs in our community. In June 2019, the council approved allocating $100,000 of its operating and capital budget to help fund the school district's mental health programs. The city subsequently contracted with Airbus to provide these services for the 2019 2020 academic school year. I would now like to introduce Kel Jenks, the principal program director, to make a presentation about the services provided before our school year under the contract. And also Catherine Schwartz, the executive director of affairs, is also here tonight to answer questions.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. I didn't see her on the screen, but great. Hi, Mr. Jenks. Welcome. Nice to see you. And the floor is yours.
Speaker 7: Awesome. Thank you very much. Good evening, Mayor and members of the council. As Eric introduced, my name is Kelly Jenks with Alameda Family Services and I'm the director of our school based services program. I want to start by thanking you for allowing me to come to share with you all how AFS was able to utilize the support from City Council to provide additional mental health services to high school youth in need. I believe there is a PowerPoint. I don't. Can you all see it? I don't think I can see it.
Speaker 0: Uh, not yet. But our clerk works magic. There we go.
Speaker 3: You heard that was going to have.
Speaker 0: No idea how.
Speaker 7: I was going to say next slide, but I didn't see it. All right. So on the next slide. So I just want to be able to share a brief history. So Alameda Family Services has been providing health and wellness services to the Alameda Unified School District for many years. We provide the three school based health centers on Alameda and Snell. And our focus is really to minimize the barriers to access for those families most in need by providing mental health and medical services to use with medical. There's been a high demand for mental health services for youth that have private insurance, specifically at our schools. ALAMEDA And then to now and as it was shared in the introduction over the past three years, the Social Services Human Relations Board, the Alameda Collaborative for Children, Youth and Families and a USD all separately identified youth mental health as an important issue that is greatly impacting our city. Next slide.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 7: So a U.S. drone attacks have been working in partnership to identify ways to address these mental health needs. Together, we created a whole new system of supports in the elementary and middle schools, which had the most significant gap in service. However, there was still a need to address the mental health needs at Alameda High and Encino High. And so the Board of Education in Alameda sought out support from the city and designated AFC as the recipient of the city's support to address these needs. Subsequently, a new position was created to ensure that any youth coming to our health centers, regardless of insurance, was going to be able to connect with a clinician that's going to assess their level of need and support them in connecting with an appropriate service. Next slide. So over these next two sides, I'm going to go over the services that we provided. So screening and assessments, initial meetings with the clinician, including you selling out a screener and a clinician conducting the in-person assessment. We really wanted to make sure that any student who came in was going to meet in person with someone. They were going to get screened to determine their level of need. And then our therapist, through this funding, was going to provide them the resources to connect with an outside provider or provide that service themselves. The next thing that happens a lot in the high schools are check ins. So some youth come into the health center and they don't necessarily want ongoing services, but they do just want to be able to talk to someone about a timely issue that's causing them distress. We see this a lot during the beginning of the year, especially for freshmen who are coming in. And we see this a lot during AP testing, when the holidays are coming up, when you might be traveling to a different family member's house. And so we really had this as an area of need that the therapist provided check ins and then also a crisis drop in follow up. So students who were seen as a crisis drop in received additional follow up to ensure they were connected to a service. And so crises are distinguished as a situation that needs immediate attention where there is a significant concern for the youth safety. So we might have youth coming in who are talking about suicidal ideation, severe depression or experiencing a panic attack. And in that setting, this therapist would make sure to immediately with that youth, and if they were at another school, they would actually travel to whatever school that student was at to be able to connect with them. And we had that specific therapist through this funding, be that person, because then they were able to follow up with them either the next day or two days later or a week later to make sure they were connected to a service next line. The three other services that were provided.
Speaker 3: Are on.
Speaker 7: Were individual therapy students with a high level of need.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Public Hearing to Consider the Collecting of the Water Quality and Flood Protection Fees on the Property Tax Bills; and
Adoption of Resolution Finding [No] Majority Protest, Directing the Collection of Fees on the Property Tax Bills for Fiscal Year 2020-21 at the Rates Approved by Property Owners. (Public Works 351)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07212020_2020-8136
|
Speaker 7: Were individual therapy students with a high level of need.
Speaker 0: I was just saying Mr. Jenks has a lot of experience with family and family therapy. He is a father of young children. Do whatever you need to do.
Speaker 7: Okay, 1/2.
Speaker 0: Maybe he can play with Malia's.
Speaker 3: This is real. You.
Speaker 0: We love children. You can bring them on camera.
Speaker 7: I appreciate everyone's patience, though. It was a minor legal issue that needed under the regulations.
Speaker 0: Can be it can be big. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 7: So with individual therapy, as I said, we wanted this to be a gap, though our services are designated to provide those who have medical. And so this person would provide services to those with private insurance and who had barriers to accessing outside support. Examples of barriers might be related to their gender or gender or sexual identity, where telling their parents that they want to seek services may not be an option, or situations where a family culture may minimize the severity of mental health. This clinician also provided group therapy as well as case management, and the case management was a very important part of the services they provided. They helped connect the youth and their family to family, to providers in and around Alameda. As you can imagine, we have a number of youth seeking services and we have a finite resources. And so this person really made sure to work with the families to get them connected to outside resources when available and in many times advocated on behalf of the client and the family for those services with their insurance companies.
Speaker 4: Next slide.
Speaker 7: So these are the services that were provided up to the shelter in place. I tried to divide us between those times because the Covenant Shelter in place really did impact how we were able to provide services. So this therapist was holding a caseload of 15 clients. They also had a group that had five clients. The drop in crisis drop ins and the briefing interventions that I spoke about earlier, there are 43 unique students and families that were supported. Many of them were in multiple locations where she was continuing to connect with the family and make sure that they were connected. The top three reasons for services were anxiety or stress, depression and family or peer conflict. And then I listed these crises just to be able to show some of the issues that were coming up. There was a one year hospitalization that she was involved in, four CPS reports and three different incidences that required law enforcement.
Speaker 0: Just in case anyone doesn't know, can you tell us what else he stands for?
Speaker 7: Yes. Child Protective Services. So if there was any allegations of abuse against a minor, I think it is important to note that of the 15 clients that this clinician was seen. Five of them actually had been hospitalized before they came into our care. Next time. I want to be able to provide an example of, you know, one of the clients that we were able to serve. So there was a youth who came in on their own to the health center. This youth was really struggling with ongoing depression, suicidal ideation, self-harm and is an overall high levels of anxiety there, expressing feelings of hopelessness, difficulty imagining a future in which they were alive and thriving. Additionally, this youth was also concerned and struggled with their perception of how their parents would re-inject their gender and sexual identity. And so this youth engage in our services, undermined our consent at first, meaning without parental approval. But our goal was always to be able to support the youth in having support at home. And so we connected them not only with our our therapist, but our clinician connected them to some of the other events that are hosted and workshops by the health center that that client was able to connect with peers who are experiencing similar struggles and eventually got to the place where she was open and being able to have a conversation with their parents. And this connection was so great and being able to provide those parents with psychoeducation and guidance and really being able to increase that level of support at home. Next slide. So since Colbert in the shelter in place, I'm proud to say that Alameda Family Services did a wonderful job being able to pivot into telehealth and being able to continue to provide therapeutic services to our existing clients. There was obviously an increase in case management involvement with families. You know, families were experiencing losses of income and jobs and being able to figure out ways to work with our local food bank, working with family support centers, and really trying to to make sure that family were getting their basic needs met. Something that was awesome that this clinician did is we actually contacted every student that had come through our three health centers but did not have a confirmed source of support. So as I mentioned, you might have a student who comes in and does a check in and then they don't continue with a service or we don't personally connect them to someone. And so we went through and contacted all those youth just to do a quick check in and see how they were doing and see if anyone wanted to to start services. This clinician opened up six additional clients in the shelter in place, which was great. You know, there was a shift in the in how her services were being delivered because we didn't have as many students walking in. So we were able to shift that more towards individual services. And then we actually also increased the frequency of those sessions for those youth who are really struggling. Next slide. I just put up my contact information as well. And I wanted to end by just again voicing my appreciation on behalf of our agency and specifically my school based services program for the support from City Council and the continued collaboration that Alameda Family Services has with us to serve our Alameda community. When I open, I know there are any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jenks. That's a very moving and impressive presentation, and we're very grateful to have Alameda Family Services in our city council. Any comments, questions for Mr. Jenks? I. Vice Mayor, is that your hand going up?
Speaker 4: I was just going to say I just really appreciated the presentation. I'm really glad that our council chose to support this in our budget and it looks like it's been a great success and I really appreciate you taking the time to come. Tell us about it.
Speaker 0: And and I guess my quick question would be, so I know it's uncertain how a USG is going to open up in the fall. I guess there's a semester actually starts next month in August. What kinds of what kinds of considerations are is AFS making for how you will provide your services.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's a great question. You know, Governor Newsom's announcement that we're going to be starting in distance learning really solidified for for us and specifically our program that's based out of the school, how to start approaching our services. We're so fortunate to have a really good relationship with AUC, personal relationships with the principals. They also have positions at their school called intervention leads that are kind of our liaison to the school. And so we're we're planning to tour on our services, you know, as normal, being able to get our referrals directly from the school and being able to provide individual services, group services, group services are a little bit more difficult in the wake of this. It's great that we're able to get everyone for city council, but rounding up a number of third graders to meet at a time is a little bit more challenging, you know, outside of their outside of their school and classroom time. But, you know, we've been fortunate to have HIPA compliant telehealth and being able to actually involve family members a lot more in the services. And so we're very confident in how we're going to be able to continue our support.
Speaker 0: That's good to hear. Anything further from council or do I have a motion to accept this report? Coulson.
Speaker 6: Thank you, madam. Do we have any public comment?
Speaker 0: Oh, thank you. Thank you. For that matter. Do we have a public comment?
Speaker 1: We have no one on Zoom raising their hand, and we have not received any written comments.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right.
Speaker 6: Well, I will thank you, Mr. Jenks, and think of other family services for this. This is one of the few opportunities, I think, as a council that we were able to spend money in our budget. You know, that you can directly correlate to helping an individual, you know, in possibly saving their lives where we didn't have that service provided before. So I'm really honored that our council was able to do that, and I'm glad that we were able to extend it. So I'd like to make the motion to I guess we accept the presentation, right?
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 6: Yes, I'll make that motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Vela, are you both raising your hand to second and to make a comment? Yes. Yes.
Speaker 3: Take this. So I'm going to second the motion.
Speaker 8: I also just want to highlight and Cale, thank you for presenting. I think that so much about about providing these services is preventing the need for additional, more costly services down the road in response to where we have not provided preventative care upfront. And so I think it's really critical, especially in light of all of the changes that are going on relative to the pandemic, that we find a way to work collaboratively with our community partners like AMI Family Services. And I just want to also thank Kathryn for the work that they're doing at the early childhood centers and things like that where we've really been able to make a difference. So thank you. And I'm happy to support this tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So we've had a motion by councilmember already seconded by Councilmember Vela and discussion. I see. Councilmember Desai. It's funny when you point in a direction, Councilman Brody, he's actually below you on my screen. But I.
Speaker 3: Think.
Speaker 0: If you met Councilmember de SA. Yeah, yeah. Come on, guys, I'm already confused.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Desai Okay, well, just quickly, I want to also express my appreciation to the Alameda Unified School District School Board. I remember some I believe it was the trustees, Jennifer Williams, who had raised this issue at one of our meetings, I think it was regarding the Social Service Human Relations Board. So she was there as well. And so I just want to extend my appreciation for the school board for allowing us to partner with them in this important area.
Speaker 0: Very important area. All right. We've had the motion the second we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Not quite my o.d. I vella. I may as the Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: That carries by five eyes. And just that once that I must complete. I just wanted you to know you'll be recessing this meeting to take item two D and just to keep everybody going in order.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you so much. Nice to see you, Mr. Jenks. Okay, so it's a recess, but don't go anywhere. It just means we're jumping from one agenda.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 0: The. I think this is toward the end of our agenda, isn't it? Yes. We are now going to move to.
Speaker 1: The 701 special meeting. Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. Yes. Item 2D. Correct.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 0: All right. So who do we have presenting on that?
Speaker 1: I believe the city attorney will start and I will then.
Speaker 6: Go into the record.
Speaker 0: Oh, do we need to note the roll call for? I guess we do for us. And roll call, Madam Clerk. Brokaw has been noted.
Speaker 1: Adam Clark has been notified. President Sorry, I was either.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Okay, so then would you introduce this next item, please?
Speaker 1: Adoption is the resolution calling for the holding of a consolidated municipal election in the city of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020, for the submission of a proposed Charter and General Plan Amendment to repeal the prohibition against building multifamily housing in Alameda and the citywide density limitation of one housing unit per 2000 square feet of land and authorizing city council members to file written arguments for or against the measure.
Speaker 0: All right, so city attorney Mr. Chan, are you leading on this one?
Speaker 4: I am. I'll start and please clerk and the planning. Are you able to hear me? I am. I think you are. Okay, great. And the city clerk and the planning director are both present, as well as, I believe, Assistant.
Speaker 6: Attorney Selina Chen, who will all participate in the presentation and answer the.
Speaker 4: Council question. I'll make my presentation short. The Council made a policy decision at its last.
Speaker 6: Meeting to direct staff to return with this particular resolution to place on the ballot to repeal all of Article 26, which is, first of all, the prohibition on multi-family housing. And second of all, the limitation of 2000 square feet of.
Speaker 4: Land for housing units. Consistent with your correction, we brought you back to resolution.
Speaker 6: In our research, we've.
Speaker 4: Uncovered that the Article 26 not only is in the charter, but also.
Speaker 6: That it was inserted into the.
Speaker 4: General plan by the voters in 1991, which.
Speaker 6: Requires the same 2000 square.
Speaker 4: Feet of land for housing units in perpetuity.
Speaker 6: Unless the voters.
Speaker 4: Remove that. So as a result, what we are bringing.
Speaker 6: Back to you is a repeal of that provision in the.
Speaker 4: General plan as well.
Speaker 6: But to be clear, that does not change.
Speaker 4: Any of the general plan or zoning.
Speaker 6: Limitations that are presently in place.
Speaker 4: In the general plan or the zoning code. Those will remain in place, and this ballot measure does.
Speaker 6: Nothing to change it. It will be left to subsequent council action to do something or nothing to get these various provisions that currently exist in the general plan and the zoning ordinance.
Speaker 4: With that, I'm happy to turn it over to the City.
Speaker 6: Clerk to continue the presentation.
Speaker 1: So my person should be quick, quick and easy. And they at the last council meeting, the city council did two things about the arguments. They determined that the argument in favor would be authored by the mayor and vice mayor and they would determine who would sign. And the argument against would be authored by Councilmember de Song, and he would work on that with whoever he wanted. So and then the argument deadlines are going to be for the direct arguments. They will be due August 5th and the rebuttal arguments will be due August 17th. And since the Council will both be authoring arguments, if they get the highest priority in the elections code, anybody else submitting arguments, they would not be selected as long as the council does meet those deadlines and submit them.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk and Mr. Thomas. Ms.. Chan, anything to add?
Speaker 1: This is so. In addition, I have nothing to add.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Oh, but it's always nice to see you. Although we can't quite see you. Nice to have you here. And thanks for your good work on this item. Okay, Mr. Thomas, anything you want to add?
Speaker 4: No, thank you, madam.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. Everyone's taking my directives about. We've got to move things along. So then council. Any discussion?
Speaker 1: Madam Mayor. So, you know, we have nobody on Zoom who's raised their hand and no public comment submitted on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: By the fifth item, I'm going to remember about public comment. It's not like this is new to me. Okay. So did we know there's council every day, so we've got everybody. Okay. So therefore, do I have a motion to adopt the resolution calling for the holding of a consolidated municipal election in the city of Alameda on Tuesday , November 3rd, for the submission of a proposed Charter and General Plan Amendment to repeal the prohibition against building multi-family housing in Alameda and the citywide density limit limitation of one housing unit per 2000 square feet of land and authorizing city council members to file written arguments for or against the measure to have a motion.
Speaker 4: So moved.
Speaker 0: It's been moved by the Vice Mayor Jovicic and it's been stolen by Council member. Any further discussion council seeing that? Mr.. DE So please.
Speaker 2: It's just a procedural question. So, so is embedded in the motion. Are we reaffirming? Well, let me put it this way. Just cut to the chase. I would prefer to vote no on this motion because I obviously don't want to see a measure changed. But is the language of this motion that that is the signers already set from last time? In other words, what I'm asking.
Speaker 1: Yes, the signers are. Yeah. If the signers are included in the resolution, it's one of the sections of the resolution that designates and it was included from the last meeting that those two sections and who would sign it. So it is in the resolution. Yes.
Speaker 2: I see. Okay.
Speaker 3: Okay. You have it. All right.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then just to clarify, we are simply voting to put this on the ballot. That's just to be put on the ballot in November. So just. Just what I said, not, you know, for or against, but putting it on the ballot. So any further questions or discussion? CNN. May we have a call cover, please?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Sorry. Of course. Sorry.
Speaker 2: My quick comment is this I appreciate being able to sign the no side, but as you all know, I would prefer that this not be put on the ballot. And so for that reason, I will be voting no, even though I will continue to sign it. So is that an option or do I have to vote? Yes. Okay, face.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Accept Alameda Family Services Presentation Summarizing Activities Performed Under its One-Year Contract for Student Mental Health Services. (Community Development)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07212020_2020-8097
|
Speaker 1: We do not. No one has raised their hand on Zoom and no one has submitted anything.
Speaker 0: Okay, well, in that case, do. Okay. The city attorney has his hand up. All right, Mr. Chan.
Speaker 4: I have a question. Thank you. I have a quick question for Councilmember Vella. Just clarify.
Speaker 6: Her question.
Speaker 4: Is her intent for card technicality for the.
Speaker 6: Construction workers.
Speaker 4: Or for the staff that will be working there, like waiters and waitresses.
Speaker 0: Or both?
Speaker 8: Well, I think card check would be for the I think there's two parts. So one card check would be typically for the staff that would work there. On the construction side, I think we typically require certain projects under certain thresholds to fall under our project stabilization agreement. But that that that is I believe that's been discussed. But is it also does that need to be in the license agreement?
Speaker 4: So I don't see me as you can. Correct me if I'm wrong. The threshold.
Speaker 6: For the project stabilization agreement is quite high, so.
Speaker 4: I doubt that if they're engaging in any work in there that it would meet those thresholds. And so unless the council.
Speaker 6: Specifically direct us to put it in the.
Speaker 4: License agreement, it is plausible and perhaps likely.
Speaker 6: That construction workers would not be covered.
Speaker 5: So what I do know is that yes the card check and neutrality that they were agreeable to the I never had the discussion on the construction because I'm not sure there be any major construction there. But as far as the other part, the service workers, that was the part that they were agreeable to.
Speaker 0: So where does that leave your question? Councilmember Vella, did did you have it fully answered?
Speaker 3: Yes, I did.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: I'm I'm happy to do comment.
Speaker 0: Okay. Let's see. Do we? So we get a motion and then do discussion or when do more comment. Because this is now council comment. We didn't have any public speakers. Do you want to continue in this film?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I just I think and I discussed.
Speaker 8: This with the city manager. My concern was kind of the long term use of this space. There's quite a large parking lot there in the building. It's it's right next to a couple main roads. I think, you know, we're going to be having various conversations coming up relative to other needs of the city. These we've talked about, you know, our different priorities. So I just wanted to make sure that, you know, at least from my perspective, that whatever we're doing here is is confined to a shorter period of time. I don't know that this is and I hope we'll have a larger conversation in the future about what the long term vision is for this property. I don't know that the event space concept is necessarily, you know, where where it will stay. So I'm glad that the it's one that it's a license agreement and two, that it's for a relatively short period of time so that we can have that or a future council can have that deliberation about the future usage. I, I also would like to see the card check neutrality language added. I agree with the Mayor about adding specific language relative to COVID 19. It's a weird time to be approving a license agreement for an event space with all things happening. So I don't want it to be interpreted as us entering into this and somehow condoning the, you know, the space to be used in a way that would not be in line with what the direction is from the state or the county, and that the the stricter of the two orders would would apply. And I think that's important as well. This is a city owned parcel. And so while this is a license, I want to make sure that we're responsible landlords. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I saw counts on Brody with his hand up. Yes, Counselor.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And I will agree with everything my. My colleague said. And I just wanted to point out on the under health orders, you he's going to need to comply. But I could see somebody making an argument that, well, an emergency order by the county or a governor's emergency order. You know, maybe we can skate on that, but if people need to comply. So, you know, when one of us goes there, you know, and asks about it and, you know, we're kind of brushed off, it doesn't give me any confidence that they're going to comply. So I need to make sure it's explicit in there. So.
Speaker 0: Okay. Further comments before we go for a motion, Councilmember Daisuke. Are you muted?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Just to confirm. So, City Manager Levitt. Is it your understanding that if the entity is asked to do car check or whatever, that they are okay with that?
Speaker 5: Yes, I had a discussion with them and I said that that likely would be a provision. So it's my mistake that it didn't get put in the license agreement, but they did understand. And it's card check neutrality, right? That's the way I yeah, that's the way I put it.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any further discussion? Do I have emotion too? This is a relief for a recommendation to authorize the city manager, his designee, to execute a one year license with Greenway. Did you want to say something first, Councilmember Vela, or make the motion? When make the motion.
Speaker 8: I was going to make the motion to grant that authority to the city manager, provided that the two provisions discussed the COVID 19 language and the card check neutrality language be added.
Speaker 0: All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second chance on the data?
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Yes. Second.
Speaker 0: Second. All right. It's been moved by Councilmember Vela, second by Councilmember De. So any further discussion seeing then? Maybe we have a roll call vote, please, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de Thug?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Not quite.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 1: Odie.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 1: Bella. Mayor. As the Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: That carries by five eyes. So you still have to a on this item on this agenda. So it has to be recess to go back to 60. So one more recess on this one.
Speaker 0: We are recessing this special meeting going back to regular item six.
Speaker 3: E, correct?
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: Isn't Edward or as a year or whatever. Okay, friend. And who's. I see Miss Potter on this. Oh, I see Miss McConnell. Okay.
Speaker 1: And I'll quickly read the ordinance title and introduction. The ordinance authorizing the city manager or designee to execute an amendment to the lease with Williams-Sonoma, Inc. For a Delaware corporation acting for and on behalf of Williams-Sonoma Stores Inc, a California corporation for Building 169 Suite one or two located at 1680 Viking Street at Alameda Point, extending the term for an additional 12 months with 112 month extension option, removing overflow parking from the leased premises and providing one month upfront payment of.
Speaker 0: All right, so who is this Mercado? You're starting on this one. Okay.
Speaker 9: And I'll leave. I'll be quick about it. So I'm Williams-Sonoma has been our tenant for they've been under they were initially under a license for one year and then they have had a lease for several years. And we're renewing this agreement and we're a little late in renewing because we got caught by COVID, but we're going to do a one year lease with an option to renew for one year and the rent is remaining flat mostly because of COVID and and they are getting a one month rent abatement. And that and that also is because of Novell and they have not been able to operate. So I'm sorry, my dog is driving me crazy.
Speaker 0: So we love dogs.
Speaker 9: Tompkins Day was on the table.
Speaker 3: Oh, well.
Speaker 0: So we have our limits.
Speaker 9: I know there's kids in the meeting, dogs and.
Speaker 3: Everything.
Speaker 0: Together.
Speaker 3: To get. Where were we.
Speaker 9: Anyway? So. So there are there are. This is a renewal one. In addition to the rent that they generate, they generate a sizable amount of sales tax revenue that Alameda has been put as the point of sale for their sales in the warehouse. And so yeah, so they are they generate a lot of sales tax revenue over the last few years. So we hope that you'll consider renewing this right now. They have I'm just going to give them a little bit of a marketing push right now. They have a very good sale with like 50% off everything. It might be worth a visit if you're out there watching.
Speaker 0: But they're doing the socially distance only allowing so many people in at a time.
Speaker 9: They have to. And it's such a huge hanger, they're lucky that they get to allow quite a few people in at one time.
Speaker 2: Nice.
Speaker 0: And keep the keep the doors open for ventilation. And just to remind everyone who's watching, whenever you leave your house, you need to be wearing your mask. I'll pull my and demonstrate later. But that includes when you're inside shopping and retail. But, you know, to your point, Ms.. Mcconney Williams-Sonoma is a California corporation based in our state and has been a tough time for for retailers all over. So with that and Ms.. Potter, were you going to add anything to the presentation now? Nice to see you. So, counsel and I just got word from the city clerk that we still have no public comment. Is that correct? Ms. WEISBERGER.
Speaker 1: Correct. No one has raised their hand or submitted a comment.
Speaker 0: Okay. So counsel, clarifying questions are motion or what would you like? Councilman Brody.
Speaker 6: Just a quick question. So we're building this this rent abatement into this lease. Does that mean they're not going to be eligible to any for any other rent abatement, like we discussed a few months back on our commercial commercial tenants?
Speaker 9: So they they had all the tenants have been notified of programs that were offering as a city and what they really wanted. And initially they were kind of difficult, I would like to say, but at the end of the day it just boiled down to them wanting just this one month rent abatement. And so it's it's fine. And so that's why we're recommending it.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 6: I mean, I can move approvals.
Speaker 0: Sure. Okay. We have a motion. All right. We have a motion from Councilmember. Do we have a second?
Speaker 2: It's okay.
Speaker 0: And it's been seconded by Councilmember de SA. Do we have any further discussion? Not seeing any. So may we take a roll call? Vote on the motion?
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Not quite.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 6: Ody I.
Speaker 1: Vella. I may or as the Ashcroft I. That carries my five eyes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Miss Mercado. Nice to see you and your dog. Thank you, Miss Potter. All right. We are moving on to item six F.
Speaker 1: Introduction of an unqualified ordinance amending and codified ordinance number 3275 to extend the time that tenants must pay deferred rent from 210 days to 395 days following the city council's rescission of the local emergency.
Speaker 0: This would be Miss Potter's item, correct?
Speaker 3: Yes, absolutely. I'm going to be presenting this item in April of this year. The city council adopted as part of its urgency ordinance regarding an eviction moratorium for commercial as well as residential tenants. The council also approved as part of that ordinance a essentially a seven month time frame in which tenants could read pay rent that was either not paid in full or in part during the declaration of the state of emergency. At that time, staff was recommending that the repayment period should be, which should commence 30 days after the local emergency was lifted and then continued for six months. So seven months in total. And at that time, some council members had expressed interest in considering that perhaps more time should be allowed for tenants to repay rent. And there was some direction to to go back and check with stakeholders as we have as the months of carried on, as we have continued to have a shelter in
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Execute a One Year License with Greenway Golf Associates, Inc. for the “Grandview Pavilion” Located at 300 Island Drive, including an Option to Extend the Term of the License for One Additional Year. (Community Development 216)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07212020_2020-8159
|
Speaker 8: When we're getting the word out about this, are we how are we going about getting the word out about these protections, one and two, are we doing it in multiple languages?
Speaker 3: So we. Let's see. We have we do have our Tenant and Small Business Assistance page on the city's website under the COVID 19. And all of our tenant protection ordinances are there along with implementing regulations. And this ordinance has an implementing regulation that we will be updating that that further talks about how how this is all being handled. I do not believe that we have put up anything in any other languages to date. We also the paralegal in the attorney's office is fielding questions about the about the rent freeze and the moratorium. So we are providing information as well as the rent program is and central legal who we are contracting with also has copies of our ordinance and our implementing regs.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any further questions, council member Vella? No. Okay. Any further clarifying questions before we hear a public speaker? Vice Mayor Knox White.
Speaker 4: All right. So the staff report and you mentioned stakeholder outreach. Do we have any information about locally how many people are deferring their rent, etc.? Like what the impact is?
Speaker 3: So I did have an opportunity on the 10th of July to to meet with Eastbay, the East Bay Realtors, Base Realtors, their local government relations committee. And it sounds like. People are feeling pretty good. They were saying maybe some of the folks who do property management were saying maybe 70, 75% of their tenants have been paying rent in full. And it sounds like there are tenants who have been availing themselves of different assistance that is out there. Our rent relief program is hopefully launching this week. So the program that the council approved last month, we hope to launch this week, so that that will also be promoted as a part of really at least providing an asset and a resource for folks to apply for assistance. So my sense is that landlords are concerned because the longer this is lasting, the kind of scarier and the harder it is. But it it kind of feels like. More than a majority of tenants are paying rent. And and those that are those that maybe have some challenges are getting some assistance, I guess is kind of what I heard.
Speaker 0: But I swear. Is that all for you?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Sir. Madam Kirk, we'll go to our public speaker. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilmember. Yes, good.
Speaker 2: Question. When it comes to repayment, is there. If there is an agreement with regard to repayment, is there every expectation that the agreement has to be kept and that failure to keep the agreement risks jeopardizing the protection that that that, you know, our ordinance gives with regard to tenants who are in a who are repaying. That protection being a protection from eviction.
Speaker 3: So tenants are encouraged to enter into a payback arrangement or that kind of thing with their their landlord. However, they are not required to do that to to receive the benefits of that time period under this ordinance. So the encouragement is there, but it's not a requirement.
Speaker 2: Interesting. Okay.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O.D..
Speaker 6: Sorry. Thank you. So if that if that happens, is that considered and that repayment is not made, is that considered a breach of contract that somebody can be sued on that agreement? Or is that considered a breach of lease where they can be evicted?
Speaker 3: Well, you cannot be evicted. The way the ordinance stands now and the way it's proposed to continue is you cannot be evicted for nonpayment of any deferred rent. For now, what will be the 13 month period? You will have to be current on your current rent, but you won't be able to be evicted for the nonpayment of the deferred rent until then. Month 14. Right, if you rent and that would be the basis.
Speaker 6: Right. But if you sign an agreement that basically says I'm going to pay, you know, X dollars per month over month, and then you somehow failed to pay that mean does that mean you can be evicted or is that just a contract? And maybe that's maybe that's a legal question. But my my concern is you can kind of see, right, that we have these side agreements and then people don't for some reason are unable to comply with them and then they're going to get evicted. And then someone can say, well, the agreement trumps the ordinance.
Speaker 3: Like the ordinance does not require an agreement. So beyond that, if you choose to enter into an agreement, then I guess I, I mean, I guess I would defer to the city attorney on what that then becomes a breach of.
Speaker 0: I guess when this was in your record.
Speaker 4: Then I think it would also depend on the nature of the agreement and the drafting of the agreement.
Speaker 6: This is.
Speaker 4: Highly unusual. So we won't. It's difficult to predict what a court would ultimately conclude. We think that it is likely.
Speaker 6: That a court would conclude that it's probably just a breach of contract.
Speaker 4: But because we're talking about hypothetical agreements and we don't.
Speaker 6: Know what they say, it's difficult to conclusively say what.
Speaker 4: They would be on it. It is our it is our thinking.
Speaker 6: That most likely those agreements.
Speaker 4: If these are these would be private agreements without any input from the city, nor could we, because they're not we're not a party to these agreements. We think that that there is a reasonable likelihood that.
Speaker 6: A court would construe those agreements to be contractual and not subject to.
Speaker 4: Unlawful detention. But we certainly could not render an opinion without knowing what the agreements substantively say and even if we did. Given the unprecedented nature of.
Speaker 6: This type of.
Speaker 4: Order and the lack of judicial guidance. Of course, we'll have to ultimately resolve it.
Speaker 6: Okay. I mean, you could tell it my concern is right, that, you know, these would be substituted for leases and or you know, we already know there's unequal bargaining power between a landlord and tenant. So, you know, I, I could see where someone could be pressured into agreeing to some waiver of rights that they're given by this ordinance and then, you know, suddenly being subject to eviction. So if there's a way to fix that, maybe we could think about it.
Speaker 4: Well, if I may respond to. Yes, but landlords require tenants to.
Speaker 6: Enter into those leases. It would have to be.
Speaker 4: Voluntary if a landlord required to do so, it would violate our fair housing of a well.
Speaker 6: Yeah, but we know there's unfair bargaining power positioning, so.
Speaker 0: All right. So we hear from our public speaker or speakers, please.
Speaker 1: Catherine Pauling.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Ms.. Pauling. Hi.
Speaker 3: It's just Katherine. Can you hear me now?
Speaker 0: Yes, I can hear you just fine. Okay.
Speaker 3: I'm I'm I'm honorable mayor, vice mayor and council members. The Alameda Renters Coalition supports the expansion of repayment and ordinance 30 to 75. We believe this action is also a necessary component of the recent declaration of racism as a public health emergency. Given the disproportionate impact of COVID 19 on too many communities of color due to systemic racism in terms of work, health and housing. Additionally, we are hearing many renters are confused about their rights under the various ordinances. Our requests that a greater effort be made to inform tenants of their legal rights and the resources available. As Council has noted, 25% of Alameda residents do not have online access. It's reasonable to assume that most of these are renters with local papers, limiting print editions and COVID 19 limiting gatherings. It's difficult to communicate with our diverse communities. For these reasons, ARC requests a mailing to renters be done by the city, possibly drawing from the rent registry and provided in multiple languages. Respectfully submitted the Alameda Renters Coalition. I also want to add our concern to families point. Debby Potter. Just Miss Potter just mentioned that tenants are being encouraged to go into agreements about repayment. And at a time when people are not back to work and don't know what their future income or employment is, I would request that you not encourage agreements at this time, especially given the tenant has to be able to go into court to present these arguments and so many ways the power imbalance really precludes going into this, or have them talk to an attorney or our legal service before they enter into any agreement so that they have some advice on this. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. So. And Ms.. Weisler, that was the extent of our public comment on this item we did.
Speaker 1: One more person raised their hand. So we have Janet. Jennifer Rakowski.
Speaker 0: Yes. Good evening.
Speaker 3: Hi. Thank you. Council members for contact. I staff a landlord tenant counseling line for a neighboring city. And so I can't speak directly to Alameda, but I can tell you that our phone lines are flooded with calls from people who are struggling to pay their rent even more. So we are constantly inundated with people who are seeing the writing on the wall with too short of a time period to pay back the rent that they are already owing. And so they are breaking leases because the prospect of paying it back on a really quick timeframe when they're still out of work just is overwhelming. And the reason. So everything from people who have personally had a health issue due to COVID 19, had a death in the family due to COVID 19, had roommates move out due to COVID 19, loss of job. Just the stories I hear on a daily basis are heartbreaking and the ways in which the city can take this issue seriously and look at ways that provide for. A reasonable planned expectation on the part of landlords, but also a pathway to stability that is achievable for tenants because tenants are already moving out because the prospect of paying off the debt too quickly is overwhelming.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And we have one more speaker.
Speaker 1: I understand now we have two more, so.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Another one added Grover Whitman Brown.
Speaker 0: Yes. Good evening.
Speaker 3: Hi. Good evening, counsel. Grover Cleveland Brown from Eastbay Housing Organizations. And I'm calling on behalf of oppose membership to ask you to vote yes on this important extension of the repayment period. And also to echo the previous caller, the need for tenants to have protections is only growing as each month goes by and as unemployment insurance is about to be reduced for many thousands of residents. And so we ask that you consider the strategy that's been adopted by other cities and counties, which is to try to translate the unpaid rent into consumer debt so that tenants are not faced with eviction when they can't pay essentially two month's rent at once for six or eight or 12 months, which is unable most people are unable to pay two rents any month, let alone month after month after month once they return to work. So thank you for considering it, and please reach out to us if you have questions about how other ordinances are working.
Speaker 0: Thank you. One more speaker. At least one?
Speaker 1: Yes, just one more. Kevin. Lauren.
Speaker 0: Hello.
Speaker 3: I again.
Speaker 0: Hello again.
Speaker 3: Really in support of this because I am a fellow renter. I moved here about two years ago, leaving my family's home and taking care of my grandmother. So and I'm an artist and obviously there's no work to be done and everything is very uncertain. So knowing that Alan Miller would have my back in a situation and like want to keep me here, would make me feel really, you know, cared for in a the fact that something that we want to implement is really going to be for showing compassion to our citizens, especially if I'm struggling and I'm white passing. I can't imagine what people who are forced to work, who are, you know, of the minority groups like being black or because of color, like they probably are really struggling even more than I am. So I think it's really important to think of assistance in this situation. And then 1/2 everyone go over and have them probably like I think they make really strong points and I hope this passes. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Now we have one more and then a public comment submitted in writing to next is Alexia Orocobre.
Speaker 0: Hello researcher.
Speaker 3: Hi. And I just wanted to quickly echo, support and urge that you all vote yes on this extension. I think it is very important not only for residents but to be able we all know what's coming. And I think it's important to protect the renters. And I just second everything that was also previously said. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And a written comment, did it say.
Speaker 1: Yes, Rosalynn, to Courtney, property owners or not? The bankers have tenants. If the city wants to pay the rent through subsidized payments, that is up to the city. Thank you. And that's it.
Speaker 0: With that. I have a clause, my own commerce clause, have a comment and we will go back to the City Council for a motion and for the discussion. Who wants to lead this? Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 6: I'll start. No hands came up. I'd like to move approval of this, but if possible, in my companies that are amenable, give direction to staff to come back with an ordinance that allows us to treat any of these side agreements and even this type of unpaid rent as consumer debt that we we did this one in in March. So I use my CPR skills. April, May, June and July. So now we're coming up on five months of unpaid rent. And maybe the truest thing that ever came out of the White House was that the worst is still yet to come on this so mean we could be looking at another five months and then what ? We have tenants with one year worth of rent that you know, it will end up being double. And I don't want to see people get evicted over this. And there's to me, there's no action. You know, in our state capital, there was a bill to do this exact same thing to reduce consumer debt, and it died because the real estate lobby killed it. And, you know, there's nothing coming out of Washington anytime soon. So if we have the ability to do that, I'd like to see us try to do that.
Speaker 0: Um, I just to follow on to Councilor Brody's comments and other public speakers. I would actually like a clearer understanding of what. What exactly that looks like. And then the question I would have for counsel for the city attorney is, would that be a significant enough departure that the ordinance would have to come back to us? But. But can someone explain what how does that work for to convert? Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: Yes, sorry. My suggestion was to give direction to direction, not to amend.
Speaker 3: Got it.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 6: So we could do that, too.
Speaker 0: Um, well, I would think that passing this ordinance is of the essence. Time is of the essence. But that's. I'm one opinion up here, so. Okay, so. But could I. Could I get an explanation briefly from the city attorney or from Miss Potter or whomever? How does that work? What is it.
Speaker 4: Is.
Speaker 3: I would like to defer to the city attorney who I think has provided direction on that issue of consumer debt previously, and I think has indicated, at least previously that it was maybe not something that he felt we could do. And I don't know if at this point like a federal issue to look at that.
Speaker 0: Okay. If we could just have one speaker at a time. That would be great. And actually, are you prepared to comment on this, Mr. Chen?
Speaker 6: I'll generally.
Speaker 4: Say that we're more than happy to look at ways to look at these side agreements.
Speaker 6: And to provide as much protections for tenants as possible. And we obviously strive to effectuate your direction to us.
Speaker 4: Whatever it may be.
Speaker 6: And we've expressed some concerns to you about a general conversion of renters debt to consumer debt, notwithstanding other jurisdictions having done so.
Speaker 4: But we're having express.
Speaker 6: Reservations, too. We're happy to take your direction and we'll effectuate it to the best.
Speaker 4: Of our abilities.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Okay. So. Do we have? My iPad always has a moment where it decides to freeze, so help me out. Councilmember Vela, you had your hand up. Did you?
Speaker 8: I was just going to say that, you know, I think that I'm fine giving direction. I don't want to change the current ordinance before us. I think that we need to get it enacted and give people as much notice as possible that we're we're we're giving this change. I also think that essentially passing protections without notifying the most vulnerable of their rights, it means that we're essentially not passing protections. I have read a number of different articles. There's an article in the New York Times about a bar in Oakland and the people that work there. And many of them were concerned about making rent because they were worried about addiction. This article came out at the end of June. We all know that there have been a number of protections that have been passed preventing and effectively putting in a moratorium on evictions during the pandemic. So I'm very concerned that people don't know their rights. I've gotten some emails offered to the city attorney, and I'm not just talking about residential tenants. We have commercial tenants who don't understand their rights, and I think there's a little more. These are folks that have potentially have more resources available, things like that. And they're dealing with the same landlords, frankly, that that also have residential tenants. So I just I think, you know, we need to get the word out about what, you know, what the protections are. We need to do it in multiple languages, even if it's that we do a mailing and or require a posting in buildings, we require landlords to notify the tenants or we require postings in apartment buildings, on the community boards, things like that. I'm very worried. We also have a number of very vulnerable tenants who are not leaving their houses because of preexisting conditions or their age or a number of different things that put them at risk. Maybe they're immunocompromised. Some of these individuals do not have access to the Internet. They're not seeing what's being posted online. You know, I know of some individuals who didn't even know about the opportunities that the food bank and things like that or opportunities to get food delivered. And so at this point, it's really become a word of mouth thing. In the past, I'd also spoken with the mayor about doing something similar to what the city of San Leandro is doing and what some folks are doing in Oakland of going through and calling individuals. I just want to put out there that I'm more than happy if we do have a registry. We have phone numbers and things like that. I'm more than happy to volunteer my time to call through and let people know about the update, not necessarily to give legal advice, but to just let them know, you know, what the updates are and what services are available. Because I think the word isn't getting out to our most vulnerable. And I think that this is an opportunity for us to not just do the work, but make sure that it's the protections are really having the effect that we intend them to have.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember. And you know it. And just a little housekeeping detail. It is 1054 and before 11:00, I'm going to have to ask for a motion. But do you have a quick comment or should we slip?
Speaker 6: I mean, I'd be happy to amend my motion to give some direction to notify people in whatever way you think is appropriate. You know, so that's perfectly fine.
Speaker 0: Okay. Would you like to do that?
Speaker 6: Yes, I would. But we can talk about that after.
Speaker 0: Well, I didn't know if we had a motion to vote. We take care of this item. But you think there's a lot more discussion still?
Speaker 4: Well, I don't know if.
Speaker 6: You know, if if what the customer suggested is okay with everyone or we needed to have staff come back with a plan that we wanted to review. And, you know, I don't I don't know. I mean, I'm open to whatever whatever my colleague feels is the most appropriate and effective way.
Speaker 0: Well, I think I heard the staff direction made that council member who remind me can call somebody. Did you make the motion?
Speaker 6: Yes, I did.
Speaker 0: Okay. And Councilmember. Well, you seconded, correct? Okay. Um. In less than 5 minutes. What can we do? Or we can.
Speaker 5: Do you if you want to.
Speaker 4: Oh.
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Councilman, I mean, city manager.
Speaker 5: If if you want to just put direction. I'm all right. If you want to put direction at the end of the motion, the staff can create a communication plan and follow through on it and communicate it back to the council. We could do that, especially since we're going on break between now and September or potentially that way we could go ahead and get that communication out in this time frame.
Speaker 0: Makers of the motion.
Speaker 6: I mean, that works for me. We still have a second reading on this this ordinance. So I don't know how that would play in, but I think the sooner the better.
Speaker 3: I think in the discussions that staff has had, we would begin that. We've talked about starting the communication outreach after the second reading so we could test the materials and then after September one, knowing that it would become effective 30 days later.
Speaker 0: And then he knew what it was. Sorry. I hate to interrupt you, but I get nervous because the city clerk is counting on us to do this before 11 and it's 1056. So council, we have to. We've got a couple of remaining items to go. We have item six G, which should be pretty fast. We've, we've looked at this before and and then we have items ten A which is designation of voting delegates for League of California Cities Conference. I mean, that shouldn't take long with conferences until October, if I recall correctly. But anyway and then we have our two big is the two A and the five the continuation of five A. So do I have a motion? I tend to think we can get all this wrapped up the same evening by midnight. But he's got a motion. With 3 minutes remaining.
Speaker 4: I remembered that notion that we continue until midnight.
Speaker 0: Okay. With a motion to continue. All items until midnight. Do you have a second? A quick second. 6 seconds. Any discussion thing then? May we have a roll call? Vote, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Next flight.
Speaker 4: Odie I.
Speaker 1: Vela. I may or as the Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Good work, everyone. Now it's 1058. We had 2 minutes to spare. Okay, Miss Potter, I cut you off. Please continue.
Speaker 3: That's quite all right. I was just going to say, I think it would be helpful for staff if we had a little more direction. Part of the motion is council would council be requesting us to come back with an ordinance dealing with the side agreements and the consumer debt? Or would you like us to analyze that and come back with with. I was a little unclear about that piece of the motion. That's all.
Speaker 0: Understandably, the vice mayor has his hand up.
Speaker 4: He's got those.
Speaker 3: Plans.
Speaker 4: Jason has had his hand up for about 10 minutes.
Speaker 0: I'm so sorry. I just didn't realize that you.
Speaker 4: Had a lot to say before we get into.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Clarification. We might want to talk.
Speaker 0: Okay. So just.
Speaker 3: Further, thank.
Speaker 2: You very much for.
Speaker 0: Your time. Here's the thing, Councilor. You are low on the screen. Oh, sorry. You have to really wave to me or text me or something. I've got it. Thank you. Yeah, I did not see that. My vision, you know, it's just. I have to look out of the corners of my eyes. See, you are so Councilmember Desai. Great.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you. All in. Good. Just so my comment is basically this, you know, homeowners and renters alike are definitely struggling through this pandemic. But I think the census data clearly indicates that renters are especially vulnerable given that their incomes typically are half that of homeowners and the fact that they lack the assets that homeowners have. I mean, right now I'm in. Interest rates are so low, they're at historic lows for homeowners who are contemplating refinancing. So it's incumbent on city council to step up when it comes to helping out our tenants, our renters. And I see. And the and the item tonight, a reasonable effort when it comes to assisting renters. In addition, I believe that that it's a it's a reasonable effort that also were would benefit landlords in the end because it you know they can keep their their tenants around if they have a more reasonable debt load to carry . And basically, what we're what we're doing is amortizing it instead of over seven months, over 13 months. And I think and I think, you know, that's reasonable. We're not saying five years or anything like that. So. So. So that's why I definitely support this. I support this also because, you know, originally the ordinance did not have a loan payback provision and it was there was a modification to it. And I think the modification to it was reasonable. And the amendment that we're contemplating tonight is reasonable. As to the two other items, you know, if they're part of the motion, so be it. But you know how I feel about those two other items because I don't know I don't know about this consumer debt issue. And in terms of the other matter that was raised, I'm not too sure. But but I think for the main the main issue that we have before us in extending out the repayment time from seven months to 13 months, I think that's quite reasonable. And I think, you know, in this time that we're in, I think renters needed to know that we were on their side.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And again, my apologies for missing you. Okay. I need to raise my hand.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Or wave or jump up and down. You know the simple vice mayor.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I will second the Councilmember Baysox comments and the comments of my my other colleagues. So I wanted to ask a clarifying question. So because we have to have a second reading, this does not pass on September 1st, correct? If it passes on second reading, the second reading is actually the beginning of.
Speaker 3: September and it actually becomes effective then 30 days following the second reading. But there is sufficient protections in the existing ordinance so that it will be a routine ordinance versus an urgency.
Speaker 4: Yes. No, I think I think that that that makes sense. I guess what I was trying to think of is, you know, given that that direction, which will be clarified about communications plan, you know, which I will absolutely agree, needs to be multilingual and robust. It would be very helpful to me that we are getting to that point where we may be asking certain certain people who might have a second unit or something like that. And we do hear from seniors who are who are impacted by this. It would be helpful. I don't want to undo this work. I think this work is important. We need to do it. But it would be helpful to me if maybe even during the second reading, we could have a presentation of what else we are doing or could do to help those landlords whose tenants are not paying work or are not are not able to pay rent. I'm not interested in, you know, subsidizing, you know, kind of corporate large corporate entities for whom this is just a giant investment. But, you know, if we have people who own one or two units who may actually be really impacted by not actually seeing rent for a year, which quite honestly is very possible, you know, if 25% of people are already not paying their rent fully, it just might be. I would like to know kind of what is available in terms of protections from the state and the federal. But also, you know, Councilmember DeSantis point out we do have a large reserve. And, you know, again, reserves are for rainy days if we need to be helping renters who can't pay their rent to landlords who can show a financial hardship, I do wonder if we should be looking at that as a follow on something as well as this, you know, as this drags on, it was much easier for me to say three and four months. You know, that that's a tough quote, but we can fight that. But if we're starting, my guess is this the state of emergency isn't over before the end of the year. So I just I just I want to start looking ahead instead of finding that people are in dire straits. And now we're trying to help them out of dire straits and just think think through that. So it would be great to have that come back sometime in the near future. I don't want to add a whole nother new priority, but if we could think about how we can have that conversation, I think it would be good. But I'm here to support tonight's resolution because I think this is a step.
Speaker 0: And I would just say maybe I think it's always good to have as much information as possible. And it's true that a lot of people are being impacted by people's inability to pay rent. It would be helpful to know. To the extent possible, how much people have been renters and therefore their landlords have been assisted by some of the programs that the city has set up the the grant program. And I know we've got the Alameda Strong Community Fund that has some allocation. It's more heavily weighted to local businesses that there's still some allocation for renters. So I would I think it would be useful to know that information. Okay. Let's see. So, you know, my feelings are this is is very necessary. And. Back when we were looking at this first one in April, we just had no idea. That's not cool. I know. I've got to stop. I'm just going to fold my hands in my lap and stop fidgeting. Of any way back in April, when we looked at this, I think it was April, we just had no idea where, where we were going with this. And we we still don't, although I'm hopeful, ever hopeful that, as I like to say, time and science are on our hand, on our side, if we can just get people to really comply with the COVID guidelines. So there's not a whole lot of them wear masks, socially distanced, watch it wash your hands frequently. Don't go into crowded places. We can make a difference. But in the meantime, people have not been able to go back to work. And and it's, you know, you think of all the stress that, ah, people are facing who are struggling to put food on the table. And, you know, to the extent that we can help out, I think this is a very thoughtful ordinance that came forward. But I also do agree that we need to make sure that the information is out there in multiple languages. So however, that can be done and and disseminated as widely as possible. But I think, you know, we've got the rent registry and we have other ways of knowing where the renters are. So I am sure that's doable. So then, okay, so we've had our motion, it's been seconded, we have staff direction, anything further that needs to be said before a roll call vote. Okay. Let's have that all covered, please.
Speaker 1: Uh, Councilmember de thug.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Next week.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 6: Ody I.
Speaker 1: Vella.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Mayor as the Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Potter. And for your input to Mr. Shand. Very helpful. Okay, we move quickly on to item six, Madam Clerk, which you introduced that police.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to authorize the city attorney or designee to consent to law for Goldfarb. Whitman's request to waive conflict of interest in connection with call for legal representation of the city and city transactions and the County of Alameda and on the Rose, the Village Affordable Housing Project transaction and delegated authority to the city attorney or designee to consent , modify or reject future requests from Goldfarb to waive conflicts of interest in connection with Goldfarb. Legal representation of the City of Alameda on city transactions in the County of Armenia on future affordable housing transactions involving County of Alameda, A-1 funds or comparable county funds.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: And did we have any public speakers on this item? Ms.. Massacre.
Speaker 1: We did not.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any clarifying questions or. Well, do you want a staff report? We've we've covered this one before. Okay. Do I want a staff report? Could I get a motion? Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 6: Just one quick question. This is so the future delegation is just related to the county, right? That's right. Like I'm old approval.
Speaker 0: We have a motion by Councilmember Odie and a second by the Vice Mayor. Spaceman. Not quite any discussion seeing. Then maybe we ever roll call vote please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember As.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Like slate my Odie.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 1: Avella I may. Mayor, as the Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: All right, good work, people. Then we move on to the next page. So we've got. Okay, we've got City Manager Communications Council, Mr. Leavitt. Make you a member of the council. Would you like to be on the council.
Speaker 3: For a lot.
Speaker 0: Of.
Speaker 4: Fun?
Speaker 5: Marissa, Ashcraft and. And City Council. I just have two quick updates due to the time of night. I won't go into some other things, but one is just we are still we're working out one logistics issue, but at this time we're planning on having testing starting up this week, tomorrow at the 300. I think it's at the research park over over at the research park.
Speaker 0: So however way.
Speaker 4: Over.
Speaker 5: A been driveaway astronomer over the street and the city health's urgent care is going to be the provider. And I think everything's a go right now. We're hoping I'll be a go tomorrow. One last one. Logistics that you still working out to make sure it's tomorrow instead of Thursday. And then secondly, there's been a variety of concerns from residents regarding encampment outside the Webster tube off of Webster Street. It is Caltrans property. We've been working with Caltrans due to COVID issues. There's certain state policies we have to work through. And so that is taking time and working through that. As far as those encampments.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Levitt. And then we come to item eight, and I believe the city clerk told me that there were two comments that weren't able to be heard in the first public comment. So are those.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 0: Live?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Well, no, Bethenny who she had trouble getting on, so she submitted it to me to have it read. And then another comment. Yeah. Okay. So Beth Canning.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Sunday, July 26th, 2020 marks the 30th anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ada. It is remarkable how much more accessible our country has become since the passage of the ADA. It is equally remarkable how much more work we need to do to be a society that is fully inclusive of people with disabilities. I want to thank you for honoring the 30th anniversary of the ADA by lighting City Hall in blue and white this Sunday, July 26th. And the next is at Nairobi. Taylor?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: My name is Nairobi Taylor. I organize with youth activists of Alameda. And I wanted to say that as a 15 year old black girl who would like to go into nursing, I find it crucial for our city council to assist in changing the racist ways of Alameda. While some find heavy police presence necessary and even suggest that racism no longer exists. Black women are 2 to 6 times more likely to die in childbirth than white women. That statistic alone shows that there is much work to be done and therefore I hope that our city council members are putting the work in to revolutionize our city.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And those are private comments.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's okay.
Speaker 0: And then we. We have no council referrals this evening. Council communications. Anyone have anything quick they want to say, counselor over there.
Speaker 2: Oh, yes, thank you. I attended the airport noise forum last week. One topic that was covered was because a lot of Alameda residents were concerned about the sudden change in the schedule by Oakland Airport. When it comes to fixing up the runways and everything, they typically do it on night times. But because of COVID 19, they have begun to do it in daytimes, which as a result then has forced planes off of a certain runway that is creating daytime noise. The Oakland airport officials indicated that that they heard the what the residents concerns are, but that they're also in the in the they're wrapping that that work up as it is. So so so hopefully that will remedy itself. The second thing I want to report out of the Oakland Noise Forum was Walt Jacobs was once again our resident citizen. Walt Jacobs was once again voted as co-chair. So he did such a great job representing class. And I believe Walt worked with our mayor in putting together a letter, I believe. Is that. Yes.
Speaker 3: So I just.
Speaker 0: We're capable our capable staff. Yes.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for the work you do on that committee. Councilmember Desai, I appreciate it. And also the work of Mr. Jacobs. Anyone else? By Smirnoff's way.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Introduction of an Uncodified Ordinance Amending Uncodified Ordinance No. 3275 to Extend the Time that Tenants Must Pay “Deferred Rent” from 210 Days to 395 Days Following the City Council’s Rescission of the Local Emergency. (Community Development)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07212020_2020-8162
|
Speaker 0: Thank you for the work you do on that committee. Councilmember Desai, I appreciate it. And also the work of Mr. Jacobs. Anyone else? By Smirnoff's way.
Speaker 4: Two weeks ago tomorrow, we met with the AC Transit Interagency Liaison Committee for what was can only be described as a very depressing meeting.
Speaker 0: I was there. It was.
Speaker 3: Grim.
Speaker 4: What a difference five months makes. We were talking about planning for the future of transit in this meeting was all about how they're going to be making major, major cuts. Alameda will be seeing probably more than our fair share a little bit, but it's hard to argue that in the conversation we're having around equity and impact that DC Transit is not looking at this very, very carefully, thoughtfully. And you know, we could just hope that as ridership comes back that we know that the transit will. But I'm working for a transit agency. I nothing. Nothing they're doing is surprising. And we're just going to hope it's not long term. So but I just want to put that out there. They do have some map showing what they're going to do. Alameda will have decent coverage. The 51 will become the 50. The 51 A will be merged with the 51 B again, which means we're going to have worse. Yeah, I know. Not a good thing, but they got to do it. And but we're going to maintain our ten minute service there as our key trunk line will continue.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Authorize the City Attorney or Designee to Consent to Law Firm Goldfarb Lipman’s Request to Waive Conflicts of Interest in Connection with Goldfarb’s Legal Representation of the City of Alameda on City Transactions and the County of Alameda on the Rosefield Village Affordable Housing Project Transaction; and
Recommendation to Delegate Authority to the City Attorney or Designee to Consent, Modify or Reject Future Requests from Goldfarb to Waive Conflicts of Interest In Connection with Goldfarb’s Legal Representation of the City of Alameda on City Transactions and the County of Alameda on Future Affordable Housing Transactions Involving County of Alameda A-1 Funds or Comparable County Funds. (Community Development)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07072020_2020-8107
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. And then we move to item five G, which is a very important and also timely item. I think it has a lot of potential good news and so for our city. And so that's why I ask that it be pulled. And so that council and the public can just hear some of the things we're doing to address a very real crisis in our city, in our county or state homelessness, housing issues. So, um, we have our community development director Debbie Potter with us who's going to give us a brief overview and of the item and answer any questions. Miss Potter, welcome. Thank you. Are you unmuted, Miss Potter? It's funny. I don't see the microphone icon, but I'm not hearing her. Still not.
Speaker 2: Hearing. Okay.
Speaker 0: I think as city attorney, did you hand it? Yes.
Speaker 3: Yes, I do. If I may ask the city clerk to announce the item, is the public.
Speaker 0: Take you before the. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I need all the help I can get sometime. Thank you. Madam Clerk.
Speaker 1: Adoption? A resolution ordering the submission of an application for Senate bill. I'm sorry. I'm trying to do two things at once here. We're trying to figure out if Debbie needs to be let in in a different way.
Speaker 0: You know, I'm happy. Well, you figure that out. I can all introduce the idea. Okay. Sure. So what this is, is we are voting on a resolution to authorize the submission of an application for Senate bill to funding from the State Department of Housing, Community and Economic Development under the Permanent Local Housing Program, and affirming the City Council's adoption of a five year permanent local housing allocation plan. And also to to recommend that we authorize city manager to negotiate and execute related documents. So did I give you enough time to let this putter in?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: I can. Yeah. Sorry about that. Now, thank you. But evening, Mayor and members of the Council, I started to say that I actually have the easy part of this presentation, which is to introduce Lisa Fitts from the Housing Authority and. I hope at least it can also be let in by the clerk. She should be here. So. If not, I have her. I have her presentation so.
Speaker 2: We can find her. She can read.
Speaker 0: But you can't find her. Okay, we've missed that. So, dear. No, that the whole technology thing can be challenging. But with three devices in front of each one of us, we can do this, right? Sure. And many of you weren't exactly at your equal to the task. Okay.
Speaker 2: So she's.
Speaker 1: We found her. She's called in. Okay, sit.
Speaker 2: Down.
Speaker 0: There's audio is. Hey, is that you? Ms.. Fitz? Mrs.. Lisa. Is she okay? She just went. It got muted. I'm assuming that's her number. Okay. Would you like me to start while we have time? Yes, I would love that. She just dropped out. Whoever it was. Okay. Please do. Okay. In September of 2017, the California legislature approved the Building Homes and Jobs Act, which is also known as Senate Bill two or SB to and SB two, which is sometimes also referred to as the permanent source of affordable housing funding. Establish a $75 recording fee for real estate documents to set up, as I said, a dedicated fund for affordable housing. The law has been in effect, funds have been coming in at the state level, and we're now on the first round of local jurisdictions receiving their funding. We are slated to receive $3.3 million over the next five years, and that is an estimate because you get an allocation that's based on the number of real estate transactions in your community. But we know for certain that we will be receiving $558,765 this year. Even though we are getting these funds by right, we have to submit an application to the State HCV. It has to be a five year plan for how we propose to spend these funds. And the funds are to be spent on housing for people and households making less than 60% of the area median income, which is a very low income households. So we have put together the plan. We are required to hold the public hearing that's happening this evening and the opportunity for the council and the community to comment on what's being proposed for the expenditure of these funds over the next five years. During that, for the first year, we are proposing that the funds be used to to provide rent relief and housing navigation services. Really, given the pandemic this year, we feel like the focus should really be on some of the more immediate assistance that can be provided. And we feel like it's a nice complement to the day center that will be opening to provide intense housing navigation services to people who who frequent the day center. And then for years two through five, we are recommending that we allocate these funds to actually building affordable housing. And we have referenced three projects, a wellness center on Mackay Avenue, North Housing and the Reshape Project. And the funds can be spent across those three projects as there is project readiness. We're recommending over the next that four year period that 75% of the funds go for housing development, and that 25% of the funds go to a pool fund that the county is setting up across multiple jurisdictions to provide direct rental subsidies. And we feel like this is going to be a great that rental subsidy program could be a great opportunity to subsidize rent for people living in the wellness center because it will serve a large need of formerly homeless and frail seniors. So that is our plan in a nutshell. We are seeking approval this evening at the close of the public hearing of a resolution authorizing us to submit our application to state HCV. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Potter. And you know what? I have read this. It's just appeared on this screen. So, misfits, if you wanted to our man quick. Do you need to amuse her or she can unmute herself?
Speaker 1: He has to unmute herself.
Speaker 0: There you go. Hi, Ms.. Fitz. Welcome. Would you like to add. This is we know you've worked a lot on this important item. Did you want to add anything to to what Ms.. Potter said? I think she summed it up well. Okay. Um, I, um, I, I'm very excited about it. I'll just add that you want to talk about the two goals that are consistent with the alimony to our housing element. To provide housing services and opportunities.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 0: Support. And I'm looking on the staff report. Anyway, I that's what we've we've probably heard plenty from Ms.. Potter and I just I want the council I think you'll notice that housing providing housing is one of our top priorities and especially for our most vulnerable populations. But I also want the community to know what we're doing. And this these funds are a very important part of it. And we worked really hard to get the legislature to to to even get this all the way up to be signed by the governor. This this bill took a number of tries. But council any clarifying question before we open for public hearing. Okay. I'm not seeing any hands waving at me. So, Madam Clerk, can you take care of that public hearing piece, please?
Speaker 2: Yes. We have one.
Speaker 1: Speaker on Zoom.
Speaker 0: Okay. Welcome.
Speaker 2: Darla Brown.
Speaker 0: Hello, Miss Brown. Hello. I don't know if you.
Speaker 1: Can hear you. We can hear you.
Speaker 0: I can hear you. Sorry, I was muted. Miss. Miss Brown, welcome. And please, we're. We're delighted to have you. Thank you. Important part of my proposal really hard. Um, we're working on a plan. A proposal to.
Speaker 3: Build.
Speaker 0: Like, a Universal Studio.
Speaker 3: Which is a movie studio.
Speaker 0: Amusement park at the Adams Point.
Speaker 3: The B phase. Hello.
Speaker 0: I'm Miss Brown. Yes. Yes, that's what I wanted to throw it out there. But we're in the.
Speaker 3: Process.
Speaker 0: Of getting everything.
Speaker 3: Ready for the.
Speaker 0: Proposal and the plan. But I want to throw out that we're.
Speaker 3: Looking to want to build like Universal Studios, a movie studio and.
Speaker 0: Amusement park at.
Speaker 3: This point, which can create over 4000, 4000 jobs.
Speaker 0: Hello? Hello? Yes, I can hear you. I can hear you. Thank you. Um, just for clarification, Miss Brown, when you say Adam's point, is that Alameda point? Yes. Yes. All right. Thank you. Okay. However, if anything, further.
Speaker 3: To be lost.
Speaker 0: Right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. And, madam, quick, were you getting that feedback or was that from the phone call?
Speaker 1: Yes, we were getting that feedback and we think the live stream might have been playing in the background.
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 0: Okay. So any further, um. Public speakers for this hearing. Madam Clerk.
Speaker 1: No further speakers.
Speaker 0: All right. Um, so Councilman Brody's hand is up.
Speaker 3: And to be real quick, I think, as the mayor mentioned, but it took three times for that bill to actually get out of the legislature in the assembly and or into the governor's desk. And, you know, I was proud to work in the assembly when that happened. But I want to just give a shout out to the mayor's efforts, because this was a bill that she champions from the beginning. All three times. And it took that long. So thank you for that. So it's nice to see something that we all believed in. We worked in, we fought for, you know, finally come to fruition.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It it seemed like such low hanging fruit. I mean, a $75 transaction fee. And it doesn't apply to the sale or purchase of a single family residence. That is your principal residence. So when you think of real estate prices in California, in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, $75 of that fee to go toward affordable housing. But the third time was the term. Okay. Are there any further any further comments or does someone want to make a motion?
Speaker 3: I'll make a motion to approve the resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And also the recommendation to authorize the city manager. Yes. Okay. All right. And I think I see a second from Councilmember Bella or did you want to speak? Okay. Thank you. All right. And it's been moved by Councilmember Ody, seconded by Councilmember Vela. Any further discussion? Council seeing none. May we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai, you're muted. We're going to get good at the.
Speaker 3: A computer as well doing it. Your double.
Speaker 0: Privilege. Yes. And. Yes. All right. Is that okay for. Call it.
Speaker 2: Okay. We can go back to him. Knox White.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: I Vela.
Speaker 1: I may or as the Ashcroft. I and Kels. Meredith, do you want to verbally.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes. Got it. Thank you. So that item passes unanimously. Thank you, counsel. This is this is really good news for our city. All right. So we I thank you, Mr. Potter and Misfit's. Great work. Okay, so we now move into the regular agenda. And Madam Kirk, will you introduce the first item.
Speaker 1: Six days adoption of resolution calling for the holding of a consolidated municipal election in the city of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020, for the submission of a proposed charter amendment to repeal the prohibition against building multi-family housing in Alameda and authorizing city council members to file written arguments for and against the measure.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And we have 24 hour planning, transportation and building. I might not have gotten this in the correct order. Director As a man of many talents, uh, Andrew Thomas, who is going to present this item this evening. Welcome, Mr. Thomas. The floor is yours.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft, can you hear me? Okay? Excellent.
Speaker 0: Okay. Yes, fine. Yes.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor Knox, White Councilmembers Oti Vela and Councilmember de Suck. I am Andrew Thomas. I'm the director of Planning Building in the Transportation Department for the city of Alameda tonight. You're having your third public hearing in a series of four public meetings that have occurred this year to discuss a simple land use question. That question is, should the voters of Alameda be given the opportunity to remove or reconsider Article 26 or some part of it from the city charter? This is not a new question. We've been debating the merits of Article 26, often commonly referred to as Measure A for four years here in Alameda. But the events of the last year caused us, I think, all to see these issues in a new, clearer light. The compounding impacts of a pandemic and deep economic disruption have starkly displayed the disproportionate burdens that exist in our society as planners and leaders of local government. We have roles to play in transitioning to a more just inclusive place where everyone can participate and prosper regardless of income, race, color, age, disability, religion or sexual orientation. No issue is more important to be an inclusive just community than the right to housing. No community can claim to be an inclusive community if it prohibits access to housing for certain segments of our community. If we strive to be an inclusive community, then we must identify and eliminate exclusionary policies and regulations that work to bar access to housing for those segments of our community and undermine opportunities for shared prosperity. In January of this year, staff presented its analysis recommendations that Article 26 in its entirety should be removed from the city charter. We found that Article 26 is in direct conflict with state housing laws that require that all cities provide for the housing needs of all income groups. We found it in direct conflict with our own general plan policies supporting a diverse, inclusive community that provides for the needs of all residents, not just those with higher income. And we found that Article 26 continues a legacy of exclusionary zoning that discriminates against families based upon income. In May, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss these issues, and a variety of options were included and discussed, including full repeal, partial repeal, and a variety of modifications to eliminate these conflicts between Article 26 and state law. In June, the Council continued the public debate and focused on one half of Article 26 the multifamily prohibition, with the idea that the second half could be addressed in in two years or at some later date. But tonight, you must decide what you would like to put before the voters. Staff is recommending that the Council give the voters the option to consider both parts of of of both parts of Article 26 and give the voters the chance to amend their charter to avoid conflicts with state law and remove provisions that be exclusionary and discriminatory and contrary to this King's desires to be inclusive and diverse community. Madam Clerk, can we get the power point up? I forgot about that.
Speaker 2: Yes, sir.
Speaker 3: Can we go to the second slide? We'll just skip right over that first one.
Speaker 0: Leaving us in suspense.
Speaker 3: There we go. Second slide. So let me just explain very quickly why staff is so concerned about Article 26. Article 26 has two parts. Part one says that constructing multi-family housing is prohibited in Alameda. The charter is saying we will only build single family housing. We will not build multifamily apartments on Park Street and Webster Street, nor Alameda Point or anywhere in Alameda. What do we know about multifamily housing? We know it is more affordable than single family housing. We know that seniors living alone, the disabled and those that cannot afford a single family home depend on multi-family housing. If you need this type of housing, housing Article 26 is discriminating against you and excluding you from our community. Part two. 2063 was added in 1990 to reinforce and support Part one. It says We will prohibit all construction of housing with a residential density over 21 units. P.A. The charter is saying we will only build low density housing. What do we know about low density housing? We know it is more expensive than high density housing. We know that buildings in Alameda that are more affordable are the higher density buildings that were built before. Measure A if you need this type of housing, Article 26 is discriminating against you and excluding you from our community. The photo at the top of this slide is a single family home in the Grand Marina development of 21 units per acre. This is the type and density allowed by measuring the ground. The grand marina homes go for over $1,000,000 per home. The building below is a multi-family building with seven units on Clinton. And each residential density is 40 units. P.A. It is not allowed by measure. Why not? They both fit in Alameda. They both look great. So these provisions are not about design or neighborhood quality. Why would we prohibit the more affordable building measure allows us to build seven of the expensive units, but it does not allow us to build seven of the inexpensive units. So it cannot be about traffic either. It can only be about income. What else do we know? We know that Alameda has not met its regional housing need to provide for lower income households since Measure eight was adopted. We know that Alameda has not constructed a single mixed use building with retail on the ground floor and apartments upstairs since the measure was adopted. Despite general planning policies encouraging this kind of development since Measure eight was adopted. Next slide, please. Well. Thank you. At your last meeting, the council discussed the idea of giving the voters the opportunity to remove half of Article 26 the multifamily prohibition, but leave the other half. The higher the higher density prohibition for at least another two years in the city charter. That proposed ballot language has been prepared for you and is provided in your packet. We recommend that you reconsider that decision and instead give the voters the opportunity to repeal all of 26 from their city charter. We recommend this reconsideration because we do not believe that you have two years to wait before Article 26 begins to cause new problems for this community. Since your last meeting, the Bay Area received its next regional housing needs allocation. This news is confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. That you will need to adopt a new housing element within the next two years and before you can get back to the voters. Committing the city of Alameda to zoning sites to meet its regional housing need for a lower income, and that zoning will need to provide for 30 units per acre and will need to provide for multi-family housing by right in direct conflict with both sections of Article 26. You will not be able to comply with state law and respect your city charter if you do not deal with both pieces of measure. You'll need to make a decision as a council. So I uphold state law or uphold the city charter. Article 26 Your city charter should not force you to choose between the charter and state law. Your charter should give should guide decision making in conformance with state law. To do otherwise invites trouble. Conflicting regulations lead to unclear policy direction, poor and inconsistent governance, community uncertainty, and ultimately disputes. These disputes lead to costly lawsuits, threats to state grants and tax revenues, and ultimately the possible loss of local land use control to the to the courts and the state legislature. Lastly, I'd like to reassure some members of the community that seem to believe that removal of Measure eight from the charter will result in an absence of regulation that will result in an uncontrolled boom of high density residential development throughout Alameda. They argue that it is necessary to come up with a whole new set of regulations to replace Measure eight before you get rid of Measure. This is a logical thought, but it is a misunderstanding of the current law. All of Nigeria's restrictions have been embedded in our zoning code over the last 40 years. Removing measure from the charter does not remove these provisions from the municipal code. What it does do, however, is it allows the people of Alameda to work with their planning board and city council in the future to selectively and carefully consider how and where and in which zoning districts these provisions should be changed. These future zoning changes cannot happen without fully notice public hearings before the Planning Board and City Council. Removing Article 26 from your charter does not automatically change Alameda. It merely allows the residents of Alameda to plan thoroughly and thoughtfully for a fair, just and inclusive community. So with that, I'm going to conclude my statements and recommendations. Staff is here to answer any questions or help with your deliberations. If you wish to continue and adopt the provision to place just part one of Measure eight before the voters, that language is before you tonight and you can adopt that language tonight if you want to adjust that approach and go with a ballot measure that allows for full repeal or full of Article 26, then we would have to direct us to do so. And I think we can be back at your next meeting with that legislation. So with that, I'll make myself available through answering questions. I think City Attorney's Office is also here to help out if you have legal questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. That was a good, succinct report. So do we have any clarifying questions from Councilor City Councilmember Velez? Hand up. So let's take our clarifying questions before we hear from. And should we might have a public speaker too on this item? Councilmember Vela Yeah, a few questions. My first question is, Andrea, you're saying that our arena numbers are putting us up against measuring what parcels are going to be impacted by the repeal of measure? To help with our meeting arena numbers?
Speaker 3: Well, I think we are looking at to meet our next Reno numbers, we are going to need to identify enough land for about 2000 units of lower income house lower income, well enough land zoned properly to accommodate the lower income portion of our arena. Which is it going to be? We estimate around 2000 units. That means that land is going to need to be zoned at 30 units acre at this point, what we're looking at is areas in the northern waterfront and Alameda point, potentially some of the shopping center sites. I think.
Speaker 0: The shopping center site.
Speaker 3: Excuse me.
Speaker 0: With shopping center sites.
Speaker 3: Well, we haven't done the housing element yet. I mean, we don't even have our final numbers yet. I think South Shore is definitely a possibility. They've already submitted and proposed housing on that site. I think the other folks, the other sites that have asked us about housing possibilities are Marina Village and Harper Bay.
Speaker 0: But it's okay.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't you know, so we have a process that we haven't we haven't decided yet.
Speaker 0: I, I guess my question is, and I'm thinking about the sites that you just listed. Most of them are west of Park Street. I think you listed one that is not west of Park Street. And we've got, you know, some of the concern that I've heard is, you know, there's only one point of egress west of Park Street, and that's the Webster Tube. Um, I know that. And I'm glad to hear that you said that Harbor Bay is included in one of the sites that you're you're looking at is what is the process going to be for that? So if we repeal measure A, how do we it's one thing to repeal language. It's another thing to put something into practice that allows for this policy, this policy to be implemented in an equitable way throughout Alameda. So how what is that process look like if it's measure is repealed?
Speaker 3: Well, we've already started that process because we're in the thick of a general plan update and we are preparing for the housing element update, which we're going to have to get started on first thing next year and you will have to adopt that housing element in 2022. So in the land use element of the general plan, which is posted on the city website, we have already identified the areas that we think should be considered to accommodate housing over the next 20 years, not just the next arena, the next 20 years. Arena is an eight year cycle because we're updating the general plan from 2020 to 2040. The sites that we have called out are Alameda Point Northern Waterfront and the shopping centers along both shopping center sites, as well as some opportunities along Park Street and Webster Street. Our main transit corridors, our our our planning process basically anticipates a robust community discussion about that, those ideas, those general locations for the next 20 years for housing growth in Alameda that will then set us up in the spring of 2021. We will get our final numbers. We believe that our arena numbers for the next eight years will be somewhere between 30 504,000 housing units. If there is consensus over the general locations of where a new housing should go through the general plan land use element, we will then with the community and the Planning Board, start getting much more specific about how we're going to accommodate 4000 units in those areas over the next eight years. That will then determine exactly which sites are identified as housing opportunity sites and what residential zoning we are going to place on those sites to meet our regional housing need for the period 2023 to 2030. Does that include that question?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, I'm I guess I'm a little confused because in the in the to the earlier question, you said Harper Bay would be included. Did you just leave that off the list and.
Speaker 3: You just.
Speaker 0: Say.
Speaker 3: Look, we're.
Speaker 0: Going to be all over Alameda.
Speaker 3: Correct? Yeah, you're absolutely. Look, we are. We are. We are. We have been talking about the shopping centers, that sort of a group of sites we really have for that. We're thinking about South Shore, Harbor Bay, Marina Village and Alameda Landing. Frankly, the future of retail, the future of these sites. And this is not just an Alameda. This is nationally with sort of the projects, the the trajectory of retail shopping centers and the need for housing. So those are obvious sites for the city to be looking at. As you and the council know, we have very little to no vacant land in Alameda and we're not going to create any more land and we're not going to annex land from from the county. So we have to work with the land we have. And that land is that is that that is, you know, other than, you know, sort of random small sites around town. The the those two areas, Alameda Point northern waterfront and the shopping centers are the major areas. And unfortunately, because we would like to distribute the new housing throughout the city and not just focus it in one area, unfortunately, the vast majority of the vacant land, of course, is out of Alameda Point. Then secondly, the northern waterfront between Park Street and AMI to point. And then lastly, really Park Street and Webster Street. I mean, there's very little real opportunities on Park City, Webster Street, because the sites are so small, the shopping centers are the only exception.
Speaker 0: Another question, Andrew, is have there been projects that have gone through before that were impacted or that we would have been able to get more units had an injury not been there?
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. We have a couple of that. You know, we've been using state density bonus to basically get multifamily housing built in Alameda. So it's a way around major, but it doesn't get it essentially as a bonus on top of the maximum allowed by measure. The best example that I sort of used is the a couple of years ago we approved a project on Webster Street, a very nice little project, three stories. Webster and Taylor. A beautiful little design on that parking lot. Ground floor retail, two stories of residential above. With measuring the maximum density 21 units, S.A. with the density bonus, they got a bonus density on top of that. But at the end of the day, the project's only nine units. The volume of that building is such that in the size of the building is perfect for Webster Street. It's just right. It fits right in. It's three stories, two stories of residential. We measure the volume of the building is such that the units some of the units are two stories, two storey apartments, because, I mean, really, that volume should should accommodate much more than nine units. It's it would be if that building were 15 or 16 units, I am sure it would be built today.
Speaker 0: But not. And when you mean volume, you mean the same, the same height. Would it included more units?
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. The building would look exactly the same with 15 as it does with nine. You can imagine if you're an investor, a housing investor who does apartments, invest in apartment buildings, mixed use buildings in Oakland and Alameda. And I want to build a building with two storey apartments. Now, your first thought is like that's how many people want to rent a two storey apartment upstairs on Webster Street. It's just a strange. Housing type that is just not very common, but they got to fill a space somehow. Mhm. You know that's a good example. The other one is CBS right across from City Hall. We've had people come in over the years. Oh, I'm interested in buying the tbf site, redeveloping it ground for retail, maybe move CVS on to the ground floor and do housing above, you know, three or four storeys, certainly no higher than the parking garage, you know, can you help me out with this? Tell me what I can do. And we go through the math. That site is one acre. So that means you get 20 units and then you use that to do anything with density bonus. You get another, you know, five or six units, like 25 units. You can't build that project with 25 units. They tell me like they tell me, how do I get around that? How do I get more units? There's there's no way you have to go to the voters if you want more units than that. And they they are very nice about it. They say, well, thank you so much for giving me this information. We will be leaving now. You will not hear from us again because that is not viable. They sort of look at me and there's are parting words are usually like, that's crazy. Like 25 units. You can't build that site with 25 units and they walk out. And so to two.
Speaker 0: Really quick last question. The other is when we're. Will there be sitting on parcels that are impacted or would allow for. One of the things we're always fighting about is or not fighting about fighting for is the low income housing are there and included in this and included in this repeal is also city owned parcels. Correct. That we could then look for additional uses for that sort of thing?
Speaker 3: That's true. And I just want to emphasize something that I said at the end there. I just I can't particularly for some of the people in town who are concerned by this repealing measure A sets us up as a community to decide where we want to do higher density. It doesn't mean that all of a sudden the entire city is higher density. What it means is we get to work with the planning board and the community to decide which sites do we want to go higher density. Where is it appropriate? Might be on Park Street, it might be on Webster Street, it might be at Alameda Point, it might be city owned sites. It may not be near some of our historic neighborhoods. It may not be in certain areas. So it's going to be a public process that has to unfold to decide which sites do we want to up sown, how much do we want to upsell them? Where is it appropriate? Where does it meet our needs? It does not mean that the entire city has to be high density housing. State law does not prohibit single family housing. What it prohibits is single family housing covering every inch of your of your city. So it's it's really a public planning process, which every other city in California does. We are just trying to do it under this sort of this this mantle of of of measure A.
Speaker 0: That, you know, I'm going to I want to jump in here just because I think I have some other council questions. Sorry. Did you finish your line? I just wanted to ask one question, which he was quite touching on, which is just, you know, I think our current housing element and the multifamily overlay, I think, Andrew, you would talk about this. It sets the density at 30 units per acre for the low income in order to comply with state law. And there's a little bit of a rub there about what we're not necessarily in line with that we have to kind of get to that jump. Is that correct? That's right. And then and then so will the repeal of Article 26 allow council? And I think you just mentioned this to set much higher density levels, perhaps accommodating multi-story structures, or are these these other alternatives? And it's through this process.
Speaker 3: That's absolutely right. And I think what it does is it allows you there are planning board in your council decide where you want to increase density and in what areas. And it's been, you know, it's you're going to have to accommodate your your regional housing needs. So you might decide we would rather accommodate it by raising the density on a few sites a lot or on many sites a little. They both work. But that's the kind of conversation that you can start having with your community.
Speaker 0: You've muted yourself. Is that over and out? Yeah. Okay. And then Vice Mayor and actually you had your handout.
Speaker 3: I did brief Andrew. I guess two quick questions. Just because you guys started talking about specific sites and whatever else, but I just wanted to really clarify the removal of a measure. All of it doesn't change anything, correct? Absolutely correct. That our ability to consider changing it beforehand. Okay. That is the question is if we remove measure eight, is our reader number go up because now we can accommodate more housing? No. Okay. So whether we have measure or not, the reading number stays the same. All it does is affect how we can decide to accommodate that, whether we have to spread it out and build a lot more housing throughout the entire city or whether we can build it where we have to. Absolutely correct. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Other Council. Thanks. Thank you for that. I need all the visual cues I can get other council members clarifying questions before we go to the public. Seeing no hands waving at me. Madam Clerk, how many public speakers do we have?
Speaker 2: And so far we have.
Speaker 1: Eight that are speaking on Zoom and then we have 26 to read into the record.
Speaker 0: Hello.
Speaker 1: And two more just came in. So I think we're up to 28.
Speaker 0: 28. Okay. So that means 2 minutes per comment. And then could you all say to the best of your ability, make sure that we're not double, um, messaging because at the last meeting a couple people pointed out that some people both spoke and had sent in messages. So to the extent you can see, you know, the same names, um, just one bite of the apple here. And after hearing from some members of the public who weren't loving that automated voice, we have the wellbeing thing voice of our city clerk and assistant city clerk. I said, if you you know, there's a lot of messages to read so you can go back and forth. But let's take our live speakers first, if you would.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Yes, the first one is Zack Bowling.
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Yes. It's the first surprise.
Speaker 3: All right. Yeah. Mere council. I'm watching a website called Repeal 26 seconds. Educate voters why? We need a full repeal for 26. Just as an aside. But today I'm asking if you can change the proposal on the ballot item to strike all of 26 from the charter. And please don't kneecap us by leaving 26. That's three and 26. That's one and two may look progressive on paper, but it has very little substance. That's why some of the housing folks may be willing to concede to its removal without removing the ridiculous density restrictions. Nothing of significance will change, and we'll continue to. This is systemic racism enabled by the section of our charter. We shouldn't have to depend on state overrides anymore to build housing. We need to take steps to legalize housing for more than just high income earners, and a full repeal is required to do that measure. It was entirely designed to keep lower income people out of Ballymena. Saving Victorians is only a partial side effect of the time. Our call 26 came five years after redlining was ended and 20 years after discriminatory deed restrictions are ruled unconstitutional, adding just yet another way to keep lower income people and people of color out of Alameda . So I'm asking, please do the right thing. Please put a full repeal on the ballot. I believe it can win. I believe young voters will be out in November. I think we can make this work and I think we can count on the voters to make sure that happens. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. BOLLING. Next speaker.
Speaker 1: Gail Parsons.
Speaker 0: Possibly Galen Parsons. Just a guess.
Speaker 2: And that maybe your.
Speaker 1: Zoom needs to be updated. So if you could update your zoom and then we can promote you back to a panelist to speak again.
Speaker 0: So you don't miss this. Why? I figured you maybe want to make that little announcement for people.
Speaker 2: About.
Speaker 1: Everybody has to be on the most current version of Zoom in order to be able to speak. And if you are not on the most current version of Zoom will get an error message. When we try to promote, you will let you know you need to update and then we can put you back in. Thank you. Okay. All right.
Speaker 0: Miss Gamble. Hello, City Council people. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I would like to respectfully implore you to instruct city staff to drop draft a ballot language to repeal Article 22nd floor from our city charter. The Bay Area is facing a catastrophic housing shortage for years. This is a fact. Because of this, any attempt to limit housing supply is irresponsible. The cost of living in the Bay Area makes it impossible for those lower income brackets to achieve secure housing. Many of these folks and able to gain footing are essential workers making minimum wage. If you are grateful to essential workers risking their health so that you can feed yourself, it seems absolutely requisite to accrue as much housing as possible, making it more possible for essential workers to live in the communities that they serve. Article 26 limits the amount of housing that can be built. This is immoral. Earlier this evening, Mayor Ashcroft said that providing housing is our top priority. Here you go. I believe that every one of those council has expressed publicly that they believe that Black Lives Matter here is their opportunity to actually act on this as homelessness disproportionately impacts people of color. Doing everything within our power to remedy. Remedy. The housing shortage. The moral imperative. How we can show that black lives actually matter in policy as opposed to signage and social media platitudes. As the community and country has seemingly determined that it is due time to face the systemic racism and white supremacy embedded in our day to day lives. Alamy We're going to hear this call about our elected officials. This decision is in your hands right now. Intent is not relevant. It is time to address the impact of Article 26 on our black and brown neighbors. It has systematically pushed them out of this community for decades. Please stop this trend. It is due time. Article 26 The Racist Stain on History. If you showed up at the rallies organized by a credible youth organizers and are willing to use your power to make these changes, your attendance at those events was merely performance allyship. It's how many white article 26 alt right along with Jackson Park and our shameful racist cannabis ordinance. And do the work required to move towards our city motto that everyone belongs here. Let's make that a actual reality.
Speaker 2: Time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Perfect timing. Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 1: Zamora Cisneros.
Speaker 0: Welcome. Hello. My name is Sam Neto. Can you hear me? Yes. Just fine. Welcome. Hello. I am resident and I'm excited to hear that the city council is considering a repeal of Article 26. And I just I think it's become clear that, as Andrew said so well, our history shows that prohibition and segregation of multi-family zoning is rooted in discriminatory policies and practices, dating back to redlining with intent to keep people of color from white neighborhoods. And for anyone in the audience that hasn't had a chance to do so, I highly recommend The Color of Law by Professor Richard Rothstein. And I'm not saying that single family homes are racist or bad, but single family zoning comes with a painful history. You can look around at the lack of diversity here and how need to show how this policy has affected our community. I don't mean as a wonderful community and we had an opportunity to open our city. There was room on this island who welcome you neighbors and not just on the west side. We need to be a fully inclusive community throughout Alameda. I just want to underscore what Andrew was saying, that this is zoning, not like a mandate for developers to have a high density building next to single family neighborhood is just getting permission to allow multifamily development. And I also want to underscore there's market forces and we have the discretion review process and we're going to bring that to the planning board. So there's going to be a lot of checks and balances. And I'm going back to the example about the three storey building in Webster. It's it's really too bad that this policy has made project infeasible, not only affordable housing projects, but also naturally affordable housing projects. These are small and multi-family and product types are really important form of our housing solution. So again, we need more flexibility and I just couldn't agree more with staff, the city council members. I have heard some of your comments and Pastor Michael Yoshi that we need to challenge inclusionary. Hey, thank you, Ms.. Cisneros, our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Suzy Hofstetter.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Miss Hofstetter. Good evening, City Council. My name is Izzy Hofstetter. I'm not going to repeat the wonderful arguments from the other speakers, but I'd like to speak in strong support of a full repeal of Article 26. And I'd add that I live in a nice 1920 something four plex and we are good neighbors, and everyone in our neighborhood gets along well with the Single-Family residents and the multifamily residents. And there's no reason why housing, like the older stuff that I live in, shouldn't exist throughout Alameda in greater quantities. So I would encourage you to support a full repeal of Article 26, and I'll be out there canvasing and phone banking with other supporters. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 2: Josh Guyer.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. Gardner. Send me yourself. Perfect, Mr. Ken.
Speaker 3: Great. Well, I am so appreciative of the previous speakers who have laid out in really persuasive detail why Article 26, as enacted by voters of 30 years, at least 30 years ago, is racist, is exclusionary, is is if not by design, then then by by effect is and keeps our keeps people who want to live here. Want to work here. Who do work here. People who want to raise kids here. People who want to age in place here from having the units that they need to be able to do so. We I walk around alameda and it feels really it feels really integrated to me. Like when I walk around Park Street, I see people of all kinds and it feels really good. And yet there's despite only 5% of the population in Alameda is is black. And it doesn't have to be that way. It doesn't have to be that if if if African-Americans want to hang out in Alameda, which I think they should, and as should all kinds of people, they shouldn't have to kind of come in here for like a lark and then, like go back to another place if here is where they want to be. I think we need to make affordable for all different kinds of people because that's the kind of community I want to live in. And so, again, repeal of Article 26 is embarrassing. We can do better. We are better than this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Guy. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Galen has called in. So we'll go back to Galen Parsons.
Speaker 0: All right. Welcome his presence. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, council members. And I'm encouraging you.
Speaker 3: To fully.
Speaker 0: Repeal Article 26.
Speaker 3: First, the.
Speaker 0: Substance of Article 26 rightly belongs with zoning.
Speaker 3: Ordinances. The error putting it in the charter.
Speaker 0: Has been attempted to repeat it again in recent years, unsuccessfully.
Speaker 3: The misplacement.
Speaker 0: Of Article.
Speaker 3: 26 is reason enough to fully repeal it.
Speaker 0: Second, Article 26 puts our city out of compliance with state law and poorly.
Speaker 3: Positioned thus.
Speaker 0: To meet our state.
Speaker 3: Allocation of housing.
Speaker 0: This noncompliance.
Speaker 3: Is reason enough to fully.
Speaker 0: Repeal Article 26. Article 26 protected the Victorians good jobs and we now have a strong preservation and.
Speaker 3: Design review ordinances that did not.
Speaker 0: Exist in 1973 or 1990.
Speaker 3: Article 26 has done its job.
Speaker 0: Let's send it to a well-deserved retirement. That is reason enough to fully.
Speaker 3: Repeal the article.
Speaker 0: And finally, Article.
Speaker 3: 26 is demonstrably.
Speaker 0: Racist in its impacts.
Speaker 3: That is also enough to fully repeal.
Speaker 0: Article.
Speaker 3: 26. It is out of place. It puts us out of.
Speaker 0: Compliance.
Speaker 3: And it is.
Speaker 0: Out of step with who we are today.
Speaker 3: So let's let's.
Speaker 0: Be the Alameda that we want to be.
Speaker 3: And fully repeal article 26.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr.. Ms.. Parsons. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Terry Johanson.
Speaker 0: Hello, Mr. Hansen. Justin Mute. Diego. Thank you. Good evening. They are council staff. Um, this is Harry Johansson, and I'm speaking for the Alameda Progressive and would like to begin by thanking Gavin Yoshi for all of his service to our community for all these years and wish him very well. The Alameda Christmas requested the council adopt a full repeal of 26 in its entirety to be included on the November ballot before COVID. The Alameda Press is sponsoring a Saturday vigil at the end of the Vigil Park and Santa Clara. We started the pledge. I will act to work toward the goal of creating a society where we struggle together with love, justice, human dignity and a sustainable world. I challenge myself and those in my community to take with us as we confront the many ways the black lives are diminished and are taken from us. I pledge resistance to state violence against black lives. I will defend the human rights of others. I will serve as an ally to people of all indications, regardless of their immigration status or face. I pledge to cultivate my own strength and resilience to make space for direct action and civil disobedience. I will remain accountable to myself, to my peers to ensure that I always remain true to this pledge. The ultimate applications feel to remain true to our courage. We must not suppose discrimination, which is inherited at age 26. This is the statue of Robert me. And it must be destroyed. And with that inspiration from the Desmond Tutu. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. All are welcome. Black, white, red, yellow. Rich, poor. Educated and not educated. Male. Female. Gay. Straight. Oh. Oh. Oh. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Henson. Next speaker.
Speaker 1: Grover. Women Brown.
Speaker 0: Good evening. That evening. Mayor and council members, thank you for taking my call today. Hi. My name is Grover and I'm a resident of Alameda and also the communications manager at East Bay Housing Organization. And I'm calling in today on behalf of the membership base of MPO, as we're colloquially known, which includes residents of affordable housing, providers of affordable housing, and everyday residents committed to housing justice. We ask that you reconsider your June decision to divide the repeal Article 26 into two parts and put all the sections of Article 26 on the November ballot. Our more than 500 members are committed to ensuring affordable housing opportunities for low income people in the East Bay. Low income East Bay residents are overwhelmingly elders, children, people with disabilities and because of widespread racial inequity, are too often black, brown and new immigrant resident. Leading the repeal of Article 26 and the two separate ballot measures is confusing for voters. It increases the education and campaign costs of both the city of Alameda and supporting organizations to run two separate campaigns. And it is unnecessary. As a member based advocacy organization, we do not provide direct assistance or affordable housing. And yes, every single month the pages on our website that are titled Looking for Housing and Steps to Find Affordable Housing are visited twice as much as all the other pages. People in the East Bay currently wait years for stable, affordable housing that gets community investment. And some of our members were unhoused, living on the streets for years before they were able to move into an affordable unit. Despite our members that provide affordable housing, working hard to prioritize opportunities for currently on house people to come home. Each affordable unit come in a home for someone who needs it. Our region simply does not have the number of affordable homes are needed and Article 26 stands in the way of meeting that.
Speaker 2: That's time.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your comments and our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Tony Grimm.
Speaker 0: So that Mr. Graham. It's just on mute. Okay. There you go. Good evening, everyone. I'm here to read a statement from the Alameda Justice Alliance, which is the Alameda Justice Alliance is asking you to place a repeal of the full Article 26 of the Alameda City Charter, all sections on the ballot this November. This provision, which has barred the building of a legitimate and much needed form of the housing in Alameda for the last 47 years should have been removed years ago. Instead, it blocked the building of housing that could have allowed hundreds of working class families to remain as they were pushed out by rising rents from the tech boom . Or when 400 mostly poor minority families from the Harbor Island apartments were evicted in 2000 for Article 26. Some people call it has been used as a battering ram against those brave enough to call out these injustices over the decades. It's the notion of homeowners being a superior and privileged class in Alameda, a division that makes a mockery of the city's aspirations to being a decent and welcoming community. As our nation begins to wake up and acknowledge institutional racism in all its forms. We all cannot ignore the discriminatory, discriminatory legacy of Article 26. There's no more room for excuses and selfishness. The young people in our town are asking us for justice, the opportunity to fashion a new future not built on these false divisions. It begins with reconciling our past. It begins as dumping Article 26 in its entirety. The statement is endorsed and signed by the following alliance members. Alameda Progressive Alameda Renters Coalition Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. Alameda Legal Council. Alameda Firefighters Local 689. Teamsters Local 863 and the wing of the United Methodist Church. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we hear Liz Varella. Hello, Miss Varella. Hello, Mayor and Council. Hi, I'm my name is Liz Berlin. I'm Executive Director of Building Futures and we are a homeless domestic violence and housing agency proud to be serving Alameda in the last 20 years . I am in support of a full repeal of Article 26 and on the November ballot. As you know, in our work, we see every day the ravages of those kept out of housing, the effect on their health, their safety, their mental health, education. It's devastating. I must say I agree with Andrew Thomas. This is an historic opportunity to make Alameda a truly a place that all can prosper. And I hope for Alameda and then the folks that we serve that this path that's put on the ballot and it passes. Thank you so much. Thank you, Ms.. Ferrara. Next speaker.
Speaker 1: Sophia DeWitt.
Speaker 0: Hello. Reverend, do it right. Hi there, Tony. And council members. As a resident of the city of Alameda, I encourage you I urge you to follow the staff recommendation of Planning Director Thomas and direct city staff to prepare a full repeal of Measure eight, Article 26 and the City Charter, and help us move past the discriminatory legacy of this part of the city charter. You know yourselves how I measure A prevents the city from reaching its arena obligations, how it is at cross-purposes.
Speaker 3: With the general plan.
Speaker 0: And with state law, and how it has racially discriminatory impacts and effects. And it's time to repeal this article in its entirety. We urge you to do that to provide more housing opportunities for everyone in Alameda. And if that's put on the ballot, I will be helping to canvass and make phone calls myself, the Alameda City residents . I'm proud of the community and I want Alameda to live up to the values that we prefer. So thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker, Cynthia Bonta. And evening respond to. And you just need to unmute. Welcome. Thank you for this opportunity. Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. I support the total repeal of Measure E on the ballot on election day. So we as a city can vote out this exclusionary provision in our city charter. By so doing, we will be dismantling a law resulting in inequity, splitting our community along colored lines. By so doing, we are resolving the critical need for affordable housing throughout Alameda. Probably only in part, but because there is still much work left to do towards that end. But I want to be clear. What we are doing today is cleaning out our city charter of exclusionary provisions that were passed in the guise of something else. The result of Measure A has certainly shown it has failed its various claims, whether it is bulk traffic congestion, well protected Victorian development. So repeal all of measure a mental loss and discriminate on the basis of race and economic class. Need to do this to be consistent.
Speaker 3: With.
Speaker 0: Everyone. Belong here. A place of sanctuary. A welcoming. Thank you. Thank you. And our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Jonas Coughlin.
Speaker 0: Mr. Coughlin. Welcome.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor and council members. I'm a 20 year Alameda resident. I'm a homeowner and I'm just one more voter who would like to see a full repeal of the same measure. But Article 26 put on the ballot in November is the right thing to do. And it's also good governance. It's a just thing because of the disparate impact the current charter has on people of color. We need more affordable housing. It's also good governance because Article 26 is a blunt instrument that doesn't belong in the charter. We need the refined, refined tools of zoning ordinances, historic preservation boards and commissions that work, and the full breadth of Sony ordinances to come up with the housing policies that the city wants and needs. We don't need this in the charter. So for those reasons, I urge you to put the full repeal of Article 26 on the ballot in November. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The next speaker.
Speaker 2: Paul Forman.
Speaker 0: Mr. Forman.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Good evening.
Speaker 3: Mayor Ashcraft and council members. Some of the proponents of fact, all of that I've heard today argue that Article six has a disparate impact on people with lower income. Most even say it's racist. Other commenters today, oh, we do have an affordable housing crisis. But Article 26 is not the culprit. The responsibility for the shortfall lies with past decisions of our city government. Since 1969, state law has required Alameda to identify sufficient parcels for low income development. I learned very early in law school that state law supersedes city law. Therefore, notwithstanding Article 26, Council has had a legal obligation to produce a housing element since 1969, four years prior to the adoption of Article 26, however, council was resisted and there was no strong state enforcement of the law. Thus, Alameda avoided complying with the law until 2012. This was not voluntary or triggered by a legal demand letter directed to them by a renewed hope attorney preceded by a very damaging lawsuit against Pleasanton for violating the same law. Surely city compliance with state law over 40 years earlier would have given us much more of the affordable housing that we now lack. A second factor depressed, depressing, or affordable housing inventory is our inclusionary ordinance, which requires a market rate developer to provide only 8% of his project for low income housing. Article 26 may or may not be a good idea, but it is the aforementioned city policy, not Article 26, that excluded lower income people from living in Alameda from 1969 to point.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Foreman. And our next speaker.
Speaker 2: Rasheed Shabazz.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. Shabazz.
Speaker 3: Getty Images. You City Council Mayor George Floyd was born in Houston, a city which has no zoning, and he moved and was killed in Minneapolis City that recently eliminated all of its single family zoning due to the recognized history of racial segregation. The police power of zoning, as has been applied in Alameda, has been a tool for segregation and exclusion since World War One. So a little bit before the city refused to adopt the housing element for those who responded to my presentation of our measure. You know, I've read the source material from a correspondent for CNN today as a number of citations, and it builds on the research of scholars like Dr. Ross Pindell, who calls things like Article 26 Things of exclusion zoning reduces the housing stock for your family and erases reports of the single family detached dwelling and reduces affordability since it excludes low income families and people of color typically. Regardless of the intent article was generic at the time, some of the opponents expressed concerns about measure a damaging effect, and fair housing advocates oppose three legal challenges to the basis of the on the basis of racial exclusion, predating that last one by a renewed hope for in 1980 and in 1989 with the Henderson. And so my opinion and I read these comments about the will of the voters in some of the court findings, or I saw that some people don't want the voters to be able to vote on this one. Just a couple of years ago, they were talking about the will of the voters, as so urge you to support a full repeal and give the citizens of Alameda an opportunity to repeal Article 23.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 2: Alexia Rocher.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Miss Erica. Good evening. Marriage cross and all. My name is Alexia Rocher and I am in support of full repeal of Article 26. As an attorney, I work with folks who are homeless or at risk of homelessness in Oakland. So I'm quite familiar with the housing crisis in the Bay Area. I also read the book, The Color of Blood, that a former commentator mentioned, which I recommend people on this island are surprised when racist acts continue to occur here, such as All Lives Matter, painted on the cars of black families on the East End, or an elderly white couple almost running over people last Friday at a people dying outside the police station while screaming and yelling. And yet, it shouldn't be a surprise, since this island is quite segregated. And this is partially due to a history of redlining and zoning laws such as this. And as the previous speaker just eloquently explained, I'm Brazilian and Venezuelan. And when I first moved to Alameda on the West End, I also thought this was a diverse island. However, when we moved to the east and I realize it is anything but, so I agree with what many have already said and encouraged that you fully repeal Article 26. Thank you. Thank you. And next speaker.
Speaker 1: That is the end of these Zoom comments.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Reading the public comments into the record and I think there are 24, about 24.
Speaker 0: Okay. Do you have your cup of tea next to you?
Speaker 1: Ready?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: First is Pat severe? I am very disturbed that you are even considering a complete repeal of Article 26. Just a month ago you voted 4 to 1 with your individual convictions to just put 2061 on the ballot. Now, it appears you've been influenced to put the whole article on the ballot. This will greatly influence the public's trust in our leadership. Next is Barbara Johnson. Please do not include repeal of Charter City Charter Article 26, Dash three on the November 2020 ballot. Next is Daniel.
Speaker 2: Miller.
Speaker 1: I am writing to encourage you to direct staff to draft ballot language, to repeal Article 26 in full from our cities. Charter 26, Dash 126, Dash two and 26, Dash three. Article 26 was designed to prevent black and brown people from living in Alameda, and it's time for this policy to go. Multifamily housing is sorely needed to address housing affordability and meet our arena targets by putting a full repeal of Article 26 on the ballot. You will enable the city to vote our values all at once in a clean, straightforward, cost effective way. If you seek to eliminate racism from our community, then you must start with eliminating racism from our policies and system. This is one small step you can take to show our community that you are wholly committed to making Alameda a truly inclusive, anti-racist city.
Speaker 2: Next is Bob and Beth Coates.
Speaker 1: Mayor Ask Questions, Mayor Ashcraft and city council members. It comes to our attention that the council plans to vote on whether or not to place the repeal of Article 26 from the city charter on the November ballot. We consider this an underhanded move during the pandemic when we are confined to our homes and cannot attend the council meeting to voice our opinions in person. We cannot understand the rush and lack of communication to all our meetings on this issue. This is totally irresponsible and underhanded on the council's part. We've been in Alameda since 1979, raised our children here and watched the growth that we have considered too much too fast.
Speaker 2: With a lack of forethought.
Speaker 1: Before our housing. Let's concentrate on traffic, infrastructure and our new homeless. If the city has a mandate for affordable housing, address it. Now, with building affordable cookie cutter housing first, we urge you to vote no on placing the repeal of Article 26 on the November ballot.
Speaker 2: Next is.
Speaker 1: Dan Dinneen. Countless mayor and council members. You have all received my earlier email tonight. I want you to realize that Article 20 6-3 in our city charter should not be put on the November ballot. Do not reverse your June 2nd, 2020 decision. Our city deserves better consideration and decision than that which was presented by Andrew Thomas. Do what's right and vote no. Next is Markey. Article Subject Article 26. I believe it is highly premature to schedule a repeal of Measure eight, Article 26, on the ballot for the following reasons. One There is plenty of housing for the well-to-do. As can be seen by all the for rent signs around town. What? Two. What is needed is housing for the thousands of people displaced by gentrification, not more gentrified housing. Three. The US is now in a state of flux due to the current economic crash and COVID 19. At the same time, there is a move away from California. Population growth has slowed dramatically and for the last few years, more people are moving out than in a major increase in online shopping, making shopping centers redundant and a move to work from home making office buildings redundant for the least cost effective way to house the relatively poor is new construction. In an article in February 2020, the New York Times found that each unit of low cost housing in the Bay Area averages a cost of 600,000 to build. Further, Allen modest infrastructure is already under strain. There are only four ways on and off the island, and adding more people will push the infrastructure to the breaking point and create massive gridlock during commute hours. Five. If office buildings and big box stores become redundant, it will be simpler and cheaper. Cheaper to make these edifices over in to apartment buildings in Alameda, much of Webster Street is empty and has been for some time. There is a large building at the entrance to the High Street Bridge that has been vacant for years. Redoing these buildings into low cost housing will put much less strain on the infrastructure and not destroy. Alameda Historic Neighborhood. Seven. Theresa How dare Mayor as Ashcroft, Councilmember Knox, White Villa, O.D. and SOG. I strongly oppose Planning Director Andrew Thomas recommendation that you are of diverse. Your decision of June 2nd, 2020, your decision to constrain the repeal of Article 26 to charter Section 2061 on the November ballot should be maintained. Any further modification may be placed on the 2022 ballot and still afford the planning department the time to identify parcels to meet the RINO requirements. Per those requirements, the subsequent rezoning is allowed to take up to three years. The pandemic has permanently changed our lives from how we live and work to how we do business. More and more people are working from home, and those that do commute do not use public transportation for fear of COVID 19 exposure.
Speaker 2: As a result.
Speaker 1: Future housing and transportation needs are not yet well understood. As I am sure the Planning Department is well aware, the Planning Department needs to consider this changing landscape and future urban designs to ensure that public safety requirements, housing, businesses and educational needs are met. While the architectural esthetic and small town feel for which Alameda is most beloved is maintained. Today's world is not business as usual. To now reverse and reconsider your decision to place a portion of Article 26 on the ballot will erode public trust in your ability to govern. Those who wish to repeal Article 26 in its entirety claim this to be a racial issue. The passage of Measure in 1973 had no such intention. Painting the measure as a racial issue is in fact a marketing ploy that fanned the flames of hatred and diverse Ziff Davis divisiveness in a town that prides itself on welcoming everyone . Indeed, everyone is welcome here. Strong leadership is needed to get us through this difficult time. Karen Lithgow, Dear Madame Mayor and City Council Members, I urge you to defend.
Speaker 2: Defer or.
Speaker 1: The removal or alteration of Article 2063 on the November ballot until after the completion of the upcoming general plan discussions. The density restrictions in this measure are necessary in certain parts of the city to protect the esthetic and livable features of our historic neighborhoods. It was these density restrictions that shielded our irreplaceable vintage homes from the ongoing destructions by greedy developers wanting to get rich with ugly box multi-unit buildings, taking advantage of those seeking affordable homes. I do not trust this current city council with the responsibility of maintaining zoning and tear down restrictions to protect our treasured vintage properties. We need the firewall of Article 26. I understand that the Council equates large developments with the potential for providing affordable housing for a lucky few. But if you were to go out now and survey the offerings among the newly built housing projects, all you'd find is sky high prices for densely packed townhomes. The long awaited site project, for example.
Speaker 2: Offers up.
Speaker 1: A half dozen townhomes models to purchase, starting at 1 million. Don't bother asking where the affordable units are. The salespeople don't know. The newly refurbished.
Speaker 2: And Admiral.
Speaker 1: Cove Townhomes for rent on the old base start at 4000 a month. No affordable housing over here. So where is the affordable housing now? It's located in the mom and pop owned rentals in our vintage homes. Check out Craigslist and you will see that the 1600 dollars a month rental I have available in my Victorian is one of the most affordable units in town. And yet landlords in Alameda have been vilified as greedy and subjected to the type of restrictions, leading many landlords to permanently remove rental units from their building or sell outright to owner occupants. These more affordable units are shrinking in number as a result of misguided council actions. What disgusts me the most beyond the city's council's inability to provide actual, affordable units in a timely manner.
Speaker 0: And the time is up on that comment. Thank you for next comment.
Speaker 2: James Snyder. Uh oh.
Speaker 1: This is for three people. Sorry. James Snyder, Sharon Snyder and Cynthia Lacroix. To the members of our city council. We, the undersigned, citizens of the Alameda City of Alameda, concur with the below statement and believe allowing this to proceed is an infringement of our rights and have.
Speaker 2: Our duly.
Speaker 1: Elected officials to act in good faith. It is clear that Mr. Thomas recommendation is not motivated, motivated by any material change in circumstances since June 2nd. The reversal of your four one June 2nd decision by taking the draconian step of placing full repeal of Article 26 on the ballot at the last minute and in the midst of an attention diverting pandemic, will reverse your earnest attempts to regain public trust. We strongly oppose placing the repeal of the remaining Article 20 6-3 on the ballot. Its repeal would place the entire city included our established, built up neighborhoods and retail commercial districts at risk of high density development. Next is Dan McDonald. Initially, I would like to register my disbelief at the way council have conducted themselves in bringing repeal of Article 26 of the City Charter to the ballot by stealth before the public has a real chance to weigh in. It's dishonest. More the narrative certain repeal proponents use to sell this is spurious and offensive. I'm seeking, of course, of the I'm speaking, of course of the thinly veiled suggestion that the article and by association its proponents disagreements and against visible minorities. In 1970 the percentage of white residents in Alameda was 90.3. In 2019, it was 48.6. If, as some allege, an object of supposedly nefarious Article 26 is to prevent visible minorities from living here, it's failing spectacularly at it. In reality, the purpose of Article 26 is to protect the current character and quality of life. The city in terms of limiting building for density, whatever you malign, which it achieves in this connection, the city staff evaluation of Article 26 and its glowing conclusions punch up zoning, which this repeal invites, have significant flaws. See the Alameda Citizens Task Force. Christian Citizens Task Force critiqued for details. These flaws are serious enough to put the report subjectivity into real doubt. Last, the proposed ballot language describes Section 20 26-1 as the prohibition against multi-family housing precisely nowhere. In 20 6-1 do the words multifamily housing appear. If the purpose is to prepare to pose an impartial question, why not use the actual language of the section you are proposing to repeal? Please review this ill considered rush to gesture that you are doing something. Next is Ed Singh. Thank you for opening the floor to comments on a proposal to place the repeal.
Speaker 2: Of all of.
Speaker 1: Article 26 on the November 2020 ballot. In lieu of only Article 20 6-1, which you affirmatively approved at your June 2nd Council meeting. There is no new information that has arisen since your previous vote to warrant placing a full repeal of Article 26 on the ballot. Article 26 has not been an impediment to the development of multifamily housing in Alameda, as state housing requirements partially supersede those in Article 26. History has shown that we have readily met state housing goals, even with Article 26 in place. Article 26 should be viewed as an important check on ensuring smart development in Alameda. Rather than focusing on repeal of Article 26. The City Council should be focusing on how to bring more affordable housing to Alameda. Repeal of Article 26 will only bring more market rate units and only a limited number of affordable housing units. Your focus, rather, should be on a comprehensive development and financial plan to spur developers to build affordable housing communities in Alameda. Thank you for your time. Next is M.D. Hall. Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Council Members Knox White Villa Odeon. Anderson. I am disturbed to be informed that Andrew Thomas is yet again attempting to influence the Council to fully repeal Article 26. I was in attendance for his initial presentation to council as to why Article 26 should be repealed. The presentation was condescending and less than honest. He never once informed audience members about the ability and ease for Alameda to build or create an accessory dwelling units on their property, particularly when they stood up and expressed a wish to be able to build an in-law unit for income or aging parents. Instead, he let people believe you have to repeal Measure A to do that. Now Andrew Thomas is back, citing the release of regional housing needs assessment for 2023 to 2031. Sadly, I have to question his motivation at this point. I would love to see his enthusiasm for accommodating developers put into some transit solutions. We lose the ability to qualify for affordable housing funds because of our low transportation scores. The public transportation at Alameda Point is a disgrace to the 500 formerly homeless living there that don't have reliable, safe transportation to access Alameda County social and medical services, let alone day to day shopping. We have an affordability issue, income disparity and sheer poverty. In Alameda. We have approved and are in the process of building more and more high density, high end luxury housing and only requiring 15% to be affordable. That is the problem here. To do this during these uncertain times of jobs and housing needs and without full community awareness and access to public discourse is irresponsible. Thank you. Next is.
Speaker 2: Morale.
Speaker 1: Grant. Dear Mayor and City Council members, it has come to my attention that there is a plan to put forward by the City Council to put the repeal of Measure A up for a vote. I would ask you not to include repeal of City Charter Article 26, Dash three on the November 2020 ballot. There has been a tremendous amount of planned growth within our city, and we have yet to see the full impact that these new units will bring. Many of these new housing units are still in the process of being built, and it will take several years to discover whether or not we have done a good job planning for the transportation and education and infrastructure needs of all of these new residents. I believe very strongly that this is the wrong time to initiate such a vote when our community is still reeling from the impact of the COVID 19 virus. This issue, Article 26, has been a very powerfully divisive topic that will take a great deal of energy to grapple with when and if it is brought up for a vote. I am certain that the issue will not be given its due attention. It if is put if it is put out to a vote. While citizens are struggling with day to day stressors of this pandemic and the race, civil rights issues that are extremely important and should demand our full attention. In addition.
Speaker 2: Uh oh. It jumped on me. Sorry. Can't possibly say I lost my place.
Speaker 1: The flood of media attention and messaging that will come out as an inevitable inevitability of the presidential election process will soon take center stage and will drown out real depth of dialog and assessment of the issues that should occur around Article 26. For all of these reasons that I have stated here, I would request that you not include the potential repeal of City Charter Article 26, Dash three on the November ballot. Next is Rob Halford. Dear Mayor Ashcraft Council Members Knox White Vela Odion de SOG. I strongly oppose Planning Director Andrew Thomas's recommendation that you reverse your decision of June 2nd, 2020 to place only the repeal of Charter Section 2061 on the November ballot, and instead place the repeal of all of Article 26 on the ballot. For the reasons outlined a separate cover by the Army to Citizens Task Force. This hints strongly at a disingenuous act that dishonors the public trust. That should be an objective of every public servant. These types of apparent bad faith and end arounds to accomplish one's objective should not be welcome in our city. Please adhere to the good faith agreement that was set forth with the people of Alameda prior to Mr. Thomas's change of heart. Next is David Buck, to whom it may concern. I strongly oppose the efforts of Mayor Ashcroft, Andrew Thomas and Vice Mayor Knox White to force the repeal of Article 26. While some changes may be required to make Article 26 continue to work for our city, a total repeal will destroy the quality of life that we currently enjoying this city. Any politician that supports the repeal is not acting in the best interests of our city and does not deserve to continue to represent the citizens of Alameda. Please work to keep our city unique and do not sell us out. Next is Gretchen Lipp, our dear mayor and council members. While we are all sheltering in place, this is absolutely the wrong time to take up such an important issue as changes to the historic 1976 measure. You must have good reasons for this move, and I think they should be aired in a public meeting. Members of the public would like to engage in this historic discussion as.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: As keepers of the city. Plain. Flame. It would do you well to uphold the highest standards of political discourse. You need to safeguard the procedure in the most democratic means possible. Please refrain from manipulations and off the grid mechanization. Let Alameda shine an open discourse, encouraging participation of all of its citizens and refrain from stepping into the obscure dark side. Next is Andrea Magellan. Please do not include repeal of City Charter Article 26 on the November 2020 ballot.
Speaker 2: Next is Maria. Ballito.
Speaker 1: What is the limit to Almeida's population, according to four members on the City Council? There is no limit. Furthermore, there are many proposals for additional housing, but not one proposal to improve our infrastructure. Who cares if there is even more gridlock? Construction congestion? Not you, obviously. In fact, Andrew Thomas and John Knox White made the claim that more housing we build, the less.
Speaker 2: Cars.
Speaker 1: Less energy and less transportation infrastructure Alameda will need. Did they pass basic math in school? It's real simple. More people equals more congestion and a burden on all city services and schools. More new housing units equal more people, more cars equal more traffic and gridlock. It's simple math. Let me remind you all that Article 26 was voted on. Voted in by a majority in 1973. And it was reinforced with 20 6-3, again by a majority in 1991. There's been no outcry by the people of Alameda to repeal it. And we don't need the four of you to change what the thousands of us voted into the city charter. What you're doing is an abuse of power. It's selfish and it's self-serving, especially during a pandemic. You're doing it because it is convenient for you, because you're beholden to the developers and because you're willing to sell Alameda off for tax revenues and state funding. Shame on you. Next is Mike Van Dyne. Mayor Ashcroft's new reason for repeal of Article 26 is to undo systematic racism and achieve racial equality in Alameda. However, it has been uncovered that she intentionally injected race as the reason for Article 26 repeal as a strategic political calculation. Her strategy became a hypocrite when Laura Thomas, the vice president of renewed Hope Housing Advocates in Alameda, publicly stated that she met with Mayor Ashcraft and recommended the use of race to attract voters in the campaign to repeal Article 26. After that meeting, the mayor began to exercise that tactic. See Laura Thomas's June 18th comment in blogging. Bayport, Alameda. So Mayor Ashcroft, do you believe you can hitch your repeal of Article 26 wagon to a real American social problem and gain African-American votes in November? Are you offering any guarantee that any person of color will live in one of these expensive residential units you plan to build? Have you introduced any mechanism to measure and assure parity for people of color? The fact is that these housing developments, which you propose, have absolutely no guarantee of benefiting any particular race. They only benefit those who can afford to pay to increase almeida's African-American homeownership and population percentage. You should focus on reparations in the form of mortgage rate reductions or rent vouchers aimed specifically to the African-American community until balance has been achieved. Now, that would be a real solution in racial inequality in Alameda. The repeal of Article 26 only promotes your hidden agenda of more development. Next is Conchita Perales and she's sent a flier that says Alameda is for sale. That's the point. For more information, contact the Alameda City Council. Available now, thousands of affordable units starting at a million. These exclusive units are not for everyone. Guaranteed gridlock and longer commutes. New high density overlay plans for every neighborhood. Uninspired living box in a box. Architectural design. Unlimited building opportunities across the island. Alameda City Council promises to add thousands of new residents, exacerbate traffic and ignore the need for new access and egress. It's not about social justice. It's about tax revenue and state funding. Stop the city council from selling off Alameda. Vote to keep Article 26 this November. Next is Michael Bock. To whom it may concern what Mayor Ashcroft, Andrew Thomas and Vice Mayor Knox White have in common is having served in the Alameda Planning Department. So you simply see development as essential and you are addicted to the revenue it generates. You want to force the repeal of Article 26 in order to remove it as an obstacle to your development agenda. Please do not pretend you are fighting against social injustice. How can you not be satisfied with the 5000 housing units you have developed in the past five years? That's not enough. You claim you were forced by the state mandates to keep building. However, Alameda is not obligated to follow the state's recommendation. We need to fight against those housing mandates in order to preserve Almeida's quality of life and unique character. The citizens of Alameda regard our island as an asset just the way it is. You apparently do not. Next is Joan Moore. Mayor and council members. I strongly oppose the staff recommendation to place the full repeal of Article 26 on the ballot. When you walk around the beautiful neighborhoods of Alameda, it's always startling when you pass it. The big, ugly box apartment buildings that were built before Article 26 was voted into the city charter. I want to stop for a minute and formally thank the mayor and city council. Of course, I'm not referring to this mayor or this council, but to Mayor Chuck Krieger and the Council of 1973 who helped implement Article 26. It has helped to deter the crushing development of more apartment buildings in Alameda neighborhoods for 50 years, and it also saved our historic buildings from demolition. Those civil servants are remembered for their incredible legacy that they created for their vision. Our current mayor and council members will be forgotten as soon as they leave office and take jobs with the developers they supported. Next is Elizabeth Tuckwell. Thanks to all council members for allowing my comment about item six to be read aloud at this virtual meeting. Please do not fulfill the sneak attack of which you've been accused. The sneak attack is, of course, including all of measure A in a ballot measure seeking its repeal on the November ballot. There has been almost no opportunity for community input into consideration of even a part of measure, a much less all of it. If the City Council does carry through with this sneak attack, at least part of the community will remember, particularly at election time, while working and voting to retain Measure eight and as an inseparable part of that community. Next is John Spangler, Mayor as he Ashcraft and council members city staff Section 26, 1973, Measure.
Speaker 2: A.
Speaker 1: Has been a heavy, burdensome and outdated yoke around our collective necks since before Linda and I moved here in 1997. It is unconstitutional, wasteful and terribly imprecise. Planning tool. I might have worked for its passage in 1973 had I been living here at the time, but it had already outlived its usefulness at least 20 years ago. Since Section 26 is unconstitutional, it cannot be enforced and is moot. It is in the interest of good government since it is moot and outdated as a planning tool. It should be removed in its entirety in order to clear the city of Alameda from the threatening cloud of the state, withholding funds for our park, streets and rows . Please place the repeal of the entirety of Section 26 on the ballot so Alameda can move forward in a rational manner. Next is.
Speaker 2: Robert Farrar.
Speaker 1: Here is the future of Alameda. Welcome to northern city of Los Angeles. Be prepared to wait in long lines of traffic as you traverse this once great city. Our city council has decided to try and get 20 6-1 220 6-3 repealed on the November ballot. I have said it all along. Please leave the city of Alameda and Bay Farm alone. You can go ahead and build apartments, condos and single family homes all over Alameda Point. The state of California says the city of Alameda has to come up with additional housing or face reduction of state transportation funds. Has the city of Alameda asked the state why it is mandatory for a small island to build so many units when the infrastructure is not up to par? What does the state of California want the city of Alameda to do? Tear down old Victorians and historical buildings to make room for multifamily multi-unit apartments? How do other cities like Piedmont, Woodside, Hillsborough and Atherton comply with mandates to build housing? I'm talking about cities. Do these cities receive exemptions? And if they did, why doesn't our city apply for the same exceptions? I can understand and accept removing 2061 from the charter, but please leave 26 three in the charter. Next is Jay Garfinkel. Good evening, Madame Mayor. Members of the City Council. Various suspicious arguments have been and continue to be put forth forward as justification for repealing Article 26 from the Charter. One such argument presented this evening is the assertion that the number of additional housing units will increase by 200% is neither mathematically no factually correct. On the first point, note that even if and I stress if the number doubles from our current number, it will be an increase of 100%, not 200%. It's just one of those statistical misstatements that people through.
Speaker 2: Throw out.
Speaker 1: When attempting to manipulate those around them who are less than well informed. On the second point, note that the Arena Housing Mandatory Committee has neither settled on which factors to use nor how to weigh them. It should also be noted that once this process has been completed, possibly sometime this fall, the air bag executive and other communities committees will have to review it and take comments. As a result of this process, the final numbers will not be published until the end of 2021. Staff is fully aware of these facts, yet he persists in telling anyone who will listen and is naive enough to believe him that the sky is about to fall in Alameda. We should also be aware that even if we are eventually assigned twice, our current allotment staff has already identified land that can be used to satisfy even the most egregious mandate from the state. There is no way Article 26 can interfere with the use of land that staff has already identified as being sustainable and available to meet the state's demand when they eventually are published in 18 months or later. It appears to me that the reason the staff has been pushing to eliminate Article 26 is that he wants to be able to put infill and replacement housing anywhere he chooses in the city. Article 26 denies him this unbridled authority. Repealing Article 26 in its entirety will allow staff to do whatever he pleases without regard to preserving the current family friendly ambiance of our city. Next is Rosalind mcCorvey. We are an island city. We need to be responsible and address the egress egress issue. The tunnel is only egress on the West End unless you add another bridge to leave Alameda. We will have major traffic jams every day, especially in the mornings. Prior to COVID 19, the traffic is horrific in the mornings. I invite city council members and alameda is in favor of repealing article 26 to go out at 7 a.m. in front of the tunnel and see the traffic mess for yourselves. You'll be harming the working people of Alameda that need to go to work on time. Most speakers who want Article 26 repealed are probably not among the workers that have to leave the island to go to work. Andrew Thomas comment that increasingly a density will not increase traffic does not make sense. I recommend that we hire professionals to study the real traffic data and not make this a political issue. There is nothing wrong with building larger units versus numerous smaller units because larger units actually invite more families instead of tiny apartments for single tenants. I cannot imagine a senior wanting to climb a three storey building. Some of the high rise buildings being proposed in the shopping center areas will impact the city. The city has worked with Article 26 for many years and we have created many buildings with reasonable number of stories that conform with the character of our city. We do.
Speaker 2: Not repeat.
Speaker 1: And we do not repeal Article 26. The Council needs to protect existing citizens of Alameda and not try to make room for everyone who wants to come to Alameda to live here because it is impossible. Oh, and we have another Zoom speaker who would.
Speaker 2: Like to comment. Chris Buckley.
Speaker 0: It was said. Did you come to the end of the written speakers?
Speaker 2: Sorry, that is not written, master.
Speaker 0: Masterful job. And much, much lovelier than the mechanical voice. But. Oh, my goodness. I bet your voice is true. Okay, so we have Mr. Buckley. Hello, Mr. Buckley.
Speaker 3: Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Good. Thank you. I apologize for coming in this late. I have not yet fully mastered the technology of Zoom, so thank you for hearing me now.
Speaker 0: You are not alone, Mr. Buckley.
Speaker 3: I'm with the Allemagne Architectural Preservation Society and actually was going to present the official position, which you've pretty much already heard from others. So I'll try to be brief. We urge you to not proceed with the staff recommendation to place full repeal of Article 26 on the November 2020 ballot, and to stay with your June 2nd decision to proceed with repeal only of sections 26 one and 26 two as set forth on the resolution before you. We had previously recommended deferring placement of any Article 26 changes on the November ballot until after completion of the general plan revisions which have been discussed but council's action proceeding with repeal of just 20 6-1 4th November 2020 . We think is a reasonable strategy to address some of the more immediate concerns regarding Article 26 while deferring consideration of changes of 26 three until completion of the general plan process. And we would like to thank the Mayor and the council members who supported this approach on June 2nd. Regarding the general plan process. We think that some of the strategies the planning director outlined are quite reasonable and we would be inclined to support those kinds of strategies, but we really need to see them on paper and there needs to be an analysis showing the impacts of favorable impacts on housing supply and particularly affordable housing for those strategies and also other strategies. And we think there really needs to be this kind of analysis before we use a different kind of blunt instrument to repeal all of 26 Article 26 before we've done that kind of analysis. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Beckley.
Speaker 2: And that was that. Yes, we're all right.
Speaker 0: Okay. With that, I'm going to close public comment. But, Counsel, before I come back to our discussions and deliberation. It's almost 930 and I am going to call a break. It's 922. Can we be back at 935? Sums up at least a couple thumbs up. Okay. Members of the public, thank you for being here. We've we've been here actually since 5:00 when we started our closed session. So I'm going to give this council a break. We'll see you at 935. Thanks, everybody. Needed break. And before we well, as we start our deliberation on this item, I would like to suggest to the Council that we do something we've done a few times lately and suspend our 9 minutes per speaker speaking limit. Just because I think this is a very significant topic and we might need a little more than nine times, but that would take a motion approved by four of the council members. So anybody want to make that motion?
Speaker 3: I'm happy to move it for you. While I don't expect to use 9 minutes, I'm happy to make a motion.
Speaker 0: Say thank you. But I don't think I am either, and I think we usually haven't. But it's just kind of nice not to have to run up against that. But that's we have a motion by the vice mayor to have a second. Well, it's nobody wants to second. Okay. We'll keep it at 9 minutes, then I'll seconds, will you? Thank you, Councilmember Desai. Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we allow ourselves more than 9 minutes if necessary. So, Madam Clerk. And any discussion from council. Madame Claire, could we please have a roll call vote?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Jason.
Speaker 2: I like.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Odie.
Speaker 3: Abstain.
Speaker 2: Bella?
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: A mayor as the outcast.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Since that requires four votes, it does not pass. It was 300.
Speaker 0: Yes, I got that. All right. Well, I am going to start out and take part of my 9 minutes to just say something that I think is important to note. I appreciate everyone's comments on this matter. What I am taken aback by is some of the ad hominem attacks, personal attacks on staff council, where elected officials I'm not saying I endorse it, but we do get harsh things said about us. Mr. Thomas is an absolute professional with long history and experience in this field. If you have the opportunity to read the staff report, he laid out very clearly what was the recommendation coming from the planning board that studied Measure A back in January and January was even before the pandemic. And the other thing that I just feel the need to to address, because I very much support the democratic process and this is what we're going to talk about and decide whether to put an item or two to the voters in November and let the voters decide. Yes. To be accused of being irresponsible, underhanded, doing a stealth attack, disingenuous acts. One of the things I will note and that we should wait until the pandemic is over, until we can meet again in person. One of the things that I've noted is that we actually are getting very impressive public participation right now on the Zoom call. There's 52 participants that's just on Zoom. It was as high as 69 earlier. People are watching on Facebook Live. People are watching online the way they always have. I would say we have well over a hundred observers and participants. You've spoken in person, you've had your statements read, and we've had many more emails and letters come in to the cities. So you may not agree with the proposal, but I would take exception to being called irresponsible, underhanded, etc.. But enough of the niceties now. I just I just felt the need to to say that we did try to run a civil meeting. So who would like to start out with with their discussion or comments? Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I appreciate the comments you just made. I mean, we have we have thick skin. So what I like to do is make a motion and then reserve my comments to the time when we discuss that motion. And my motion would be to direct staff that this council direct our staff to bring back the ballot language for the November 3rd, 2020 ballot for a ballot measure to repeal Article 26 in its entirety.
Speaker 0: We have had a motion by Councilmember Odie. Is there a second to that motion? I see the vice mayor as handed vice mayor.
Speaker 3: In the motion.
Speaker 0: All right. Um, discussion council. Well here. Yes.
Speaker 3: Councilmember, time to, um. To give our nine minute talk.
Speaker 0: Yes. Yeah. Since I spoke for all of you, on behalf of the staff, you get to take it away. Yes, Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 3: Oh, great. Well, thank you. First of all, let me say thank you very much to all the residents who took part tonight. Um, and let me begin from the outset, uh, tonight by addressing what I believe to be one of the major arguments, um, of those wanting to do away with Measure A in its, in its entirety . I wanted to do away with Chapter 26, dash 126, dash to 26, dash three of our city charter. Um, according to them, Measure A is racist. It is a racist tool meant to stifle diversity in Alameda. Meant to keep African-Americans out, especially out of Alameda. But here's the truth. Here's the truth. U.S. Census data shows that. Contrary to the measure, a is racist argument. The African-American population in Alameda had grown immediately prior to the adoption of Measure eight in 1973. The 1970 U.S. Census showed that the African-American population was 2.6% of a total of Alameda, 2.6% of the total in 1970. Jan Measure eight was adopted in 1973. Now if you believe the measure A is racist argument. You'd think that the 1980s U.S. Census would show a decline. Yet in actuality, almeida's African-American population doubled. Two 4.2% of the total, according to the 1980 U.S. Census. The 1990 U.S. Census showed another growth, 6.7% of Alameda. Alan Alito's black population did drop to 6.2% in the year 2000 U.S. Census. Largely because of a military base closure that occurred in the mid 1990s. The most. And then in 2010, almeida's African-American population went up slightly to 6.4%, the most up to date. Census estimate now puts African-Americans at 9.2% of Alameda. So as a percentage of Alameda as population, we have seen a steady progression in the increase in African-Americans in Alameda since 1970. Throughout all the different censuses, all this with Measure eight intact. The U.S. Census data clearly puts to rest the argument that Measure A is a racist tool meant to stifle diversity. Meant to keep African-Americans out of Alameda. But what is interesting is that even as Alameda is back, black population has grown in sheer numbers. And as a percentage of the total, African-Americans have experienced alarming declines, declines in nearby Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco. Between 1970 and 2018, Oakland lost 10,500 African-Americans. They went from 35% of the population to 27% today. Berkeley lost 15,200 between 1970 and 2018, going from 24% of Berkeley's total in 1970 to 10% today. San Francisco lost 38,400 African-Americans between 1970 and today, going from 13% black to 7% black today. So when it comes to attracting and retaining and let me repeat that, attracting and retaining African-Americans, Alameda has performed better than Oakland, San Francisco and Berkeley. Let that sink in. U.S. data shows that during the measure eight era, Alameda has had a better record in retaining and attracting African-Americans as residents better than Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco. We are a stronger, better, more diverse Alameda than ever before, even with Measure A. I know this because I grew up here since 1974 and our town has changed dramatically in terms of its race and culture. Can we do more to attract Latino Americans, Asian-Americans, African-Americans, of course. But let's put to rest the tired and false argument that measure is racist tool meant to keep out African-Americans from a millimeter. But let's not kid ourselves either. Measure A is urban planning by sledgehammer. Measure eight is not a fine tool of precision, like a scalpel in the hands of a surgeon. But when you look at its history, you see why this urban planning sledgehammer was needed and is still needed. Measure A came about in 1973 because of the planned explosion in housing on what ultimately became Harbor Bay. It also came about because, as others had said, the loss of of Victorian homes, Measure A was and continued to be that sledgehammer that kept runaway growth in check because an island we were an island, an island like Alameda with limited ingress and ingress and egress needs to be especially thoughtful as to how we plan our future. I mean, come on. If you remove measure, eh? You're going to tell me developers are going to self-police themselves and not.
Speaker 0: Pursue runaway growth at your expense. Right now.
Speaker 3: Developers are salivating at the prospects of even more housing at Alameda Point because of the forthcoming state mandate numbers that you heard about earlier this morning, this after the evening. Developers are also eyeing the East End, looking at South Shore Shopping Center, as well as Harbor Bay's shopping center. My fellow residents. It is measure A that provides you. The Alameda resident, our planning board and the city council. It is Measure A that provides that extra special protection that forces wise, thoughtful, well moderated growth. Do away with Measure Ray and it's down the path of runaway growth. So let me end by saying this. Even with Measure A, we have met and we will continue to meet state mandates. The state even recently certified our housing element. Of course, we're up for another one. Even with Measure A, we are actually building apartments. I mean, please drive down to a.
Speaker 0: Point and you.
Speaker 3: Will see apartments. Or drive.
Speaker 0: To.
Speaker 3: Sherman and Vista.
Speaker 0: And you will see apartments there.
Speaker 3: You will see in parts of Alameda new apartments that measure a supposedly stopped. But they were built and they were built out of a strategic necessity. The strategic necessity. Our City Hall legal experts figured out a way to keep measure rate intact while meeting state law. Finally, let me say, even with Measure A, our city has become more diverse than ever before as we are attracting and retaining African-Americans at rates far better than Oakland, San Francisco and Berkeley. So if nothing else tonight, please do not believe the line. That measure is a racist tool because U.S. Census data spanning 50 years says otherwise. With Measure Missouri, we can.
Speaker 0: Continue.
Speaker 3: To racially diversify and support thoughtful, well-planned, well modulated growth that an island like Alameda. Can support. Thank you, Mary. As we have, Chris, I think this was a great, valuable discussion that we had tonight and we look forward to November 2020.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Jason Account Sirota, your hand is up next.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And I'll say at the outset, I will try to speak quickly. So if I have well, whatever I have left, I will give you everything except one minute if you need it. So I want to thank everyone for for coming and speaking on this today. I'm not going to take a lot of time. I do want to just reiterate that the key thing is we're giving this decision to the voters to decide and I'm sure one of my other colleagues may talk about this more. So I'm not going to touch too much on it. But if all the bad things that were said about us are true, then this initiative will fail and we will go back to where we are. And if the voters do decide that they think that a change is necessary, then then they will make that decision. They were the ones that put this there and they are the ones that have that should have the opportunity to decide whether it stays there. So I don't want to get too much into my colleague's comments, except to say there's a difference between de facto racism and de jure racism. And I kind of interpret his comments as trying to say, well, because we've had an increase of African-Americans in Alameda, then we have no de facto racism. And I mean, maybe that's true. I don't know. But, you know, I've been reading a lot. I mean, I you saw my color of law that was referenced. And then I have this American Babylon. I actually had this one. So I pulled it off the shelf. And we're going to have these discussions on all of these issues in more details over the next four months. But this kind of talks about the impetus behind all of these laws that we have in the East Bay and the affects. So 1950. Alameda, 5312 African-American population. San Leandro, our neighbor. 20. Not 20,000. 20. So it's. Now I look at the 2010 census data. San Leandro is almost 12% African-American, 10,000 residents. Alameda said 6.1. 4500. So we actually had less than we had in 1950. We had Missouri. San Leandro didn't. Their black population as a percentage of their population is double ours. And it was practically zero at a time when we had a significant amount of African-Americans living in Alameda. So if we want to talk about de facto, you can have that argument. But the thing that to me is more important is is de jure. And what that is, is discrimination under the force of law. And this book and I picked it up again today. Look at some more sections. And I read from part of it last time we were here. And I realized, well, if I can say that all of these things are racist for half of that measure. And it seems kind of silly, and I couldn't say that for the other half. And there are things in this country that are coming down like statues of Brodie Lee that are vestiges of white supremacy. And I know it's uncomfortable for people to hear this, but these laws read this book, read this book. This is all about the de jure racist laws that have been placed in effect in this country, a lot of them here in California, to basically keep African-Americans out of white neighborhoods. So to me. This has been an interesting couple of weeks and it's been an awakening that there are pillars of white supremacy that need to come down. I mean, it's easy to fall down a statue, right? It's a little bit more difficult to, you know, take down a flag that people in Mississippi have been using for many years. And it's even more difficult to change laws that have been put in place to perpetuate a segregated society and a segregated system. And, you know, like one of the people said on the Zoom call, you know, if we're going to have any meaning to this Black Lives Matter and value black lives, then we need to do our step, take our our do our responsibility and take steps to remove these laws. And what we can do as a council today on this issue is put this before the ballot. So they're put this on the ballot before the voters. I just, you know, want to just sum up the whole idea of of to show your racism by just rereading a paragraph from The Color of law. And I know people are going to talk about this this measure and talk about it in isolation, but I don't see how we can look at it in isolation. We have to look at it in the picture, in the broader picture of what was going on in our country for the past ten years, not only here in the East Bay, but across across the country. Take it in isolation. We can easily dismiss such devices as aberrations, but when we consider them as a whole, we can see that they were part of a national system by which state and local government supplemented federal efforts to maintain the status of African-Americans as a lower caste with housing segregation, preserving the badges and incidents of slavery. My fellow alum. Even today, I want to get rid of the badges and incidents of slavery in our charter. And I'm not only voting to put this on the ballot, I will be supporting it and telling everyone I can that we need to repeal it. Thank you. And there you go. Madam Chair, you have you can have all my 3 minutes.
Speaker 0: And I try to live within my means. Thank you. Councilmember Odie, who's got a councilmember? Well, I see your hand up. You're next. Just unmute yourself. Yeah. So I want to start with before measure a you know, when my family came first came to Alameda in the 1960s. My grandfather was in the Navy. He could not find a place, a house for his family to live in because of the discrimination against Filipinos in our city. And it was very difficult for them and their extended family members to find housing here. And what I want to be careful of is and I'm hearing a lot of measure a. Is the cause of, you know, these disparate impacts, but it's more than just an injury. And that was a lot of what my questions were about, because there have been a lot of projects that have been proposed throughout Alameda in places , you know, on the East End and Harbor Bay, where we have seen these projects summarily rejected because of density, because of multifamily and really trying to to keep out certain types of housing that are affiliated or connected to, you know, lower income.
Speaker 3: Or affiliated with this concept.
Speaker 0: Of lower income. And I think we have to be very thoughtful about it's more than just measure because it's going to be about all of the steps that come after it. If we want to see a different outcome, we can repeal Measure A and continue to get the same disparate impacts. If we are not careful and thoughtful in how we go about this process and everybody really coming out and thinking about how we make room for everybody in our community. So I don't see this as the end all, be all, and I want people to think beyond this. I think we have to think beyond this. We have to think about what does the broader Alameda look like? What do we want it to look like? Where do we have these different opportunities to be creative? Because I do think there's a lot put on a lot of stress put on the West. And we are seeing a number of different things happen because of the pandemic. People are worried about whether their bus lines are going to still be operational, how these transit connectors are all going to work. We do not have a safe and clean way for people.
Speaker 3: On.
Speaker 0: The West End to cross over into Oakland by bike or by foot. That's something I know this council has been working on. We need to continue to be committed to that effort. It's an environmental equity issue and to be able to move around freely in a safe, safe manner on bike or by foot to have those different transit options, it's going to be a big lift. I also think that there's you know, we're going to have to have bigger conversations as a whole of our community in terms of reimagining things. We've got lots of parking lots in Harbor Bay, lots and lots of them. And whether you look at the business park or you look at around the golf course, Grandview Pavilion, all of these areas, I mean, I think we need to reimagine what type of community we want to have. And I think what makes Alameda Alameda is our smaller neighborhoods. It's the feeling that you get walking around and interacting with people in in space. And, you know, we can recreate that feeling, that pattern, that quilt of Alameda in different ways. We just have to be open to it. And so I want people to come to the table to think about that and to participate in the process. This is not the end all be all. This is the beginning. And I think that we need to really focus on the Alameda we want.
Speaker 3: To have.
Speaker 0: We also need to focus on homeowner ownership options for people, first time homebuyers, because, again, it can't just be rental housing that we're adding to. We we keep pushing for for more rental housing. That's great. We need the low income. We need the moderate. We also need first time homeowner opportunities if we want long standing diversity in our community. And not just racial diversity, economic diversity, I think both are important. So I will be joining the majority tonight in placing this on the ballot. I think that there's a larger community discussion that needs to take place in terms of reimagining the future of our city. Thank you. Thank you. Community City Councilmember Vela, I think, Vice Mayor, you haven't spoken yet.
Speaker 3: Sir. Thank you. Thank you. I, too, want to echo your initial comments about the fact that we can disagree, but we can disagree simply. And if that's your best argument, you really are making a point that you don't have much to add to the conversation. But I also appreciate councilmember many conversations on this issue. I appreciate all of them that were open and friendly. I read the data you presented differently. I don't think we should consider when comparing ourselves to cities that are kind of the national paragons for black flight and gentrification and the entire regional housing market pushing people out of out of the area. I think we can do better. And that housing is one of those places where regional impacts have significant issues. So every city is going to have to step up to address the the issues that we have to kids. It's probably too late for my kids at this point in time. I would like to come back and live nearby. But for the next generation, we need to do better. We need to create a place where people can get where families can actually start and grow and and maintain the roots that I think a lot of us talk about. As important to me, too. I'm going to be supporting this tonight. I really appreciate all the work that was done. I appreciate our our staff's considered. I thought Will, after listening to many of the red letters, you know, I think it's just important, again, to remember that Measure eight does not protect us from the number of households. I think Councilmember Desai did a fine job of explaining how council imagery doesn't actually protect us from the type of housing people are concerned about. It just makes everything very convoluted. And he says strategic and thoughtful. I would say we end up having to put things places that don't make any sense. Rather than looking at the places where we have the infrastructure that can handle this. So I will be fully supporting this and putting this on the ballot and look forward to talking with voters about it in the coming months. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mayor Knox. Right. So has elected officials. We have certain powers and abilities, not as many as people think we do. I apologize to all my residents that I could not stop the fireworks over the 4th of July weekend. And they were ridiculously loud and long. Nor could I close the beach, but I just urged all Alameda residents not to go. And you were pretty compliant. But we have an opportunity before us to correct a 47 year old mistake. It might have served its purpose at the time until this architectural preservation and design review laws were enacted. But that was know that that's been on those have been on the books for a while. So now we have an opportunity not with the stroke of a pen, to say, okay, measure A is repealed, but simply to say youth voters, today's residents, registered voters. And I want every eligible registered voter in this city to be registered to vote by Election Day in November. You have the opportunity to weigh in on this decision, your voice, your vote, exercise it. So for all the things that were said today, none of that matters unless you get out there and vote one way or the other. But what this council is doing is simply providing the opportunity for democracy to take place. And I'm not sure why anyone should feel threatened by that. But what I have seen over the years that I have been serving both on the planning board and the city council, now as mayor, now serving on a statewide I'm co-chair of a statewide policy body for the League of California Cities on Housing, Community and Economic Development . Councilmember Vela sits on the same committee with me. We have looked at the issue of homelessness and the housing crisis in Alameda, in Alameda, in our state. And just because we've all been consumed by the COVID pandemic, which is a very serious crisis, and also the racial injustice crisis, which is all very serious. We can't forget the housing crisis because all three of those crises are interrelated. And so we have been under housed. And yes, it is true that we are losing some residents to other places, but we're still under housed. And so we can't lose sight of this important fact that we need to do a better job of housing people. And in the city of Alameda, we've done quite a bit, notwithstanding the presence of misery, but we could do so much more. And by the way, for someone who said he couldn't find the housing, the affordable housing added Alameda Point, there is a beautiful residence apartment out there. That is housing as we speak, formerly homeless veterans, among other low income seniors. And there is a multifamily apartment building that is going up. And if it weren't for the fact that we're all sheltering in place, we'd be out celebrating with in-person ribbon cuttings. We will we will do that. It'll be just a little bit retroactive. So we've been doing a lot. We can do more. And I, I want to emphasize one of the principles and I've spoken about this before, when we talk about homelessness, that at this policy committee that Councilmember Vela and I serve on, we have learned over the years that the best, most economical way to address homelessness is not to let it happen to. To begin with. And yet when you have a housing crisis, when demand exceeds supply, it pushes the price of housing up. People's incomes are not going up. In this COVID crisis, people are out of work. Their hours are reduced. They are you know, we've done what we can to protect renters here, but people are being pushed out into their cars, couch surfing and eventually on the street. We need to address the housing crisis. That's what I believe. So I will be supporting putting this measure on the ballot to let the voters vote. And I will say two quick things. One is that times change. We are the same city that we were in 1973. And we need to listen to the current residents and, of course, the ones who have been here for years. But some of those very residents who are long term, who've been here for years, would love to stay here, but downsize out of that family home that they've outgrown. But there isn't a lot of opportunity because since 1973, without jumping through a lot of hoops, we haven't been able to build those smaller units that people could age and place in the very community where they they raised their families and would like to stay. So I am very excited about this opportunity. I think it meshes perfectly with the moment that we are in, in the midst of all these crises. I am always wanting to see the glass is half full and the silver lining in the cloud. And I believe that truly people have become more civically engaged because where else are you going to go? But they're watching the news. They're following what we do. All of us on the council, I think, are most of us have held Zoom town halls, Facebook live town halls. And people have been able to ask us in real time questions about these various issues. But now is the time. It's been a long time coming. Mr. Thomas and I have worked together since I started on the planning board 12 years ago or more, and we were talking today about sometimes the planets just all align and this is our time to give measure a another another look. I think it's outlived its usefulness. I am very excited about the public process that will follow to look at how we want our city to grow and develop. Where and what way. Just like Councilmember Vela was saying, this is just the beginning of a process, not the end. So with that, I am happy to also support this motion and it has been moved and seconded any further discussion. Seeing that a council member decided you have no time left. Councilmember Odie, you have your hand up.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to say that the motion was was drafted, that this is the council direction. It's not adopting a staff recommendation. No offense, Andrew, but I want the community to be clear that this is the council making this decision to give that direction.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. So so, yes. So we're clear on what the measure is, what the emotion is that we're voting on to to place both Article 26, dash one in Article 26, dash three. Three outlets in all three. Oh three. Right. Because the others were were all discussed. Yes. Okay. All right. So it's been moved by the council members, seconded by the vice mayor, who's got his hand up.
Speaker 3: Go ahead and clarify the directions to ask staff to draft the language to bring back for us to vote, to put it on the. So it will not be on the ballot tonight. As of tonight, we will be coming back again into it.
Speaker 0: Correct. And I do believe I heard Mr. Thomas say that he is confident that he can bring this report back to the council for the next council meeting. Correct. Okay. Nodding of the head is good enough. Okay. Hands up. I got that. Um, okay, so we've had a motion. We've had a second. Any further discussion from anyone who has time left on their clock saying, then we have a roll call vote, please, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Daza.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 2: Not quite.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Odie.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Bella.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Mayor, as the Ashcroft. That carries 4 to 1.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And then there's another part of of this item that I want to address, and that is that we can recommend going to the staff report. So. Um. Let's see.
Speaker 2: Can I? Madam Clerk? Yeah, if I want to.
Speaker 1: If you want to talk about the arguments. Is that the question we were getting to? Basically, yes. Since you're not adopting the resolution tonight, the timeline will change because.
Speaker 2: It'll it'll.
Speaker 1: Kick in after the 21st. If you adopt the resolution on the 21st, we'll set new deadline. So all of the related actions will all be taken on the 21st. No further action is needed tonight.
Speaker 0: So I appreciate that about the extended timeline because I was a little confused when we talked this morning. I would still like to make my recommendation of how for the council to consider about who would draft the arguments and the rebuttals and and then if the council approves, obviously we'd have to vote on it again on the 21st when the motions, when the directive direction that we've made to staff comes to us. But um, knowing that we have direct the staff to do so, we could have council members at least start thinking unless the city attorney wants to chime in and tell us that that's giving him a problem.
Speaker 3: Madam Chair, that's not a problem at all. The Council could at least start designating members if the council chooses to start thinking we will have to formally designate those folks again when we bring the report back to on the 21st and the official timeline, as the city clerk indicated, will run from the 21st. But nothing prevents you from having council members be sort of ready to go and have two more weeks to think about what they may want to say.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just so everyone knows, I checked with them ahead of time, because not only not only do I not like to blindside staff, but also I do remember what we learned as litigators. When you're cross-examining someone, you just don't want to ask the question you don't know the answer to. I'm not that this is really a cross-examination, but anyway, my my suggestion would be that and this is on the top of page for this staff report council that there's different, different ways there could be we could go about it. The whole body could draft an argument in open session. I do not recommend that. What I do recommend is that, uh, no more than it's, it's the number three option authorized no more than two council members to draft an argument and decide to have a combination of council members and or other signers. I think that just gives us the, um, the maximum leeway and I would suggest that that subcommittee would be, um, or the two council members would be Vice Mayor Knox White and myself. That's my suggestion and I'm happy to hear input from others. Council Member Desa Madam Mayor, a.
Speaker 3: Question to our city attorney Is.
Speaker 0: There anything.
Speaker 3: That stops the council from also designating a council member such as myself to lead the. No. Uh, I, I, I couldn't do it alone, but, but I would certainly love to get the imprimatur of the council.
Speaker 0: Good question. I missed your the introduction.
Speaker 3: Yes. Council member. The Council absolutely had the right to appoint one of its members or one or two of its members to the opposing arguments. And if the Council does so, that one or two council member group will get the priority under the elections code, just like the arguments for. So it is absolutely the Council's direction to pleasure to do that and the Council certainly could. The law certainly authorizes it. Thank you. I would appreciate that.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, um, so we've heard a suggestion from me, a suggestion from council member desired, um, direction from the rest of the council. Account for everybody.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in addition to that, it said 2008 as a subcommittee. Those words were left out of option three that they should have been in there. Right.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Say it again. I was crying to the French.
Speaker 3: Authorities no more than to customers, to me, to the subcommittee. And option three just left out the words to me, to the.
Speaker 0: Subcommittee is a subcommittee.
Speaker 3: But I think that was just a typo. Right.
Speaker 0: I would I would imagine that to be. But what do you think? Everybody counts in the city situation.
Speaker 3: I know. And so that was not part of my part of the reports. I'm going to defer.
Speaker 0: Okay. Madam Clerk, do you see where we are at the I? It would it makes sense to.
Speaker 3: Okay. I think that's right. I think I mean, in both situations it appears it would be a subcommittee.
Speaker 2: But I believe.
Speaker 1: The distinction that we're trying to make between two and three is the decision about if you guys want to let the subcommittee decide who would want to sign or if you want the council to.
Speaker 2: Talk about who it would like to to.
Speaker 1: Sign, it'd be the same subcommittee working on the drafting the argument. It would just be.
Speaker 2: It's just for to.
Speaker 1: The distinction is.
Speaker 2: Just to talk.
Speaker 1: About signers and let you have the discussion.
Speaker 2: About who signs.
Speaker 3: My preference is to have the subcommittee decide. So I guess it's not an option for you then.
Speaker 0: Well the but yeah it is option three because if it were option to then it means you have to the entire council. Fine. And I don't think that's happening. But so you're you're saying a.
Speaker 3: Subcommittee could decide that's what. Well, not the entire council. The subcommittee can decide that's what they want, but.
Speaker 0: I doesn't have the term to say. But you said you were it was option three that you were supporting, correct?
Speaker 3: Well, it says decide and have a combination of councilmembers and or other signers. So it sounds like.
Speaker 0: Yeah, that's three to decide. So that's what I'm talking about.
Speaker 3: And I don't need to be on the subcommittee, but you know, I will be if someone doesn't want to, but I don't need to be. But I think it's fine as proposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Was that either subcommittee?
Speaker 3: I'm not going to be on the opposing one.
Speaker 0: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Kidding. Okay. Um, other, um. Comments. Councilmember Vela, I'm fine with the proposal. I'm also fine with Councilmember de Saag being on the alternative subcommittee. Okay. All right. Okay. So we do do subcommittee. Second subcommittee. Right. Right. Well, exactly. Because it would be for the two different. Mm hmm. Yeah. So position would be trading places. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 3: No more than two. So one should be allowed.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Exactly. Okay. All right.
Speaker 3: Question on that. Yes. Um, am I. What are the rules in terms of working with others? How do I go about doing that? Or is that something that that that is we could deal with off line work? Well, you can work with whoever you want. It's not a majority of the council. Okay.
Speaker 0: I think we're pretty safe.
Speaker 2: In that way. And I if you.
Speaker 1: Don't like it, but by the council establishing you as your own subcommittee to author, the argument against it gives you priority ranking. If more than one argument is.
Speaker 2: Submitted is all it does so that it's authorized by the Council, therefore you're the highest priority. And your argument would be. TRUMP Any other arguments submitted? That's what it does.
Speaker 3: Great. Well, thank you for fighting.
Speaker 0: You know, sometimes we try to avoid. Okay.
Speaker 3: Yes, I may add to.
Speaker 0: My mission, please.
Speaker 3: Yes. I also believe that the council comes every day FOX requests, which is also that he wants to be able to choose others like citizens at his pleasure to join him. But just like can be one committee, two would have the same powers. I believe that's what the request. Oh, okay. All right. Because committee one will have powers under option three, which is to choose additional citizens that are non council members to join in the signing. And I believe the same is being requested for committee two. Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um, four. Oh, Committee two. But again, also under said paragraph three that the committee one and two is simply in the yes and the yes on the repeal and no on the repeal. I think we've got that. Okay. Any further discussions? Can we get a motion? Can we can we wrap it all up in one or vice mayor?
Speaker 3: I move that we create two subcommittees, a committee for yes on the appeal. That is the mayor and myself and a committee that is on the appeal that is Council Member Dayton.
Speaker 0: And it's the repeal. Right. As opposed to appeal.
Speaker 3: So yes.
Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. Um, okay. We have a motion by the vice mayor. Do we have a second?
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Ody has seconded to have any discussion. Councilmember Bell's your hand up. No. Okay. No discussion. All right, maybe we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember De Sang.
Speaker 3: I thank.
Speaker 2: You, Knox White. You're welcome.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Odie.
Speaker 3: I also thank you.
Speaker 1: I may or as the Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: Unanimous. All right. Good work, everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Thank you to all our speakers. Okay. We will see you in two weeks. And everybody start rolling up your sleeves. And with that, we're going to move on to item six. Be correct.
Speaker 2: Yes. The adoption of.
Speaker 0: Madam Quick.
Speaker 2: Adoption Resolution.
Speaker 1: Calling for the holding of a consolidated municipal election in the city of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020, for the submission of a proposed charter amendment to clarify the prohibition against members of the Council interfering with duties of the City Manager and other executive city officials. Authorize the city attorney to prosecute stay LA State law misdemeanors and amend outdated provisions, including utilizing gender neutral language in authorizing city council members to file written arguments for and against the measure.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Submission of an Application for Senate Bill 2 Funding from the State Department of Housing and Community Development Under the Permanent Local Housing Program (PLHA) and Affirming the City Council’s Adoption of a Five-Year Permanent Local Housing Allocation Plan; and
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements, and Modifications. (Community Development)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07072020_2020-8128
|
Speaker 1: Authorize the city attorney to prosecute stay LA State law misdemeanors and amend outdated provisions, including utilizing gender neutral language in authorizing city council members to file written arguments for and against the measure.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And this item is who's presenting on this one? Is that the city attorney?
Speaker 3: The city clerk. And I would be very pleased to present this item. I want to thank the city clerk for working on this item together. I think the presentation will be extremely short. The Council gave us direction at its last meeting to bring back ballot measure language to allow for an omnibus charter amendment that deals with a number of areas in the city charter, including amendments to Section 73 relating to Council interference, amendments to Section eight to with respect to the city attorney's offices, authority to prosecute state misdemeanors and amendments, other clean up amendments, and various other provisions in the city charter that creates gender neutrality. It clarifies certain provisions to travel, and it clarifies certain provisions for appointments, mostly clean up provisions that are outlined in the staff report. We've got the council section. We have prepared the ballot question and it is before you for your consideration. And I want to turn over the staff report to the city clerk for her additional comments.
Speaker 2: Yes, Madam Clerk. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So basically, as he even said, this is the measure that does those three different things. And tonight, if you choose to adopt this resolution, you'll be approving the ballot question that's limited to 75 words. And then you'll also do the same thing about deciding about the.
Speaker 2: Ballot arguments authors. And that's.
Speaker 0: It was short and sweet. Thank you. Um, and do we have a comment on this item?
Speaker 1: We do not.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um, so do have clarifying questions before we start our discussion. Any clarifying questions. Okay. So, Councilmember Vela, I'd like to move approval. Okay. I have a motion to have a second. I see the vice mayor stand up.
Speaker 3: I will second the motion.
Speaker 0: All right. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Speaker 3: I'd like to just make one quick comment, please. We had a we had at least one speaker who over the course of a number of our meetings, as I said, to consider whether to bifurcate the prosecutor part of this. I just wanted to indicate that after the meeting with the attorney to talk about that issue and whatnot, I believe that that is unnecessary, as I believe this simply just gives the city the power to do work it is already doing and is already authorized to do. It just needs to ask the district attorney for further discussion and that the Council still retains the power to decide through the budget, etc., whether or not the city engages in this prosecutorial work. And I don't believe I believe it just is a little bit more local control on something that we that I think is important.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you for that. The thoughts anyone else have there? Um, having seen that, I wanted to add Councilmember de SAC.
Speaker 3: I just, you know, I think several weeks ago I had expressed I just wish that the seven desk three had the provisions that I thought, obviously, you know, I don't know, I mean, maybe, um, but so I want to think about this further. So for tonight, I'll, I'll abstain on this item.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any further discussion? Council over.
Speaker 3: You know, I, I also, um, wrestled with the comments by one of the members of our public on this. And, but seeing that the city attorney shall not commence any action without permission of the council, uh, I believe if we think there is any issues with that, then we can have a discussion as a council and, you know, instruct that certain types of, of violations are not prosecuted. So I'm more comfortable than I was before.
Speaker 0: So. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any further comments? All right, madam, quickly, we have a roll call vote this councilmember desired.
Speaker 3: We have seen knocks light.
Speaker 2: Hi, Odie. Hi, Bella.
Speaker 1: I may or as the Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 2: That.
Speaker 1: Carries 41. And then you want to talk about.
Speaker 2: The authors of the argument.
Speaker 0: Yes. Um. Um, I, um. I would be happy to propose, um, if the vice mayor is agreeable, that as long as we're drafting arguments, I honestly think this one's pretty straightforward that we just draft this as well.
Speaker 3: My colleagues are in support of that. I'm fine with that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilor Collins. That's okay. I've.
Speaker 3: I'm fine with that.
Speaker 0: All right. Um. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Can we get a motion and we'll vote and we'll move on to the next item? I'll move that. The vice mayor and the mayor. Are the subcommittee moving with option three on the arguments for. Okay. And we have a motion and it's submitted by Councilmember Vela, seconded by Councilmember Ody. Any further discussion? Hearing. Then we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Diesel.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 2: Next flight. Hi, Odie. I.
Speaker 1: I may or as he Ashcraft.
Speaker 2: High that carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. More. Good work, everyone. So with that, we we will adjourn on item six B and we will move quickly to item six C. It's yeah, it's it's 1032. Yeah. 1030 it's 1031. So we're going to just keep a good pace.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Adoption of Resolution Calling for the Holding of a Consolidated Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, for the Submission of a Proposed Charter Amendment to Clarify the Prohibition Against Members of the Council Interfering with Duties of the City Manager and Other Executive City Officials, Authorize the City Attorney to Prosecute State Law Misdemeanors, and Amend Outdated Provisions including Utilizing Gender Neutral Language, and Authorizing City Councilmembers to File Written Arguments For or Against the Measure. (City Attorney/City Clerk)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07072020_2020-7976
|
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. More. Good work, everyone. So with that, we we will adjourn on item six B and we will move quickly to item six C. It's yeah, it's it's 1032. Yeah. 1030 it's 1031. So we're going to just keep a good pace. You're right. Okay. So madam quick, would you introduce item six C please.
Speaker 1: Public hearing to consider adoption of resolution amending master P Resolution 12191 to add and revise fees.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And, well, my temperamental iPad is around. Who is presenting this?
Speaker 2: We're putting in.
Speaker 1: Two people are the interim finance director and finance manager. I think it's Kerry's.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay. Maybe, Nancy.
Speaker 0: Okay. Miss Francine, are you. Are you presenting? Hello? You know, you're muted for some reason. Um. See? Try again. No. It's still not hearing her. Madam Clerk. Can we give our H.R. directors this interim finance director? Her voice.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 1: We're showing that she's unmuted as well.
Speaker 0: Is the volume up? How does your volume. Uh oh.
Speaker 3: I could jump in. Uh, if that's helpful on this item.
Speaker 0: I don't know. All right. Sorry, Miss Bronson. I don't know what to tell you.
Speaker 3: Well, so tonight we for you, we have a recommendation, essentially updating our master fee schedule. Back in 1991, the City Council modified the municipal code to ensure that the fees would be set by City Council resolution. We do this every year, and essentially we're we're not suggesting any increases this year. We are making clarifications and making sure that our master fee schedule is up to date with all of our impact fees. And those are the changes that you would see this time around. And with that, I'll conclude a very brief staff recommendation.
Speaker 0: Thank you and thanks for jumping in. Madam, quick, do we have any public speakers on this item?
Speaker 1: We do not.
Speaker 0: Okay, Counsel. And I see Ms.. Brownstein's name appearing again. Are you are you going to try to? I'm not sure if you can. I can hear you, yes. Okay. You don't need to see me so that we got to see you. I know what you look like. All right, so, um, anything to add? No. I appreciate Mr. Bowen stepping in for me. Thank you. You too. It's teamwork around here. Okay, counsel, do we have any questions? Discussion. Vice Mayor, I am just.
Speaker 3: A real quick question. I don't think that I would want to hold up this report at all, but it does include our appeal fees. And I know at one point in time there was, you know, many years ago after the theater project, the decision was made to cap appeals fees when the appellants were served $27,000 appeals because of all the time and money that went into the appeal, which seemed a little undemocratic. However, I worry a little bit that maybe our appeals fees for certain projects that are priorities for this council and for the city, like homeless homeless services and affordable housing that we might want to look at whether or not we have a separate fee for appealing of those types. And I would just like to ask the Council to consider not necessarily adopting something tonight, but directing staff to come back at some point in the future at their own timeline that would address that issue.
Speaker 0: Thank you for raising that. Actually, I had thought of something similar and run it by the city attorney. Um, do you want to the issue of separate fees for, separate for certain types of appeals?
Speaker 3: I know the city of Berkeley has one, etc.. Yes. I'm happy to answer the question, though. I think there's somewhat two different questions. I think come to the vice mayors question having to do with these are somewhat of them, which which is what we discussed. So let me answer both with respect to field fees or essentially user fees for use of public property. The city has more latitude to set user fees because it's almost like entrance into a city zoo or city exam. State law gives the city more latitude to increase or decrease them with respect to permit fees. State law is very clear that we have to set fees that are cost recovery only. The city's not authorized to essentially make money off of permit fees and additional issue with respect to permit fees that are very important as governed by Prop 26 and Prop 18 is that we cannot court one group of payers to subsidize another group of payers permits. So in essence, we could not say group A, you pay a lesser fee and then everyone else in the city will have to subsidize and that is similarly not authorized. I hope that answers the question.
Speaker 0: Well, and was it was appeals fees you were referring to, was it not vice mayor. So so when it.
Speaker 3: Appeals.
Speaker 0: When when a project is appealed.
Speaker 3: Okay. I thought I missed hurt. I thought the vice chair said field fees as independent PR appeals trying to project appeals fees are not capped. They are they are capped. They do not collect all of the costs related to the appeal. And so I'm wondering if there's a way for us to have a different cap on the priority projects. So if you are cap so that so it's a nuanced answer. If you would like to cap a healthy generally, you could if you would like to cap fees differently based on different project types. For example, solar projects are an important project to the council and therefore the city would just like to charge less fees. And to be clear, it has to be less than full cost recovery on a particular project basis. That is fine. What what becomes problematic is if the city wishes to choose to not to charge a different set of fees based on the appellants or the applicants. That is legally problematic. But if you want to say, you know, solar is an important priority for the city and we want to do less and cost recovery for solar projects overall that is authorized by law and eventually the rest of the office and solar is an important thing. So we want the fee, the appeal fee to actually have a higher standard fee. But as long as as long as it's within cost recovery, we can what I'm hearing you say is you're going to have a different cap for fees as long as it's not more than the cost of the actual work involved.
Speaker 0: You know, I'm thinking.
Speaker 3: Unless.
Speaker 0: You do. Yeah, I think I see. There's just I wasn't as simple and straightforward as I thought. I think that this is something we can give. We can we can vote if we move to approve this, if we can come ask staff to consider that. But in fairness to staff, we should probably give a lot more detailed direction before we close this one out. But so you know what? I've lost track because we have a motion already. No, not yet. Okay. So, Councilmember Vela. So I'm going to move approval of this item as written. I think if we want to give separate direction to staff, I'm inclined to simply want to.
Speaker 3: Put some.
Speaker 0: Language forward. I'm happy to add it to my motion. Oh, okay. To do that together with the motion. Okay. That's vice foreign.
Speaker 3: I will second by motion and also recommend language to direct staff to identify how we could increase the cap on affordable housing and homeless service projects for people. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yes. So so just to clarify the vice mayor's suggestion, it would be to look at ways to.
Speaker 3: Cover.
Speaker 0: The costs of appeals.
Speaker 3: Correct. Right. Okay. I will cover more of the actual staff costs in appeals. Right.
Speaker 0: Understood. I'm amenable to that. Okay.
Speaker 3: And affordable housing. What was the second one again? Homeless services. Yeah.
Speaker 0: All right. City manager. Levitt, did you want to add anything else to this discussion? All right. So then it was moved by Councilmember Velez, seconded by Vice Mayor Knox White. Any discussion of the motion on the table, Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 3: Is a quick point. I'll support the motion, but. But in terms of the ad on my support of the motion doesn't necessarily mean it's the support of the ADD. So we'll deal with it when it's up to the substantively comes back.
Speaker 0: That's all we're asking is for further information to come back. So thank you for that clarification. Any further discussions seeing and may we have a roll call vote with.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de sag.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Next. Why i d i. I may as the cut. Hi. That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: All right. Thanks, everyone. So that ends item 60. Moving on to 60.
Speaker 1: Public hearing to consider adoption of resolution establishing integrated waste collection, ceiling rates and service fees for Alameda County Industries for rate period 19th July 2020 2nd June 2021.
Speaker 0: All right. And I see. Or I saw a car. There you are. Hello. Hello. Good evening. I'm here in memory of this evening. I am with the Court of Public Works Coordinator. To be very brief of items. Counsel to hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution to set integrated waste rates for the coming fiscal year or
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Add and Revise Fees. (Finance 2410)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07072020_2020-8088
|
Speaker 0: All right. And I see. Or I saw a car. There you are. Hello. Hello. Good evening. I'm here in memory of this evening. I am with the Court of Public Works Coordinator. To be very brief of items. Counsel to hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution to set integrated waste rates for the coming fiscal year or related period. These actions are part of the planning process, as set forth in the city's franchise agreement with Alameda County Industries, or FBI and the Alameda Municipal Code. We're joined tonight here by Margaret. She and I see her there on the screen in a brief one point presentation and explained the writing process and the results of this rate application. Following that, Marva, myself and Kenny and Chris obviously with HPI will be available for any questions that you may have. Great. Well, then very succinct. Okay. And we love a short presentations. Okay. Mishan, is this you? Is a can you hear me? I can indeed. Yes. Okay. Well, thank you, Liz. And good evening, Mayor and council again, Margaret Sheehan with HFT consultants. And I've been working with the city for the last six years on a rate setting. You have all the details, reports. Liz just briefly went through it. I will briefly talk about the process. This is an index based here. So it should have been and should be fairly simple, which it was. We had a few areas that we had to address and that was that we had to use the balancing account and rate stabilization fund last year to help mitigate the rate. And so we had to address that. And then also we looked at revenue projections for year 19, 1920 and it's kind of look at the chart here. Back at that, you can kind of see the tail end of the last recession, the blue line, which was the rate increase, but the line below was the revenue that was generated and it was upside down. Basically, we fixed that in 2013. Life was good, but if you notice, 2019, the blue line is once again went above the red line and that's the result of the COVID 19 and what's happened with the commercial businesses within the city. So that's something that we're going to need to be looking at. So as a result of changing those projections, we don't know what the future's going to be, but be something that would be addressed next year. Staff is recommending that we use the balancing account and the rate stabilization fund again so that we end up with the 5% increase for rates effective July 1st, 2020. And if you look at the chart, it's a dollar 66 for the 20 gallon and 32 gallon rates. We give those because that's what most of the residents in the city have. And for the 20 gallon, that's about $20 a year. And for the 32 gallons, it's about $25 a year. So again, we're looking for the sailing rates for the city and I'm here for any questions. Thank you both. Nice presentations. I am certainly thankful that we had that, um, balancing account balance. When we did these last two fiscal years. So council and madam quick, do we have any public figures on this item?
Speaker 1: We do not have any public comment.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um. Counsel. Questions. Comments. Motion. Councilor, everybody.
Speaker 3: Thinks by the mayor. I think it is tough for this short presentation. And I do want to remind folks that our city manager, I think one of his first things, he was faced with this and his very creative solution, and he helped keep rates down last year. So kudos to him for that. And I'm of approval of that item.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'd second. Vice mayor. Not quite so. Okay. And did you want to also say something? No. And he also revealed. I saw your hand go up. Just a second. Okay. Any discussion? CNN. May we have a roll call vote, please?
Speaker 2: Councilmember de SAG. I not.
Speaker 1: Quite.
Speaker 3: With appreciation to staff.
Speaker 2: I0di vella I may.
Speaker 1: Or as the Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: I and also nice work staff and I also appreciate our partners at HCI. So thank you very much. This has been a challenging time for businesses and as fewer are open, they are just not using the service. And so I think this is a really masterful way of handling it. So thank you so much and good night. We are moving on to the next and good to see you. Bye bye. Okay, so we are moving on to item six E Madam Quick.
Speaker 1: I'm giving away on mute. Sorry. Recommendation to provide an update on two step procurement process for Almeida's integrated waste franchise. Authorize the city manager to execute an amendment to the franchise agreement between the City of Alameda and Alameda County Industries, providing to the city a maximum 18 month extension as needed, and authorize the city manager to execute
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Establishing Integrated Waste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc. for Rate Period 19 (July 2020 to June 2021). (Public Works 0274)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07072020_2020-8089
|
Speaker 1: I'm giving away on mute. Sorry. Recommendation to provide an update on two step procurement process for Almeida's integrated waste franchise. Authorize the city manager to execute an amendment to the franchise agreement between the City of Alameda and Alameda County Industries, providing to the city a maximum 18 month extension as needed, and authorize the city manager to execute a First Amendment to the service provider agreement with Hilton Furnished and Hobson consultants for Solid Waste Agreement and Procurement Consulting in an amount not to exceed 74,000.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I miss the court. Are you are you on this one, too? All right. So good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of the city council. And good evening. The court pertinent to this item will provide city council with an update on the call for negotiation with L.A. County Industry API for a new franchise agreement, and also
Speaker 3: . Include.
Speaker 0: Delegation of authority to the city manager to execute a short term extension to the term of the existing agreement with the city, if needed.
Speaker 3: To allow for additional time to complete the full force process.
Speaker 0: Additionally, staff is recommending amending the existing agreement with EXAMINEES for a continued solid waste agreement support including the support to complete the procurement process and negotiation of a new franchise agreement. So walk us through the update in the short term extension. I'll turn it over to Lauren Barbieri with each update for a brief presentation. We have a couple of slides with time, but we will keep it brief and full handed over to Lauren. All right. Thank you. Greetings. Hi there. Hi. Yeah, it looks like I don't have video, but I do have audio, so I'll just. Okay. So, yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor and Councilmember. Thank you for having me tonight. I would be very quick here, but to start off, you can go to the next slide. First of all. Okay. So we'll start off with some real quick context. The city has maintained a contract with ECI since 2002, and that agreement covers collection of recyclables, organics and trash, and it expires in 2022. Back in February of this year, council directed staff to engage in a two step process like that, wherein the city negotiates with API on a sole source basis first and then releases the contract to a competitive bidding process. If the sole source negotiations don't result in a satisfactory deal, something to keep in the back of your mind. We'll come back to this is that competitive processes of this kind really required 24 months from start to finish. So that's our context. Next slide, please. Okay. So where are we in this two step process? We are well into step one. Last month, we provided negotiation tools to ECI. We are, of course, providing a brief update tonight, and we will be negotiating with ECI in earnest through the summer. I will get to the extension option in a minute, but we can keep that seat planted there for now. If negotiations go well, we would expect a final agreement by the end of this year. But if it becomes evident that we aren't going to reach an agreement with the ECI through a full force environment, we would launch a competitive process that would be completed by late 2021, which then leaves 12 months for the selected new contractor to procure equipment and prepare for that transition. Next slide, please. So a little more detail on what has been done to date. We have agreed to a communication policy in order to maintain the confidentiality of negotiations, discussions, and also to ensure that we aren't getting or creating any unfair conditions if we do end up in a competitive environment. We have completed a comprehensive program design process. And prepared a new draft agreement, which will be the basis of our negotiations discussions. That draft has been provided to HCI for review. We have had a preliminary program scoping discussions with HCI through biweekly meetings up until now and will be engaging in detailed cost and contract discussions beginning this month. Next slide, please. So this brings us to the other elements of this item, which is the proposed extension option. The existing agreement really could not be repurposed as is for another ten or more years, and nor would we really want it to be so. There needed to be a significant amount of effort dedicated to the front end of this process. And then, unfortunately, as you know, a lot has happened in the world since staff was lost before you in February to discuss the two step process. So to ensure that the integrity of both the full source negotiations with HPI and the potential competitive RFP is both preserved. A staff is proposing and ACR has agreed to an amendment to the current contract that would do the following. So if the parties have entered into sole source negotiation, and if in the city manager's opinion negotiations are going well but aren't done, the city manager would have the sole option to trigger an extension of the current ACA contract at the current terms that would last up to 18 months. So really what having this tool in the city's pocket does is ensure that both processes are able to be managed in a responsible and thoughtful way. And it also mitigates what would otherwise be significant process and schedule pressure resulting from conditions that are outside of either parties control. Next slide, please. And that's it. So as I said, we tried to keep it brief, but I'm of course, happy to hang on the line as long as needed for any questions or to revisit any of the. Speaking more muted. Um, thank you, Ms.. Barbieri. I am going to just interrupt for a moment because before 11:00, we have to take a vote to whether to finish our entire agenda. And so it is 1053 and what we have left council is item six is up next and there are two submitted comments on that one item six G has a submitted comment and then there actually for additional comments under oral communication that we have item nine A which is the Council referral and item ten a transfer informational item with no action. So I count council member Vela, you've got your hand up to make a motion I think. Yes, I was going to move to here the remaining balance of the two regular agenda items and the public comment and then see if we could continue nine A and ten to our special meeting next week. Okay. That's been moved and I would my goal is always and I think it would be doable with your motion is always that we end before just before midnight no later than 1159. Vice Mayor Sanders. Is that.
Speaker 3: I will second that with the goal of being done well before midnight.
Speaker 0: Every minute council and city tradition has attended.
Speaker 3: Yes, I recommend the council set a time for the continued for the continued meeting because we could not continue this meeting into the special meeting, but you could set it one minute before the start of the special meeting. That would be my do that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Have a happy to do that. I believe there is a closed session that starting before the special meeting. Just help me understand how that will all work. Yeah.
Speaker 3: The session is part of this special meeting, so my recommendation would be that you start this one at 559 and then you could I'm sure you continue this regular meeting to 559 and next Tuesday, and then you can finish that up and you start the special meeting with your closed session and go on with the rest of the special meeting.
Speaker 0: I'm fine with that. Okay, let's see. Let's hear from let's hear from. Council member Odie has just handed them back to Vice Mayor.
Speaker 3: Thanks. I mean, I know you and I wrote this report together, but I'm fine pushing it to the next regular meeting.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah? Yeah. That's no big deal.
Speaker 3: I can wait till then to. So.
Speaker 0: Okay. Back to you, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 3: I was going to ask if we could just quit at 701. So that came after the bigger we didn't have to. So city.
Speaker 0: Attorney's not in.
Speaker 3: The next regular meeting or the special meeting.
Speaker 0: I like the 701. That sounds marvelous. Yeah. So moved. Okay. All right. And still seconded. All right. May we have that roll call vote with.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de.
Speaker 2: San?
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 2: Next flight. Hi. Hi. Bella. I may.
Speaker 1: Or as the.
Speaker 2: Ashcroft I that.
Speaker 1: Carries by five eyes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thanks, everyone. This 3 minutes to 11. Okay. Ms.. Barbieri, um, you are back on. Thank you. Well, I had wrapped up my present, so I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. So cancel any questions from anyone. And that counts every day.
Speaker 3: Yes. So I clearly understand the part where the city manager can basically, you know, throw a red flag or whatever they do in soccer, um, to indicate that, that, that for whatever reason, he thinks that we should move forward to a, to an RFP or a bidding process. I think that's what I read. But here's my question, because I didn't see this in the report. Does this empower the city manager if he finds that negotiations are going great with HCI and that that that he wants to seal a deal, does this empower the city manager than to lock us into a ten, 20 year agreement or the city council have the vote as to that long term agreement? That's my.
Speaker 0: Yes, that is a great question. So, no, this does not give the city manager the ability to sign the next contract without getting back to the council.
Speaker 3: So we needed to know.
Speaker 0: What this would do. Is it instead, if we're in negotiations and they're going well, but we're thinking, shoot, you know, we're really bumping up against the deadline and that's going to compromise our ability to get a good deal. It gives us more time to finish that deal.
Speaker 3: Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any other comments or questions? Council. All right. Have an emotion.
Speaker 3: They're in action, but we're just doing just an update.
Speaker 0: I thought we needed to so that the action would be to take it. And that city attorney should probably clarify, but it would be to authorize the city manager to write the sentence. Yeah, that's it's two part to authorize him to execute the amendment. And and there's two. Oh.
Speaker 3: So moved.
Speaker 0: Oh, right. Okay. It's been moved by Vice Mayor Knox. Right. Seconded by Councilmember Vela. Any discussion? Seeing. And may we have a roll call vote, please?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 2: I. Hi. Hi.
Speaker 1: I may or as the Ashcraft.
Speaker 2: I. That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Card. Ms.. Barbieri, Mr. Robinson, nice to see you. And Mr. Chin. Thank you all. And staff. Mr. Burton, did you want to say something? Yes, I.
Speaker 3: Just want to confirm that that's what I make sure I'm not. I mean, I just want to make sure that we got both of the motions. So it was it was extending the contract for up to 18 months, but also.
Speaker 0: To execute the First Amendment, correct?
Speaker 3: Yep. Okay, perfect. I just want make sure we're all in there. Thank you very much. Yeah.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you all. All right, moving right along. We are now on six s madam quick.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to authorize the city manager to disperse money donated to the fund wide. Alameda Strong Community Relief Campaign as follows 60% to small businesses, 20% to nonprofit organizations, and 20% to Alameda renters.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Provide an Update on Two-Step Procurement Process for Alameda’s Integrated Waste Franchise;
Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Franchise Agreement between the City of Alameda and Alameda County Industries (ACI) Providing to the City a Maximum 18 Month Extension Option, as Needed; and
Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment to the Service Provider Agreement with Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson Consultants, LLC (HF&H) for Solid Waste Agreement and Procurement Consulting, in an Amount Not to Exceed $74,025, with the Option of Three One-Year Extensions, for a Total Five-Year Compensation Not to Exceed $403,200. (Public Works 274)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07072020_2020-8086
|
Speaker 1: Recommendation to authorize the city manager to disperse money donated to the fund wide. Alameda Strong Community Relief Campaign as follows 60% to small businesses, 20% to nonprofit organizations, and 20% to Alameda renters.
Speaker 0: All right. And who's presenting on that, Mr. Burton? No.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Oh, did I miss Potter? Hi. Here you are. Um. Uh, can't hear you. Yeah, it's.
Speaker 3: It's, um.
Speaker 0: How did you do it before? Did you style it? It just. This is Louis Butler. I'm here to see Ty Keller, Community Development, Economic Development Division. I am prepared to give a brief staff report if you'd like, or I can answer questions. I know it's getting late. Yeah. Counsel, um, do you. Do you know my brother? Just for the sake of the public? If you could go quickly. Operative word being quickly over a staff report, they'd be lovely. All right, so on April 21st, the city council approved a $600,000 COVID small business relief program. At that same meeting, the city council was concerned that the demand and the need would far outstrip the strength of council directed staff to create a public private partnership, to solicit tax exempt donations to supplement the Small Business Relief Grant Program. At its May 19th meeting, the City Council approved the creation of a Alameda Strong Community Fund to provide emergency grants.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 0: Small businesses, nonprofit organizations and residential renters economically impacted by the COVID pandemic. Through the website that has been created for me. The strong people can and companies can donate to the three funds previously mentioned, or they can donate to a one fund that will be dispersed as the fund wide fund and staff is recommending that the City Council approves the.
Speaker 3: Distribution.
Speaker 0: Of the fund at 60% to small businesses, 20% to nonprofit organizations, and 20% to eliminate it renters.
Speaker 3: Alternatively.
Speaker 0: The City Council could authorize the city manager to.
Speaker 3: Disburse.
Speaker 0: The general contributions using a different formula to disperse the zero contributions in the same rate so that the funds are received in the individual funds or.
Speaker 3: Directed staff to return to City Council to.
Speaker 0: Determine the allocation of the funds once a.
Speaker 3: Threshold funding level has been.
Speaker 0: Achieved. That's my report. Thank you, Ms.. Butler and Ms.. Potter, are you still struggling there? So are you. I'm sorry. Oh, I know. I'm in there. You are. But all I wanted to do is hand it off to Lois, so it's perfect. He just gave a nice overview of the council. So we're here to answer any questions. All right, I appreciate that. Um, and I would just like to say, I'll just lead off really quickly and say that I think this is a wonderful idea. The Alameda Strong Fund, I think it's been a little bit of just it's been impacted by so many other things going on right now in our city. Just, you know, on a greater national level, we're we're dealing with a lot of crises, but this fund will be here. And so when hopefully things settle down a little bit, the need is not going away. Our small businesses, our ranchers, we are doing things to help our ranchers. But, um, the longer the shelter in place goes on, the, the more help people are going to need, which is, again, so important to wear your mask in public. Um, we, we can, we can really reduce the spread and help get businesses back to, back to work. But anyway, this is, this is what's in the fund right now. And we are asked to vote on, you know, approving the recommended allocations. And Madam, quick, I forgot to ask, do we have you you said there were some public comments.
Speaker 2: We had on this.
Speaker 0: One. Did you.
Speaker 2: Two.
Speaker 1: People who submitted comment. But we think they might be on the zoom and raising their hand and wanting to speak directly.
Speaker 0: Adam Kirk, are you muted?
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm speaking into the mic.
Speaker 0: This city manager has his hand up. I do believe that we have two submitted public comments will double back on that. So I Mr. Leavitt.
Speaker 3: I'm just going to clarify the city council that there's four funds within this relief fund. One is as as Lois has said once, one is for small businesses relief fund, one is for renters assistance and one is for not for profits. And then what we're talking about is the allocation. If someone does it to the general fund at this time, we have very little money in the general fund. Most money donated has been specifically to one of those three specific 500.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, and do we know the total amount that's been donated thus far?
Speaker 3: Yeah, um, the last estimate I have and I, I can go ahead and I just got it tonight. The last time I had was and I'm just giving you round numbers about 30,000 and the business relief, the it's about two or about 6000 for renters assistance and about 2000 for not for profit. And it's less than a thousand that I received that I received in the report for the general the general allocation.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Okay. And Madam Quirk, did we get you back to hear the public comments?
Speaker 1: Hopefully you can hear me now, can you? You can't hear me muted. No, I'm not muted.
Speaker 2: I am.
Speaker 1: Speaking into the mic.
Speaker 2: Loudly.
Speaker 0: That mis texture really quickly. Cause if we have public comment we should hear them.
Speaker 2: I stop working?
Speaker 0: Um.
Speaker 1: Okay, we're switching mikes because maybe my mic went out. Can you hear me now?
Speaker 2: You still can't hear me now. Okay.
Speaker 0: Counsel, does anyone have any questions or comments? Oh, boy. Um. I am calling the city clerk. Maybe I better call her. Now the mayor, councilmember and councilmember Jay Thug. Councilmember, they said, are you muted?
Speaker 3: Sorry. Yes. Can you hear me now?
Speaker 0: I can.
Speaker 3: Okay. When people make contributions to the East Bay Community Fund as the I guess the fiduciary agent of this, are they being given some kind of sheet or something slip that allows us to be some kind of tax deduction?
Speaker 0: Yes, definitely. The funds are tax deductible and they are giving an electronic supply like that. I think that says how much they have donated. I think letters. Can you give me that?
Speaker 3: Okay, great. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Speaker 0: Natalie, can you. Oh. Oh, yes. Can you do that? Okay. Okay. We are trying something creative. The city clerk is having trouble getting her connection. She's going to try to read the letters through my microphone. Let's give it a shot. We have got clothing. Oh, hi. Okay. Can you hear? Councilmember, give me a thumbs up if you can hear. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Bowling.
Speaker 3: Okay. Let's see if it works. Uh, yeah. I just wanted to say quickly that I think it's a really good program. I think one of the things that I would ask is I don't think there's been a lot of like marketing around this funding specifically. I think I don't think many people know about it. I think I can probably help with that a little bit, um, through my channel. But I think, uh, the $30,000 is really, I think we can do a lot better than that, especially with, with, we saw the community come out outpouring for a member of our community that had his car vandalized and within one day had $10,000. So I think there are there is funds in our community. I think if we just get the word out about it. And I think on the this if you look on the Web page for the city, the general city funds the way the buttons are set up on the Web page, it's different. So I think people are having a hard time finding that. But outside of that, I think I think this is a great thing for our community. And I just wanted to, to, to to make that comment and yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you for for the comment staff. I will just say note that name. Okay. Um, let's see. So we are, we, let's see if I can call back. So I think we have one more or if it's a live speaker. Is that what. I don't know. It's just at the bottom of the screen is. Uh, Mr. Potter, is that you? Is that your number? Oh, uh, well, okay. Let me try. Um, Madam Clerk, I know you can't communicate. I'm going to call you on your cell phone again. And if you've got a letter to read, hold my phone up to your microphone. Uh. Uh, uh. Better yet, um. The clerk has emailed the letter to Assistant City Manager Bowden, who has disappeared. It is on mute. Um, there you are. Did you get the email Abbott kept on me? There you go. Though he looks like a well-oiled machine.
Speaker 3: It. I just have to find it. So let me let me just grab it here for my inbox.
Speaker 0: So severe the top. I'm just.
Speaker 3: Sure. Here we go. Here we go. Ben Kaleka. All right. All right. So at the meeting of Waba Darbar GABA and the Chamber of Commerce and City of Alameda on May six, the issue was brought up about not preventing sole proprietors to count as employees and the criteria for qualification for the next series of grants. This was widely considered as a significant oversight in the first set of grants, and we had been informed that we would have a chance to address this in the next round. The group universally agreed that this restriction should be removed from the grant from the next grant, particularly when it came to brick and mortar retail shops. The recommendation was quotations. The applicant must be a small business or nonprofit with up to 25 employee employees, end quote, which removed the doesn't count as one problem. However, that was done instead. What was done instead was to take sole proprietors of restaurants and put them in the You Are Fine group, but put the retailers into a group that would at least be qualified but for half the amount everyone else could get. Why is this important? Many of the businesses that are that are an important part of what makes Alameda unique and attractive are these kinds of businesses. They include little jams like the sewing room and yes, 20 games. We serve hundreds of kids and adults in Alameda, giving them a place to learn kindness and mutual respect. And we have we have between three and five part timers on staff, usually having their first jobs in high school, giving businesses like ours a chance to survive through. This is exactly why the city why the city has done these grants. We are we are most we are some of the most valuable. It is, however. Good, good. The intention was the first the first time around. The distinction between a sole source, proprietor and employee is a matter of accounting. Choosing to take a draw is often what sole proprietor does so they can make sure that the business has what it needs to survive before they take out anything for themselves. Frequently they will have a couple of part time employees, but they tend to work far more than full time themselves to keep the business around to serve. Alameda The state has made changes to the unemployment criteria to acknowledge the illness of work that we sole proprietors do. A couple of years ago, an issue with a landlord put put us in a situation where we could have closed our doors. There was such an outpouring from the community that I knew I could not take away something that meant meant that much to them. I could I could make more money doing something else. But I choose to work my heart out for the community that has cared so much for me to be told now that all the work I do only counts as half a business is dismissive and dismaying. This is a simple, unnecessary issue. Please repair it this time around. That concludes that. Next we have Ronald Mooney, Honorable Mayor and City Council. I hope you will clarify the issue of sole proprietor business applying for funds from the Alameda Strong campaign. I believe a brick and mortar store proprietor or one that works out of commercial unit for clarity should be eligible for a full grant even if they have no employees. I certainly would agree a sole proprietor working out of a residential property should be eligible for the reduced 50% amount. And that concludes the public comments.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you for your assistance, Mr. Bowden. Okay. And so we finished public comment, and I think you saw the vice mayor stand up, did I not?
Speaker 3: Yes, yes. Yeah. Thank you. I think they have the assistant city manager. I'm not sure who to ask this question, but actually both those letters that the last one, what was described there, I thought was what we did. I thought we made it clear that there would be a half you could get half the money if you were a sole proprietor working out of your own house because you didn't have the same rent. But the sole proprietors who had brick and mortar stores, regardless of whether they were commercial or whatever else, would be eligible for the first. That's not the case. I guess I'm a little surprised.
Speaker 0: By the reaction. Yeah, that is the action that the council took in May and that is the way we interpreted the direction and that is how the program funds will be disbursed.
Speaker 3: Great. So for Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Mooney can feel confident that what they were concerned about is not five, seven, eight, 916 is a part of the current program.
Speaker 0: Has been right. Mr. Mooney's characterization is absolutely accurate. Sole proprietors of bricks and mortar businesses will be eligible for. A full 7500 sole proprietors that work out a home based business will be eligible for one half of the amount.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Just to clarify, because we set up a meeting, we were interpreting that as 50%. So now we've gotten the clarification. It will be what what Mr. Potter just mentioned. All right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Butler. Thank you, Mr. Potter. Any further questions from staff? Okay. Have it in motion. Mr. Counselor Rody has had it.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thanks. In this butler, Ms.. Potter, for your presentations, I would move to give the city manager authority to disburse the general contributions 60% to small business, 20 to nonprofit, and 20% to either renters.
Speaker 0: So we had a motion. Vice mayor has his hand up. We have a motion. It's been seconded. Any discussion thing then maybe we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de.
Speaker 2: SAG.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Yay! I'm back.
Speaker 0: Madam Clerk, are you going to be able to? You know what? I'm sorry she called in. Okay. I kept seven white guy. He's right by that last time. As we are back. Hi, Carrie. Sci, five eyes. All right, good work. Okay. Madam Clerk, are you are you able to introduce item 64? Is that a problem? I can do it. You can do it. All right. Take it away. Thank you. Thank you. Staff recommendations. You ready? Yeah. Recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute a contract with the construction code for correct parking lot improvements. Madam Speaker, not to exceed 406,000 or in the alternative, reject all bids for Cherry Creek, a golf course parking lot improvements number of W 2012 and provide direction for a lease amendment with Greenway Golf for rent reduction. A requirement to fund and construct the truck like a golf course parking lot and sewer line. Thank you. And I believe that we have here Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director, who will present this item. Welcome, Ms. Wooldridge. Thank you. Mayor Ashcroft. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'll keep this brief as I know it's late. You have two options before you. Regarding the improvement of the parking lot at the temporary golf complex, the city is required to renovate the parking lot for the current lease agreement with Greenway Golf, and we have funds that were allocated to do so last fiscal year.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Disburse Money Donated to the Fund-Wide Alameda Strong Community Relief Campaign as Follows: 60 Percent to Small Businesses, 20 Percent to Non-Profit Organizations, and 20 Percent to Alameda Renters. (Community Development 256)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_07072020_2020-8109
|
Speaker 0: You have two options before you. Regarding the improvement of the parking lot at the temporary golf complex, the city is required to renovate the parking lot for the current lease agreement with Greenway Golf, and we have funds that were allocated to do so last fiscal year. This renovation also includes the striping and improvements for storm drainage and the American Disabilities Act compliance. So the two options before you a one is to execute a contract with Red Hook construction as the lowest responsive bidder for a public bid process in the amount of $368,471.50 plus contingency for a total of just over 406,000. This is within our budget. The second option is to reject all bids and direct staff to negotiate a lease amendment with Greenway Golf. That would include a rent reduction, and in turn, Greenway would be responsible for all costs, financial risks and project management for the parking lot renovation, as well as responsible for installing a required new sewer line that's not currently part of the other project. Greenway Management has requested this expanded scope of work for the parking lot with the higher level of asphalt that would provide a longer, useful life as well as a better surface drainage. Greenway is also proposed to red earth asphalt or turn alternative. That's more environmentally friendly option as it reflects more sunlight than black asphalt and thus reduces the urban heat island effect the ambient temperature. So with that, I'm open. Any questions? And that concludes my report. Thank you. Ms. WOOLDRIDGE Thank you. And let's see that, Madam Clerk, there were, I think she told me there is one submitted is a comment, a written comments. Yes. Yes. Okay. Can you read that or. Yes, I can. All right. Good evening. Honorable bearing city council members and hardworking city staff. My name is Michael Gardiner, and I am here representing the Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council. I am here to represent the 16,000 men and women of the most highly skilled and highly trained workforce in the construction industry. The diverse workforce from Alameda County, many of whom live in the city of Alameda. They are proud of the work they have done and the work they are going to continue to do in the city and in the county. The jobs have allowed them to live in this county and provide for their families. Oops. Réduit construction. Sorry, it's hard to zoom because it's a picture. Um. It's really hard. Um. Pardon me. Uh. Let's see. Oh, it's just jumping all over the place. Read your construction. Have training agreements with the State of California, DHS, Department of Apprenticeship Standards. These programs are part of the largest privately funded educational system in the U.S.. Individuals enrolled in the many programs that have successfully completed these courses have received the greatest training for construction workers. By completing this program, if individuals have completed, at the minimum, 2500 hours and up to 8000 hours of on the job training and classroom training, this makes them the most productive construction workers. This ensures that the future workforce is trained to build these fine projects. They pride themselves on doing the job right. The first time on time and on budget. By moving forward tonight with regular construction, the City Council will be providing more good job paying jobs with benefits for our members and their families. They were also clear and need to pass for the city of Alameda and the Bay Area to continue adding to the parts needed that make this region one of the most innovative places for ideas on the planet. Thank you. Okay. And that was our only public comment on this item, correct?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. Okay, so very public comment. We should have staff report, council discussion, comments. Wave at me. Madam Councilor CAFARELLA, I think your hand was upright. Madam Mayor, this has been a long process. I think it started with the past council talking about this parking lot, and I'm satisfied with the policy and willing to move forward . I know that there's additional work that we'll have to do in the future. We're going to have to find those funds, and I'm confident that we'll be able to do that. Okay. So the when you say RFP, I think awarding it and having the next award in the contract to work. All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second? For the second by Councilmember O'Day Council discussion. CNN. Then we have a conservative suggestion that conservative? Yeah.
Speaker 3: Um, I think there's some good reasons why we might look at the Greenway approach. And mind you, I haven't talked with anyone at Greenway. Okay, so or indirectly. Um, I, I see this. I think there's some logic in terms of coordinating the parking with the, improving the other infrastructure at the same time. Um, but maybe rather than either not going with reg work or, or, and, and not and not going with Greenway, maybe what we ought to do is take a time out and look at the possibilities of how we might do the parking lot in a coordinated fashion. So in other words. Redo the RFP.
Speaker 0: So are you offering a substitute motion? Councilmember de Saxe.
Speaker 3: Uh, I am. And uh, of course, you know, there will be the question of from where would the funds come to pay for the sewer, the, the other infrastructure improvements.
Speaker 0: Right before we could do a discussion. But we we need to see if there's a second to your motion. Okay. So we have a substitute motion on the floor. Do we have a second?
Speaker 3: Guess not.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, um, we, we don't have a second for that motion, so it it's off the table. And we go back to the original motion that was made by oh, my goodness, Councilmember Vela, seconded by Councilmember Odie. Okay, it's getting late. Um, any further discussion? Mayor. Councilmember Vela. Yeah. If I can recall back, part of the reason for the timing of doing the parking lot now was some of our previous negotiations and conversations with Greenway about the scheduling of that. And so that's part of our agreement was to complete the repaving of the parking lot by a certain time, which is why we went out to our P, I think there was an attempt to try to coordinate. But, you know, there's additional funds that we need to find and some other things. And I think they want the parking lot repaid. So I'm fine moving forward. I think we have a lot of different infrastructures, infrastructure issues we need to look at all over the city. Okay. Thank you for that. Vice Mayor, does your hand go up or was it just now? Okay. Any further discussion from council? Okay, ma'am, we have a roll call vote count.
Speaker 3: Uh, no.
Speaker 0: Next week.
Speaker 3: I. Photo by.
Speaker 0: Bella. Hi there. Is the Ashcroft high that carries 4 to 1. All right. Thank you. Okay, Counsel. With that, we have completed the items, the business items that we agreed to complete today. And the items nine and ten will be continued to a special meeting at 701. And there's one other item that we do need to agree to continue, and that is the evaluation of the city attorney. So what I would suggest, if you're amenable, is we have a closed session happening before the special meeting. And I would just add this as a second closed session item. Councilmember Bell is not in her head. Okay. Councilmember Avella, a second ballot. That's in motion. Okay. Well, I. The mayor doesn't usually make motions. Would you like to make it? I'll make a motion that we continue the city attorney's evaluation to the closed.
Speaker 3: Session.
Speaker 0: On 45 or whatever it is or whatever time. And Vice Mayor, you had your hand up.
Speaker 3: I was just going to say at the beginning of the meeting.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And Councilor Brody, I say your hand up.
Speaker 3: I was just pointing to Mr. Shadow at his end.
Speaker 0: Mr. Chan? Yes. Does that work for you? Yes.
Speaker 3: Madam Chair. Just like the last time when we continued. So we cannot continue into a special meeting because that's a separate closed session. But you can do it. I think. 559 But because that one started so far as the continuation of this special meeting that we're working.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So what he said as the motion and seconded. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Okay. It's for the discussion. Okay. Maybe we have a counselor.
Speaker 3: So are we hearing based public comments on item eight still?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah, we're gonna, um. I just wanted to before we finish our business items, we're, we will hear the city manager communication and then we have some oral communications, and then we're still trying to get out of here before midnight. Yes. Okay. But we need to do a roll call vote. Any further discussion on this item? Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call vote, please? Council members based on.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Odie. Um, not quite. Sorry, I also. Odie. Hi, Bella.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: Mayor. As the Ashcraft high, that count carries by five eyes. All right. Thank you. So then we moved to, I don't know, seven city manager communications. Mr. Leavitt. You just have to admit.
Speaker 3: There we go. Of course, Mayor Ashcraft and City Council. I'm just going to give a brief say Madripoor. And it's actually going to be to address a little bit about the investigation and just to clear clear up or at least try to clarify a couple of things.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Redgwick Construction Co. for Chuck Corica Golf Course Parking Lot Improvements, No. PW 02-20-12 in an Amount, Including Contingency, Not to Exceed $406,471.50;
OR
In The Alternative to Reject All Bids for Chuck Corica Golf Course Parking Lot Improvements, No. PW 02-20-12 and Provide Direction for a Lease Amendment with Greenway Golf for a Rent Reduction and Requirement to Fund and Construct the Chuck Corica Golf Course Parking Lot and Sewer Line. (Public Works 310)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_06292020_2020-8095
|
Speaker 2: Our recommendation tonight is to continue to develop a work plan, including the community participation components for the topic areas around the police department policies that we've been discussing. Also review other systemic issues that the Council has identified to date as a starting point for tonight's discussion. Staff is suggesting that we might move forward with two rounds or tranches of work. The first grouping would be our review of police policies and reimagining our police department and related services all in one bundle of the topics that have been identified by the City Council for consideration to date. We see the following topics possibly fitting into this first tranche of work. So first, it would be the review of use of force policies where the public participation and review of options could be implemented as soon as later this year and possibly into next year. And this really does tie back to the mayor's pledge, where we committed to review, engage, report and reform with respect to those use of force policies. Simultaneously. We believe that we can be working on a second topic, which is review police accountability and oversight options, where we see the possibility of working with the City Council and the community in the coming months to identify and consider options with a target to implement those changes with the 2020 122 budget, if not sooner. And the third police related item is considering unbundling police services where we would explore options in the coming months, make possible near-term changes in connection with our budget as soon as this October, when we do our first first quarter review, which is what we've committed to do as part of the budget process, and then we'd be able to fully link those service changes as we develop the 2021 and 22 budget process. So with that, with that work fully underway, staff is suggesting that we might see a second round of work that would follow in early 2021, where we would review laws that criminalize survival, which is another topic area that that was brought forward. We would envision making any changes to those local laws as appropriate. And there's a strong possibility that we'll see we'll gain insights from our our work on bundling police services and possibly some of the other police related work that we would be doing. And then advocating for state and federal legislative changes with cities 2021 and 22 legislative platform. There are obviously a lot of different ways that we might move forward with that work, so we put that forward as one possibility for Council's consideration. We have not incorporated an approach to addressing systemic racism for the organization or the broader community at this time, or any other topic that council may wish to incorporate going forward. So we we are looking for additional direction in those areas tonight. And to get this work done, we'd be looking for council input and direction on our approach to the public participation process, including our process for convening and engaging with the community on an ongoing basis for these for these various topic areas. There are a number of options here as well. I'll suggest a few possibilities that might be appropriate to apply to five or six of the topic areas or to the two broad groupings that I just outlined for the for the presentation this evening. There is the possibility of creating multiple council led committees with support from staff for each of those committees. Council might ask the mayor to appoint a subcommittee to oversee and guide the public process for various topics. Council could create a task force or possibly two to work through these various topic areas. Or council may have other ideas for us to approach the public engagement component of this work and to develop the various options under each topic area. So with that, I'll conclude staff's presentation this evening and make make us available for any questions that you may have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Bowden, for that report. So, Councilor, at this time, do we have any clarifying questions of Mr. Bowden before we get to our public comment? Mr. Rowley, I see your hand up.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thanks. Assistant City Manager. Um, this is partly a question. Um. I guess when we talk about systemic racism, uh, are we looking at this as a broader society, you know, maybe a citywide issue and not focusing specifically on, you know, accusing the police department or officers in our police department of, you know, being racist. I just want to be clear on what it is that we're looking at. Yeah, I think so far. And I'll defer to the city manager if I if I if I don't hit the nail right on the head. We've heard it to be a conversation about either organizationally or with the community. This this has not been that particular component of the work program has not been directed toward the police department. It has been a kind of a level up organizationally as the city of Alameda and then as the broader community. And that's really why it's not embedded in the the work plan this evening is to further discuss that. Okay. So do you think it would be helpful in the future? You know, that would be kind of bifurcate that from an agenda that talks about, you know, for lack of a better word, police reform. So there's not a confusion that we're just focusing on one particular department. Yeah. I think that the work plan could do that going forward. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Hey, is that it for you even study?
Speaker 2: Oh, yes. I'm sorry, I forgot.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I suppose we'll get the hand signal. Dad? Yeah? Sorry to pitch the pitcher to the catcher. All those things. Yeah. Okay. All right. Um, any other hands up before we get to our public comment? I'm not seeing any. So, Madam Clerk, how many. How many public comments have you received so far?
Speaker 1: We have received ten. And we have one. Okay. About five people waiting to speak. Oh, I'm sorry. Ten.
Speaker 0: Okay. So ten written comments and another ten waiting to speak.
Speaker 1: That is correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. So that's 20 speakers. So then our rule of 10 minutes per speaker applies. So with that, we will take are you going to take the live speakers first? How are you doing this?
Speaker 1: Yes, we will take the live speakers first.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I mean, they're all life, but. Yes, but the ones who are waiting to speak in person. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. And I announced that the most current version of Zoom is needed to be able to speak. So any attendees wishing to speak, you can raise your hands now. And the first speaker is Ben Kaleka.
Speaker 2: Hello.
Speaker 0: Morning, Ms.. Is it Kaleka?
Speaker 2: Kaleka?
Speaker 0: Yes, I.
Speaker 2: Got it right after the Holocaust. So there's a lot of debate about about how we end up solving these particular sorts of problems. And obviously, if we're trying to put into place something that lasts for, you know, another couple hundred years, hopefully we want to take that time to do it properly. But I think that there are some things that we could codify now in terms of what the goals and the measurements are or whatever the thing is in the next over the next time. And those are those the things that we could all agree on. So, you know, just to go through it specifically, things like, you know, making sure the acceptable behavior stops, which means defining what that is and saying that, you know, by this time next year, you know, there are, you know, more than X number of incidents. You know, that that there is, you know, whatever that entity is, you know, we're not we're the victim within a certain number of incidents when there are incidents that are means to to go through those. Number two is and really stating it out, both in terms of the specifics and in terms of the philosophy that must be , you know, that we expect from the people that are representing us, too, is the notion of there being a protocol transparency. So setting up a requirement for whatever entities, including the ones we have now that treats the gun the in the way that other government or government agencies are treated so that things are allowed to be publicly accessible unless there is a very real reason not to be in. That reason is enforced by somebody that is a third party. That also includes making sure that all officers have body cams and those that, you know, if they're on duty, they have body cams. And if not, it's assumed that whatever time you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Lauren Salima.
Speaker 0: Welcome. It's Salem, actually. Hi. So I am Salem. Yes, yes, yes. It's just like the town where the witch trials. Um. Um. Okay, so I don't have any specific comments about how to go about the process of doing that, but I just wanted to speak to the importance and the urgency with which we need to do this work, and specifically with the unbundling of police services and police accountability. I was very troubled by the recent article in the Chronicle about the settlement reached with Shelby and his mother after he was killed by the Army at a police department in December of 2018. Um, Mr. Gordon, he was not black, but I think it does really highlight the serious problems that we have with using our police.
Speaker 2: To.
Speaker 0: Help with mentally ill people in our community. And it's a very real need. We have to unbundle those services and find a new way of dealing with the mentally ill and other people in our community who need help but unfortunately criminal. Um, I wrote an article recently in Life magazine that said that mentally ill people are 16 times more likely to be killed by police officers, and one in four people killed by police in 2015 had a serious mental illness. So I just want to make sure we all know the urgency of this work that we're doing. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Jason Horvath.
Speaker 0: Hello.
Speaker 2: Hi, counsel. My name is Jason Horvath, and I'm one of your police officers. I'd like to address the decision that was made recently to force us to get rid of our emergency response armored vehicle. I'd like to talk a little bit about what that vehicle is. The purpose behind it and why it's a valuable lifesaving tool that we should absolutely keeping our toolbox. Despite uninformed opinions, I've heard voiced in recent council meetings the emergency response vehicle, or for short, as we call it, is not a tank. It has no offensive capabilities and is essentially an armored ambulance in the event of a school shooting or other active shooter event. It is a way officers can respond to the scene with a little bit of extra protection to keep people safe in the event civilians or officers have been shot and the shooter is still active. The Earth can be positioned between the shooter and the victim to allow a slightly safer rescue. Our regular patrol cars do not provide anywhere near the level of protection the Earth does when responding to critical incidents. It seems to me this decision was made purely on emotion. Well, casting logic, reason and facts to the wind when creating public policy that is terrifying. The only reason I can think of that inspired getting rid of it is it looked scary and any perceived militarization of police. Again, the vehicle has no offensive capabilities and exists to get people safely into and out of dangerous situations. It's already paid for. So what legitimate, logical reason is there to take it away and make my job more dangerous? We are the ones who run into gunfire to save lives when other when others run away. Don't take away a shield that makes it a little safer for us to do that, because it might be your child or your loved one or you that we are unable to rescue. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir Horvath. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Janice Anderson.
Speaker 0: Welcome. Tennis, maybe? Yes, to me. Hi. Thank you. Um, thank you for hearing our concerns. I am hopeful that you will take our suggestions and feedback seriously as we move forward to change policing in our community. First, I wholeheartedly support the call from ACLU. People Power to defund the police budget by 50%. Despite publicity attempts to emphasize a few recent incidents of crime, we would have in a relatively safe city and do not require the militarized force that our tax dollars currently pay for and the interest of current and future budgetary concerns. I also support the funding the pay of officers involved in the detainment of Mr. Watkins pending independent review. I also would like to see action taken towards a more thorough investigation of the death of the Forgotten Me in 2018, which resulted in a six figure settlement. Perhaps further dismissals of officers involved in that would offer budgetary saving as details are worked out and finalized and creating oversight. I have several concerns. Primarily about this process itself. My hope is that we set clear dates and benchmarks to support a process of valuable change instead of making commitments to make plans to make change. I also have concerns about the makeup of such an oversight committee, figuring it would end up being establishment members who are resistant to new community leadership and ideas. I also. Very.
Speaker 2: Very.
Speaker 0: Serious concerns about what kind of power such an oversight committee would have to implement change in a police department that seems accustomed to a level of autonomy few departments have. For example, if we a civilian for civilian committee can't oversee things like use of force, what coin is there and having one? I look forward to continuing to see a commitment from all of you dedicated to making important changes.
Speaker 2: In this community.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Anderson. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Cherrie Johansen.
Speaker 0: Hello, Mr. Hansen. I am. Oh, counseling. And there I am delighted that you are listening to us again. And I'm hoping that we will have come to some really solid, progressive actions from from all of the comments. I, too, was taken aback by the story in the Chronicle about Mr. Dutton. BE And what disturbs me the most is that that was a fairly recent incident and I really feel like if we're going to move forward, we have to have information on what's happened before. And I would like to know if this was a. How many of these incidences have happened where we've had to pay out for.
Speaker 2: Civil.
Speaker 0: Rights? That's what we paid the mother $250,000.
Speaker 2: For.
Speaker 0: Violation of.
Speaker 2: Her son's civil.
Speaker 0: Rights. And also that brings to mind about what kinds of procedures happened after that event. If we paid out the money, what happened to the officers? Was there a discipline? Are they still in the force? Um. Did we do training? What procedures were put in place? And, um, I also was wondering if an EMT is called automatically on these kinds of calls. Um, so I know that, um, the chief is very proud of the fact that there hasn't been a shooting death, which I think is, is admirable.
Speaker 2: But, um.
Speaker 0: George Floyd wasn't shot. He wasn't shot. And, quite frankly, Mr. Watkins wasn't shot. And we're still talking about the police abuse of power. So I'm hoping going forward that will have some real teeth where we can have accountability and transparency. Thank you. Thank. Thank you, Mr. Hanson. Our next speaker is Laura Cutrone. Welcome. Hi. Hi. Hello, Mayor and City Council. I want to meet a resident. I applaud your intentional approach to enact needed change that will ensure the safety of our black and brown neighbors. As you create a work plan. I implore you to proceed with these things in mind to build trust and to make lasting, impactful change. One listen to act. And three, be accountable. Listen, Vice Mayor Knox White's plan outlines the steering committee selection and community participation. Systemic racism perpetuates distrust in a system that was designed to keep community members of color down. So there needs to be time and attention spent building trust. The community needs to hear you, to hear what they need and how they have been impacted by past actions. Please, please, please trust their experience and don't question it. Even if it's hard to hear. Act. Shifting from talk to action is absolutely critical. Without action and change, this work plan becomes a meaningless performance. A commitment to reduce APD budget by a specific percentage will set the precedent that the steering committee's recommendations will be taken seriously. Be accountable. Give the steering committee leverage so that their recommendations can be enacted. That's also the foundation for change and increase accountability to the community. I also question City Council's objectivity as council members take donations or are affiliated with public safety unions, not accepting donations will build the community's trust. Thank you so much for your continued, difficult and necessary work to make the city, our city, a place that we are so proud to live in. Thank you for your comments. And our next speaker is Jonas Coughlin. Mr. Coughlin.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair and council members, I appreciate the opportunity to address you this evening. There's a some dots to connect tonight going from just recent thoughts of the killing, the tragic killing of George Floyd, the unjustified detention of Molly Watkins and her own streets, the racist graffiti this weekend, which was just, just stunning and upsetting. And then the other tragedy happening right now in San Quentin, one quarter of the prison population that's gone and the population is having people killed. It's distressing. And what we know now through our COVID experience is significant. Change can happen. It can be done. And I'm so glad that you've got this on your agenda and you're keeping it moving forward. I have a couple of specific points to address. I fully agree that the review of laws that criminalize survival can be put off. Most of those laws are state laws. That's not something the council can change anyway in the short term. More importantly, in terms of community participation in a committee, yes, we are a robust process, inclusive, fact based. I would urge against a council led commission or committee maybe something that is community led, citizen led. In terms of inclusivity, we need obviously a significant presence of people of color who have that life experience. I would also suggest you might look for individuals who are formerly incarcerated and have that experience of having been through that system. And then in terms of unbundling, and that's maybe the biggest, biggest question I want to address tonight. I fully support blowing up the system, looking at the community needs, and then creating what you would do if you were to start from scratch in terms of how you deliver services. Build it from scratch and then implement it. You can't do that overnight, but you could at least tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Silence. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: James Bergquist.
Speaker 0: Hello, Mr. Bergquist. Hi. I'm sorry. This is actually just like a chat. Oh, hello. Welcome. Hi. My name's Lester Urrutia. I'm a ten year resident and I live here with my family. I hear a lot of people say that they need police, that it's not possible to defund or unbundle. But I think we need to take a moment to realize what this means and to recognize the history. Policing as an institution was built on racist ideals and principles. To assume that these are no longer relevant or inaction is simply naive and privileged. Black and brown people on this island have countless stories of racist encounters with the police, some of which were shared at previous meetings. The problem isn't only the police, but we all note the racist citizens that also call the police. We don't need so much money in our budget going towards police. And previously Councilmember O.D. talked at length about how maybe training would be useful. But I disagree. And there are countless stories and data about how trainings actually do not.
Speaker 2: Fix.
Speaker 0: These situations and they just waste money. Anyone can Google what it means to defund the police and what redirecting that money would go toward. And I'm very concerned about the previous officer's statements a few minutes ago. I highly doubt the herb was being used in Oakland riots as a shield to help people. And that same problematic rhetoric is what put cops in schools and Columbine. However, cops have yet to stop a school shooting and instead have basically funneled the school to prison pipeline. So I reject his argument and commend the decision to act on removing that grossly expensive and unnecessary vehicle. We must unbundle services and reroute the massive amounts of money currently going toward Alameda Police Department. And I also agree with the previous speaker that we need to really be including community members involved in this future planning that's being discussed. Thank you for your time. Thank you for. Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Leon Dillon.
Speaker 0: Hello. Right.
Speaker 2: Thank you, major american city council. I organize this alameda use for BLM. I'm not sure how many staff members support the assistant city manager. You don't seem. I'm not really sure the structure or if it's the or they receive adequate funding or maybe it's the time from the last city council meeting. But the suggestion for the work fund is so, so, so underwhelming. What have you done in these past few weeks that you shared the basic talking points? We are in a political moment where people cannot wait anymore. We have tons of resources, examples from all over the nation and from the world. We have scholars, but most importantly, we have experts here in the community, people who have faced police harassment and racism. So really, please, let's use those resources and coming up with our work plan. My question is, how do we input into your research all your suggested policies? Is the work plan accessible in writing before your city council presentation? A lot of the youth that I work with are currently in middle school and high school and it's for their first time engaging in city politics. And so we're figuring out ways to increase public participation. And so if there's any way we can then put in these before the meetings or see what you're going to present, I think it'd be really, really helpful. And since these past two weeks, hate crimes have been taking place in that city. We had a vigil as well to see how in city hall. And slowly we started seeing people taking it down. We are seeing white supremacists put QR codes on top of our posters all over the island. We have heard about bikes being stolen that had BLM friends and most literally over the weekend we had some vandalism happening to cars and property for a black family. And so the more time you take in meeting the and the more time you take in meeting the youth demands, it's just ways that we feel like you are falling. And so as a reminder, I'm going to reread our demands, and one is to release the names of the officers and the rest of.
Speaker 0: This is, of course, public comment, not Q&A. But I do want to just clarify a point that was raised, because I don't want the listening audience to be confused about what we're doing. We did not ask Mr. Bowden, our assistant city manager, to come back to us with a work plan. What we asked for was to come back with the framework of five items and possibly more that a couple of council members presented to us at our last meeting on July 7th, June 17th, and. And then to recommend to staff to give them our direction as counsel for the work plan that we want to see adopted. And that will include a timeline and all kinds of things that this Council will, when we finished listening to input from the public, get to work on this very evening. But the assistant city manager did as we asked and set up a framework. And I think that if we ask him during our discussion, he'll tell you about some more input. He's gathered from talking to various different city and city leaders in other cities that are doing or have done similar things to what we're looking into doing. Okay. So our next public speaker.
Speaker 1: Seth May been Marvin.
Speaker 0: Sorry to Seth. Marvin. Mr. Marvin, good evening.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'd like to actually request to be put at the end of the line and for you to center black and brown voices. I think what we're seeing here is a great example of equal but not equitable and so impacted. Community members who don't have a way to get in line as easily as I did aren't able to share their voices here. So I would encourage you in both public comments to center black and brown voices. I've got other things to say, but I'll wait until the end of the line.
Speaker 0: Okay. That might have been part of your time, but let's see. So I'm certainly amenable to any such any suggestions. And I'm just wondering, um. Madam Clerk, um. What would you. What would you suggest? I mean, councilmembers. Are you. I gather this is something, but I shouldn't read your minds. But this is something that the vice mayor did on his Zoom town hall, which I thought works well and was very respectful. So we give it a try here. If our assistant city clerk and I see a thumbs up from Councilmember Vela, vice mayor, two thumbs from scowls, everybody. And I can't see your thumbs. Councilmember de Third.
Speaker 2: Just a quick question. So are you asking, are you going to ask persons of color.
Speaker 0: If I get to go and I will take the next step.
Speaker 2: To. Oh, I see.
Speaker 0: Well, I'll tell you what. I've got a majority because I would vote. So let's. Let's give it a try. Bear with me. Um, I have. I have huge faith in the city clerk's office. She's probably turning pale as I speak, but, um. Madam, could we ask anyone who identifies as a person of color, um. Black, brown person of color, um, to raise their hand. Are you using the raise hand function on Zoom? Is that how we're doing it?
Speaker 1: Um, yes. Hold on 1/2, Mayor. Um, we're trying to determine a process.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Bless you. I and I will just take this opportunity to tell the public how amazing our city clerk's office has been, because literally overnight they had to transition from doing live meetings. I mean, we always streamed our meetings and you could watch it online, but this is just totally different. And from the time when we first started, I guess in March until now, we've used a number of different platforms because some have been more successful than others. When we do closed session, we started on the WebEx because that provides a secure platform. And then we add that meeting and we switch over to Zoom and they manage to do troubleshooting and all kinds of things behind the scenes that make us here on camera, on the screen look good. So and then the mayor tosses them a curveball from time to time. So I'm concerned about. Go ahead and unmute yourself. Yeah, I was just going to suggest that perhaps to the process we ask everybody to lower their hands and then for people that identify as a person of color to raise their hands and that might expedite this and then we can call for other speakers after that. It's just how does that work. Yeah.
Speaker 1: What we because they are in order already of how they raised their hands. What we were going to recommend was that at the start of their speaking or at the start of their comment, they can ask or let us know whether they would like to go to the end and then we will start their time at that point.
Speaker 0: And that might keep the meeting moving along more quickly rather than ask everybody it can send but up again. Okay, that sounds like a reasonable way to do it. Okay. I'm seeing heads nodding. So. Okay. So what we're going to do is ask you when your name is called, if you are not a person of color, it would be appreciated if you would defer. We will get you right back into the queue. But to hear from our voices of of people of color first, let's give it a try. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 1: So the next speaker is Keesha.
Speaker 0: Good evening. I can you hear me? I can. I can subtract. DISPATCHER High confidence. Oh, do we? I keep hearing about, you know, the community change, things like that going forward. I'm old school. I like people to put their money where their mouth is. Councilman O.D. actually came to the police department. He sat with me for 3 hours to see how it feels to be a dispatcher. The calls that come in, watch calls that we can filter through, or which calls that needed to go out right away, things of that nature. He got a feel for how things work. Instead of just criticizing and pointing fingers and what I keep hearing a lot from the community, I actually I don't live in Alameda, but. I consider myself part of the community because I've been a civil servant to Alameda for almost eight years. And yes, I work for a police department. Yes, there are bad cops out in the world, but for Alameda, there are none. They're a mixed race of officers. We have Asian descent. We have Polynesian descent. We have Hispanic. There are all kinds and there are some who are actually married to black women or, you know, Hispanic, white and Asian. It doesn't matter. I just don't understand why people that can't close their eyes take a breath and just put yourself in their shoes for just 1/2 of your day and realize the decisions that they have to make are to save someone's life or to. Look in another direction and help someone who's been a mental crisis or potentially go help an animal that people call and they're upset because it's not breathing. Just think about those people. Something needs to.
Speaker 2: Change.
Speaker 1: That's time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Keisha. And our next speaker, Tenney. And if. Okay. So, um, Tony, you have the option of, um, I giving your place in line next to a person of color or. Passages. Mr. Green. Oh, you're muted.
Speaker 1: Miscreant think you are my leader?
Speaker 0: She said to give up her place. Thank you, Ms.. Graham.
Speaker 1: Next speaker, Dr. Jeff Lewis.
Speaker 0: It's true. This.
Speaker 2: I'll give up my place later.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Next speaker.
Speaker 1: Amos White.
Speaker 0: He must wait. Good evening.
Speaker 2: Hi. Good evening Matt American evening council and thank you and I represent Alameda people power Asia. Excuse me show your people power and just the deployment process. I just don't understand how city council. As others have pointed out can. It's kind of like asking the police to police or investigate the police. I don't know how council can actually run its own process where the community is actually asking for or demanding that leadership and what is basically an issue of systemic racism and having to deal with the systemic issues of which council is actually a part of . And to say that we cannot hold a community process until there is first accountability, as the young member said a couple of people ago, it kind of just seems like talking points and processes being thrown up in front of the public as opposed to actually demanding accountability of the chief or even of council. This is an asymmetrical comment to council and we have no open dialog in exchange that would ensure accountability of our elected officials and our public officials. All meetings right now are controlled by council, council driven, and this is an open and it doesn't ensure accountability of our officials who they themselves are moving a process along. This isn't exactly the democracy that I think the thousands of people that showed up on the rallies to actually demand and ask for we to believe that do systemic racism here in our city and in particular with an opinion that an independent citizen oversight commission should be formed. However, before that can be done again, we must act immediately in one of two ways either to provide for the public health and safety and general welfare for black community members in all. Alameda by first abolishing AP, APD and reallocating those funds to community support programs and services or enacting an immediate 50% reduction in their budget as as nationwide, over 54% of all crimes are either health care or mental health care related, diverting the public in a process like this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. White. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Quinn Weaver.
Speaker 0: Hello.
Speaker 2: So, yeah, if there are people behind me, I'd like to yield for different voices.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Weaver. Our next speaker, then.
Speaker 1: Rasheed Shabazz.
Speaker 0: Rasheed Shabazz. Good evening.
Speaker 2: Great to be with you. My name is Rosie Shabbat, and I'm an Alameda resident.
Speaker 0: For alaikum salaam.
Speaker 2: I attempted to close my eyes and imagine what it would be like to be in the shoes of those who were employed by the city of Alameda, with the army, the police force. And when I close my eyes, I remember when I was seven years old and I found a bike at Woodstock Park and I brought it back to my mom and she told me I had to turn it in. When we called the police department and a female officer came and she told me and my mother she was going to take me to jail because I was in possession of stolen property. My mom wasn't having that, fortunately, and I didn't have to experience the criminal justice system at that time. Unfortunately, I had to experience policing in Alameda for a very long time. And so I'm going to some of that personal history today or some of the histories that I've shared with you on multiple occasions, speaking publicly or my correspondence. But what I do want to suggest a framework overarching on this whole process is truth and reconciliation. As it was mentioned earlier, you can't have accountability without having a history and a truthful examination. And so I urge this council and the city to engage in a truth and reconciliation process that can engage those who have been targeted by not only police, but victimized by other public and private institutions in Alameda to be able to come forward and speak our truth until you have that history and face that, there can be no justice. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Abbas. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Annie. Marie.
Speaker 0: Ms.. Murray. I can go at the end if there's any more people. Thank you. Thank you. I really do appreciate all of you speakers who are doing this so graciously and respectfully. Next speaker, then Walter Ian. Mr. John. Mr. Young, you're still, you know, aunt.
Speaker 2: Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: I can.
Speaker 2: And first of all, I'd like to thank Councilmember Bello for responding my to my letter that I sent to the city manager and to all of you. And I'd like to emphasize that I think it's important for any of these changes, a consideration of these changes, to be successful, that the police department needs to change its leadership under a Chief Guillory and Captain McMullen, both who've been in the department for over 20 years. They are the creators and the leaders of the current culture in the PD. And I find it extraordinary that every PD member that has bothered to show up in public comments is not indicated that there is a single problem with race . It must be living in a different world. And perhaps if the.
Speaker 0: PD.
Speaker 2: In Alameda has magically avoided any of the problems the whole nation is grappling with. So I'd encourage the city manager to consider that and consider I'd ask that all of you consider that as well, too. And I'm still looking forward to a truly independent review of the recent May 23rd incident or any previous incidents. I don't believe the PD's in a position to examine itself, and I guess it will become an ongoing tradition for a police officer to show up in public comments and tell a scary story about why they need an armored vehicle. Or to say that none of them are are affected by race or racism. But those are my comments. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. John. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Thomas Merry Addison.
Speaker 0: Good evening.
Speaker 2: Hi. Um, so I'm a civil rights attorney practicing for more than a decade on issues of criminalization with a focus on policing. And I'm a ten year resident and a person of color and actually someone that lives very close to where Mr. Watkins was assaulted by a police officer here in Alameda. I just want to say that, you know, to councilman, at this point, to credibly address systemic racism, quintessentially means acknowledging that policing as a system in America, including in the city of Alameda, was designed to uphold white supremacy. This would be the controlling and violent oppression of black people. And there's a ton of literature on it. And there's the lived experience of black and brown people, both here in Alameda and across the country, to evidence that reality and many allegations that I've seen in my two years here, including represent the future of the city, are actively engaging and being better civically educated on that issue. And as residents, we should expect that the city council to become better educated, to truly represent our interests. Interests. And as Mr. Famous Whitey alluded to, I don't think there are many elements who are not interested in regurgitated talking points about reform. And I'm grateful personally for the work of politicians like the future. Boss has been a voice as both a community member and researcher on Alameda. The Simple Story of racism here on the island. I'm not clear what unbundling means, and I'm especially wary, given the miserable track record that reformers strategies have had on police departments big and small across the nation, as another speaker rightly noted. And again, there's considerable literature on that as well. Most importantly, and finally, I agree with the speaker from Alameda, BLM, there's an urgency to deal with these issues and for a work plan to be worthwhile. It must be community led. Police, like government, only execute good public officers at our consent, at the governance consent and the use of force and violence in particular is not something that public consent to willingly. There are other ways to manifest public safety that require, first, a reckoning of the community's racial history and current realities and the common sense that real safety is derived from meeting community needs for food, shelter, education and care. I thank you, but.
Speaker 0: I thank you for your comments, sir. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Cheryl Taylor.
Speaker 0: Ms.. Taylor. Hi. Am I unmuted? You are indeed. Hi. Thank you very much. Mayor Ashcroft, council members and city staff. My name is Cheryl Taylor. I am an African-American. Let me see. 13 year resident of Alameda. I vote in every election. I'm a taxpayer. So I just want to say, I appreciate your attention to this for.
Speaker 2: Your continued attention to.
Speaker 0: These.
Speaker 2: Issues. While I've been fortunate in Alameda never to have had an issue with police.
Speaker 0: I stand by those who have had.
Speaker 2: Issues with.
Speaker 0: Police, as well as some of our neighbors who may need some help.
Speaker 2: Understanding that black lives.
Speaker 0: Do matter. So one thing I would like to say about police, maybe in the interim.
Speaker 2: I'm on your way to sort.
Speaker 0: Of reevaluating the role of police in Alameda is to really look at the union and the union agreement. My sense is that changing the police chief will do very little, but it really is the union agreement that kind of binds.
Speaker 2: You, unfortunately.
Speaker 0: To some of.
Speaker 2: The practices that endanger our lives in town.
Speaker 0: So I just, again, want to thank you very much for for your attention to this issue and your sustained attention.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Taylor. And our next speaker.
Speaker 1: James Bergquist.
Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. Hi. Firstly, Officer Harbach called one or more of the speakers from the last town hall uninformed. One that's disparaging and unnecessary. The officer could have made his comments without disparaging others. One of the speakers I called is Hank was a middle school student, and I think they were quite informed for their age. We all know it's not a literal tank. Secondly, while unbundling police services, I'd like to know how many times the armored vehicles been fired upon in Alameda. I didn't hear this data addressed in order to determine how necessary it really is. Just because schools may have crime doesn't mean we need police in schools. It's a faulty argument. And just because people have guns doesn't mean we need an armored vehicle. I believe the value of the vehicle would be better used to protect people of color with enhanced social services in our community. Thirdly, I'd like to suggest to all community members to talk to at least five friends each and suggest to them that they pay close attention to which side of these issues their council members are taking so that we can elect council members that represent us, the people. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Bergquist. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Wesley Swed Lowe.
Speaker 0: Good evening. You just need to go.
Speaker 2: I yield my time to any speakers of color.
Speaker 0: Hold their four minute. Madam Clerk, did we get Barry back in the rotation or.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's the last one.
Speaker 0: You are the last speaker.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. Hey. Yeah, I just a few points. The first one is a comment in the beginning about systematic racism, and I just sort of like to clarify that it has nothing to do with intention and it's really about outcomes. So systematic racism is really about unequal outcomes. And I'm hoping that that what happens will take on a deliberately anti-racist approach to kind of create equity with those outcomes. Secondly, I'd like to just kind of bring up something that's been mentioned, which is the school to prison pipeline. I see that. I mean, it has sorrows. And these are definitely the the literature is out there. This is definitely tied into the school to prison pipeline. And also for students of color, it's generally considered kind of increased sense of psychological risk as well as physical. I agree with 50% of the funding. The police the police departments has been pointed out, has a long history of racism. And the bloat in police departments is a function of the war on crime, which itself was a directly racist sort of creation in the late sixties. Training is not the way to go. Minneapolis and other places went through years of training. We saw the outcome there. And also anti-bias training has actually been shown to have negative consequences for people of color. I think we need to go in other ways. Last point. The main ways I would suggest is what's also been recommended community led organizations that have their own kind of intervention approaches, as well as the authority that's separate from the council. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mrs. Butler. And just briefly, if we could touch on the issue of the SRO, is that school resource officers? Either the assistant city manager or the police chief is on the call with one of you. Just bring everyone on who's listening to the meeting up to date on the status of police officers in Alameda schools . Go ahead, Mr. Burton.
Speaker 2: Actually kind of chief for Larry.
Speaker 0: That's amazing. Okay. I think she for Larry, welcome.
Speaker 2: I I informed city manager several weeks ago and the school superintendent about a month before that that I intended to pull the school resource officers out of the schools. It was primarily a staffing issue at the time. The one of the school resource officers had promoted to sergeant the high school SRO. And so she was not going to be returning to that position. And with our our reduced staffing were 16 vacancies today and the fact that school was not in session since March 16. And as we're having this conversation now, there's no plan for regular classroom learning. It just made no sense to try to continue the program. So it's been temporarily suspended and I believe that was one item that the council voted to approve. And so that's where we are. There's no sorrows in the school right now.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that clarification. Okay. So then those for all our spoken comments for people speaking live and then if I understand correctly, we have another one.
Speaker 1: Actually, Mayor, we can start back with the speakers who decided to go to the end.
Speaker 0: Right. Thank you. Of course. Yes. Thank you. For all those who graciously stated your time, you will now be called upon to speak. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Seth Marvin.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Marvin.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thanks for taking the suggestion and centering black and brown voices. I encourage you to think about creative ways to do that in the future that don't rely on the the the good intentions of white people, because that is structural racism. Essentially, if it's all white people or people or there aren't any people of color making those decisions about how long people get to talk, who gets the talk and what order they get to talking. I'm not saying anything you don't know, but I think it's important to name it. I think it's also important to name that there aren't any people that I know of who identify as black on the city council. And no matter how well-intentioned you are and no matter how well-intentioned we are as a community, we don't have that lived experience. So it's one thing to say, Oh, we can never defund the police, it'll make us less safe. It's another to say to think about every time you leave your house. If what you experience is that any interaction with the police makes you feel less safe than it is, then it will only be a benefit to actually reduce the number of police officers. Reduce the funds to the police. That's all I have to say for today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Marvin. Okay. Next we hear.
Speaker 1: Tony Grimm.
Speaker 0: Ms.. Cram, welcome back. This. Grandma, you there? Yes, sir. Your. Just mute. It just. There you go. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to say that I was watching television, the local news coverage, I think it was Channel seven on June 11 about the Molly Watkins situation. I saw Chief O'Leary appear and he made a statement that the next day the city of Alameda was no longer going to be answering noncriminal calls. I thought that was, wow, that's pretty, pretty, you know, drastic situation. And I didn't know until later on that that that that decision had been put on hold by the city manager . I went around thinking myself for a long while that the city was not answering those calls. And I also heard from in a previous council meeting they had police dispatchers spoke and he said those were the majority of the calls that were coming in. So I would so this was kind of upsetting to me because I thought that this was our policy for a while. And other people also mentioned that to me even from other cities. They said, well, what's happening in Alameda? So I would like to know, basically, it begs the question, who is setting policy on on withdrawing city services? Is it the police chief? Does he have the authority to do that or is it the city manager? Because what happened in this particular incident didn't make our city look very well organized. And I would like to ask that we have a clear decision making process and so that we can have accountability and not. No, he said he said and people aren't confuse. I didn't I never had to call in myself for a police for police help thank goodness. But I can't help but wonder how many people during that time may have wanted to call in, and they didn't because they thought the police weren't going to be answering it. So I would just like to have a better a better clear decision making policy on the subject of withdrawing city services. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Graham. And our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Jeff Lewis.
Speaker 0: Mr. Lewis? Yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm glad to see you moving forward with this over the time. The timeline that I see things taking until 2022 to establish a police accountability review board or or to do significant changes in the budget seems like a very long time time period to enact these things are things that we see police doing, such as the events on May 23rd seem like a very clear cause for firing someone. And I I'm disappointed that we needed to have an accountability board that would help to fight the police in order to achieve something like this. So I would like to see that. And also in terms of budget changes, I'm seeing some municipalities in the area starting to announce reductions in police budgets, preliminary to reprioritizing and unbundling services. And I think it would be good to see the city of Alameda do something similar to that, as well as kind of a demonstration of where we're moving in this process. And I think you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Quinn Weaver.
Speaker 0: Hello.
Speaker 2: Hello. So a number of other people have touched on the issues they want to talk about and really address them more eloquently than I can. Mr. JUST. Mr. Rasheed. Mr. WHITE. Mr.. Henderson But I just want to underscore this point that most of this national conversation has been about the use of deadly force, and the reasons for that are are quite obvious, and it's an appropriate thing to worry about. But there are deeper underlying issues of sort of cultural racism in police departments. Structural racism in the system itself that perhaps most members of that system are one. And I think it's really reflected in these lower level cases, like the recent cases of people being arrested for dancing while black, you know, exercising while black and like playing outside of home, you know, and handcuffed for 2 hours while the police came the third degree. And don't listen to his neighbors. That's just massively. Inappropriate. And I can only imagine that that's being driven by. A culture or perception of one's role within the police department, that sort of thing. You know, this is the thing to do. You're going to be a tough person and you're going to be, you know, really use force and demand submission. And I think that in itself is a very legitimate reason to unbundle services from the police. I think that deliberative approach, a community based approach, when, you know, there's some desire here in this undesirable but non-criminal assessment is reported, is much better. And and these conversations we had by mental health workers or simply by neighbors or people who are willing to engage in plate conversations without bringing out the handcuffs. So I would urge you to consider that as well as critical cases like mental illness and you're put in front of somebody. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Weaver. And our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Annie Murray.
Speaker 0: Ms.. Murray. Hi. Hi. I have been a lifelong Alameda resident. I was born and raised here and I studied criminal justice over at San Jose State. So I'm pretty well informed of our community as well as the criminal justice system. On a scale of a nationwide scale, and I learned very early on, I think it was my first angel class that they told me a lot of your peers want to join this major to become cops, but probably about 5% of you will actually become cops because once you realize how unjust, implicitly biased and just racist the system is, you don't want to be a part of that because there's not a point where you can fix it from the inside, really. So we're definitely going to need to defund the police. 50% is a good.
Speaker 2: Start, but it's.
Speaker 0: Definitely going to need to be more. And the Citizen's Oversight Committee about something. I have no idea why we haven't already implemented that. I don't know why it's taking so long, but something that needs to be implemented immediately and needs to.
Speaker 2: Have.
Speaker 0: Oversight on the policies as well as individual police officers. There needs to be some type of oversight committee where people can make complaints about police officers and someone oversees that oversees the investigation. I think that should be a community oversight committee on something that's not affiliated with any police officers. And I think that's all I have to do. Thank you, Miss Murray. Our next figure.
Speaker 1: In the Casey.
Speaker 0: Hello. Hi there. Hi. Thank you for.
Speaker 2: Taking my call. I'm a resident of Alameda, and I appreciate that you're holding a special meeting to hear from students and also appreciate your responsiveness to immediately changing your public speaking order in order to prioritize students of color. And I just want to say that's an excellent example of the kind of quick responsiveness that the public is asking for in light of the current concerns surrounding police and policing in Alameda. So you've already shown you can do it. And I just encourage you to have that kind of creative mindset as we continue. I'm a local educator who works with teachers, especially other white educators, around the ways that systemic racism impacts our teaching and young people. And I've been personally moved by the efforts of local young people demanding that the city undergo critical self-reflection on its funding priorities and become a model for transforming the role of police and policing in our community. And I agree with past speakers that I'd like to see a community led process involving people of color, especially young people of color, to feature committees, to make recommendations from bundling police services, as well as serving on community oversight committees. I think that focusing on reducing police funding, specifically addressing systemic racism, since police has, as mentioned before, historically been used to uphold white supremacy and protect white and affluent community members to the detriment of communities of color, especially black communities. And this has been documented with Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow. And this apartheid system is effectively upheld by local funding. And so it's our ability to, like, think creatively and make some changes. One last change I'd like to make. I have a friend of mine who's a firefighter, and she told me recently a story about having to support a man who had been accused of rape but was complaining of chest pains while being questioned by police. She felt disgusted that she had to provide care for him, but that was ultimately her job to provide care. And I would like more people like her and mental health practitioners to be the first responders to a mental health crisis or any other violent call. These are unarmed folks with training and.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your comments, Mr. McAfee. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Melody Montgomery.
Speaker 0: Miss Montgomery. Hi. Hi. Thank you for letting me speak. I appreciate the time. I want to talk about accountability and oversight. Mayor Ashcroft, you did speak a while ago about the chief sitting down with a young group of people and how emotional he was about it. I understand that. But that didn't that didn't change the fact that when he looked at the case of Mr. Mallory, he looked the other way. Showing emotion to a group.
Speaker 2: Of.
Speaker 0: Children or young people is not the same as taking.
Speaker 2: Action for your.
Speaker 0: Community. Please let us not get distracted by his.
Speaker 2: Emotional response to one group.
Speaker 0: Meeting and remember that he did look the other way over the Mr. Mallory. We need better oversight. We need better accountability. We actually need to get.
Speaker 2: The.
Speaker 0: Community.
Speaker 2: People, the community.
Speaker 0: Citizens involved in this oversight committee immediately, because you guys are out there making decisions for us and we're not in the process. We're going, What did they do today? What have they decided today? Where are we today? Where are we going to be tomorrow? In 2022 is just too far away for us black and brown people to be scared.
Speaker 2: To drive across our island where we live.
Speaker 0: Every time I get in the car, since these meetings have started, I go off island as quick as I can because I don't want to be driving around in Alameda.
Speaker 2: I feel like I'm a target because.
Speaker 0: I've spoken out. I feel like probably a lot of.
Speaker 2: Black and brown people.
Speaker 0: Might feel.
Speaker 2: More uncomfortable having spoken out. And so please.
Speaker 0: Let's take action sooner rather than later because.
Speaker 2: We're still being targeted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Montgomery. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Michelle Elson.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Ms.. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members, and thank so much for giving me the time to speak today. Um, I wanted to thank you for putting together what I think will be a fairly thoughtful process for how we can maybe reimagine policing in this community. And I urge you to kind of take a look at that from a 30,000 foot level. I think we really need to be thinking about what do we need, um, what do we want and what can we achieve? Um, I think, you know, it's probably fairly clear to everybody that tugging at the edges of this has not been effective in any community. Um, and that systemic change is needed. Um, and I appreciate that you all are trying to be thoughtful about doing that. Um, I, obviously, this is a really awful time, but I think that there's also a lot of opportunity here, um, to do something good and real and build a system that works for everyone that we can all have faith in, maybe even be proud of. Um, that's part of the community and it's not in some of them. Um, it's not a, a system that, you know, people will think twice about accessing. But I guess that's all I can say. So thanks for your time. Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 1: Our next or final live speaker is Jeanette NG.
Speaker 0: Good evening was saying. Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. Thank you for taking the time to listen to us in the community. See, this past weekend, as you know, an African-American family had their car vandalized by white supremacists. And city hall needs to take a very public stand against.
Speaker 2: This.
Speaker 0: Incident and use it as a teaching moment for the racists that we know lived here among us. It was sickening and cowardly and a crime. I would hope that the police are investigating this because vandalism is a crime. And I know that people of color and that family in particular would feel less safe. I know I would if someone had done that to my car. So I hope that the police are doing something about this, and I hope that they take this as a chance to stand against racism. I also hope that the Citizens Oversight Board includes people of color who are specifically been hurt by racism and also people of color who specifically had negative experiences with the police. I feel like those voices need to be included in any kind of oversight board. Thank you. Thank you. Missing. And one more thing before we go on, though, I just want to highlight the incident, the missing reference. This did happen yesterday. It has been covered, I know, in the East Bay Times. I posted a message on the city's Facebook page on my mayor's Facebook page, which has been shared many times. But indeed, the city responded immediately. Police came to investigate. Three members of the city council and our assistant city manager, Mr. Bowden, were all present and witness the amazing outpouring of community support from not only neighbors, of people who happened to just be driving by, biking by, read about it on social media, who came immediately to offer their support. Good wishes, clean. Once the car had been in a photograph from evidence actually two cars because the family's car and the mother in law's car were both parked out front. And but members of the community, including vice mayor, was there with a rag in his hand, cleaned the cars, spoke with the the residents. So, yes, this case is being investigated by police. And I, I hope you'll take a look at the message that I put out and, uh, and I hope we catch the people who did it. And so we I think it's good. And you were saying we have one more loudspeaker. Yes, but let's have it. Doris Roberts. Good evening.
Speaker 2: Hi there. Hi, everybody. Number one, I'm Bobby Deutsch, and I'm a long term resident of Alameda. I'm a physician at the hospital. Number one, I appreciate the city council in a timely fashion addressing this very important issue. I think that being proactive and hear what the community has to say really shows your commitment to really doing right by your community. I endorse the comments that have been made, I think unanimously that we need to relook at policing nationally, of course, but including in our community. And I also endorse strongly the idea of looking at whether we do need officers with weapons to respond to many of the issues that arise on a daily basis. So I think the envision and how we look at policing, which which really has not done in the past, I think is a great opportunity and maybe it's a window that won't happen again. So I hope that you folks will kind of seize the moment and recognize what important time this is and think about how we can make our community more responsive to the needs of our citizenry and a more compassionate community. I think that serves so well. And thank you so much. One specific issue, I think I emailed it, but I guess the city council looked at whether the police departments received any military equipment under the Obama program and I guess continued by Trump. And I would like to make sure that your least aware, if they have military equipment and also take a look at that as well, make sure if that's necessary in our community. But again, thank you so much for this important issue that you'll be addressing. Thanks again.
Speaker 0: And Dr. Deutch, stay there for a minute, if you would. So Dr. George is a pulmonologist at Alma Mater Hospital. I've known him since I served on the board of directors there, and I'm sure he would amplify the message that I've been trying to carry about protecting ourselves from COVID 19. Do you have anything quickly you want to say on this topic, Dr. Deutch? It's rare for him to be speechless. But you have to ask yourself.
Speaker 2: Okay. Yeah. We are seeing increased cases at Alameda Hospital, Highland Hospital, Alameda Health System in the Bay Area. And I would say the things that we've done so far have been helpful and have avoided what's happened perhaps in Houston and some of the community. So I would say the message that you sent out repeatedly, Marilyn, is for all of us to do the right thing and remind people that the masking does protect you to some extent, but more importantly, it protects the people around you, your community, your loved ones, your family. And it's a reminder to everybody that we're all in this together and that if we all do the right thing, we're not going to get out of this, you know, without any damage. But perhaps we can minimize the damage to everybody. Please continue to not let our guard down and, you know, do this until we get vaccines and medications and we can do a better job and minimize, if not eliminate this this scourge to us. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Dr. Deutch, for sharing that. So you heard it straight from a doctor whose life work this is. Take his good word for it and follow it. Thank you so much. Good. And do we have more live speakers or do I really transition to the written remarks?
Speaker 1: Now we can transition to the written remarks and we do have 19 written comments.
Speaker 0: Okay. And they get the same 2 minutes. All right, everyone get comfortable. Thank you.
Speaker 1: The first one is Molly Montgomery.
Speaker 3: My name is Molly and I am an Alameda resident. First of all, I want to thank you for your commitment to exploring ways to make Alameda safer for all of its residents by directing more resources towards community programs that support mental health and public safety that are alternatives to giving the police the responsibility of being our social safety net. I think your proposal to set up committees to gain input into this process is commendable. However, I have a few comments and questions about this proposal. First of all, while these committees are a good idea, you first need to commit to a concrete goal of reducing the police budget while investing that money into community programs . I am concerned that this committee process will take a long time and during the mean time, black and brown elements will continue to be disproportionately affected by the current system of policing, which by its nature is targeting them. I urge you to commit to defunding the APD by 50% in the long term. In the short term. We need an immediate, concrete commitment of reducing the police budget by 10% at the very least, and redirecting those funds to alternatives to policing. Our neighbor city, San Leandro, has already committed to reducing its police budget by $1.5 million, approximately 4% of its police budget. And the city of Los Angeles has committed to redirecting $150 million, around 8% from its police budget to other services. As a forward thinking city. Surely we can commit to do just as much, if not more, than Los Angeles and San Leandro, considering we also have lower rates of crime. Second of all, I am glad that you are proposing that the committees you are creating highlight the voices of black residents and black youth in Alameda. Please make sure you are not being exclusive when using the term from Alameda. Everyone who is currently living in Alameda, no matter how long they have been living here, deserves to be considered in this process. The fact is that Alameda has grown more diverse in recent decades. So many of the people of color who are most impacted by policing in Alameda might not have grown up here since birth. Yet they still are.
Speaker 1: That it's time. The next speaker is. I'm sorry. The next comment is Marilyn grabbing a.
Speaker 3: Questions posed to the Alameda City Council to answer one. Mr. Watkins, May 23rd Dancing in the Street did not comply, answering officer questions. This was a law and order issue. You do not dismiss an officer by not responding to police questions. Mr. Watkins was arrested for physically resisting. City council members made the say race issue, which council members names wanted called for the officers to be fired upon viewing the first person on video. Now hiring of new officers to APD has been frozen by the city council. What qualifications does the council have to run the APD? Where do they rewrite their experience on police matters? Whom have been in drive alongs with officers to see why they put their lives on the line daily in the city and assisting other cities too. Why is the City Council not supporting the APD Chief of police? These officers put their lives on the line daily for this entire community, treating everyone equally. I've lived here long enough to make that statement. HIV. Can this community trust this city council to keep our city safe when they clearly exhibit no support for the APD? This council has deaf ears to the majority of voices. W.H.O. want independent APD run by qualified professionals independent of city council politics. ADP does not need to be defunded. What they need is not to have to respond to the mental health issue calls they receive, picking up dead animal carcasses, making teens go to school, etc..
Speaker 1: Next commenter Savannah Cheer.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Thank you for holding this special meeting tonight. While you're considering how to move forward on this critical work that needs to be done here in Alameda, I would like you to keep a few things in mind. First, you need to make an actual commitment to defund the Alameda Police Department. I support the ACLU. People powers demand of a 50% reduction of NYPD's budget. In order to achieve immediate accountability for the harm APD has caused our community. Council must definitively commit to reducing the policing footprint in our city. There are many national examples of how to move forward on this. Please take time to study the man. Reach out to other cities next. While it's great to see council members Vela and Knox White providing some framework for a process moving forward, I have some concerns with how these proposals came about and what the next steps will be. As you've heard or we'll hear from others tonight, the involvement of the community needs to be centered around individuals and groups that have a focus on dismantling white supremacy in Alameda. Moving forward, this process should center black voices and the voices of those who have experienced harm from policing. What we do not need is a convoluted process with committee upon committee that slows progress down. Excludes those most crucial to success and stalls activity, thereby deflating the energy that community has around this work. Lastly, every council member needs to make a commitment to not take any public safety union nor lobbyists money at this time. Alabamians cannot trust your commitment to real systemic change if you're working on behalf of a special interest. The only way to prove you're not is to refuse these types of contributions. Please accept that the outline that council is currently working with might need to be changed based on the feedback from the public. I would ask that each of you remain flexible and nimble moving forward. Your flexibility should arise naturally as you normalize being wrong and needing to unlearn past racist ideas. Our city will not be able to holistically address reducing policing and reimagining public health and safety if there are not clear, actionable goals to begin with.
Speaker 1: Time. Next commenter, Aaron Frazer.
Speaker 3: Dear City Council. I am an Alameda resident and I am pleased that the City Council is holding this meeting. This meeting is a first step in listening to your constituents overwhelming support for radically transforming the Alameda Police Department. Tonight, I ask you to do three things. One Pledge to return all campaign or lobbying funds received from public sector unions or stakeholders. While this process is ongoing, the citizens of Alameda are your constituents. The police union and the fire union are not constituents. They are special interest groups that have interests which do not always align with the citizens of Alameda specifically. I call on mayor as he Ashcraft Council member Vela and Council member Artie to make this pledge. All three of you received directly or indirectly funds from public sector unions in the last election. It is important that we, the citizens of Alameda, can trust that you work for us and not for the police and fire unions. That funded your campaigns too, because the city council did not take the opportunity to defund the police at the June 16th mid budget meeting. The best you can do now is make a commitment about what you will do in October and beyond. I urge you to commit to defunding APD by 50% in long term, more meaningfully. I urge you to instruct staff to prepare the upcoming changes to the budget to take into account a 50% reduction in the budget of APD . Finally, with regard to the proposed measures posted by Councilmember Knox White to Facebook, I think you should clarify some things. I think we need clarity on what you mean by the phrases community interest groups and from Alameda specifically. I hope that the police or their proxy are a community interest group and I hope that from Alameda is not a dog whistle to the anti progressive special interest groups, but rather a poor word choice for resident in Alameda because length of residency is irrelevant to these discussions. We are talking about the future, not the past. And especially given the hate crime in our city at the weekend, it is important that black and brown elements have several prominent roles in the committees and book.
Speaker 1: Time. Next commenter initials D and.
Speaker 3: Dear City Council, thank you for your efforts so far in establishing a work plan as you decide on the final process tonight. I ask that you continue to make every possible effort to significantly decrease the APD budget. I support the call from others to cut the budget by 50%. We are asking for commitment on this as you decide on the work plan. I have some suggestions that I ask you to consider. First, please change committee one titled Unbundling Services, currently delivered by the police department to something that is more focused on reducing police budget and increasing budget for community programs. We need to ensure that we focus on diverting funds to the community, not just rearranging the management of different existing services. Several cities across the nation have already made commitments to divert police funding. Alameda has the opportunity to be a leader on this as well. Second, please be precise and rigorous in the committee selection process in a way that ensures that the steering committees are made up of a range of people committed to ending white supremacy in Alameda. For example, Councilmember Knox White's proposal names three members representing community interest groups and to representing the business community. The proposal overall is a great start, but I ask that we sharpen these parameters to focus on selecting members that are committed to directly addressing the various inequalities that we see in our city, especially racial inequality. Next, please empower the steering committees with true agency and truly let them steer final decisions. Also, please centralize the voices of black people and those most impacted by the harms of policing. This would involve going the extra distance to include those who would otherwise not be able to afford to be on a committee. Finally, please make a commitment to not take any public safety union nor lobbyists money at this time. This is a matter not to be influenced by monetary power. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Next commenter, Robert K.
Speaker 3: As a senior citizen and 50 year resident of Alameda, I thought it was about time to speak up. I typically don't write letters post on social media or address the city council. However, I do watch and read a great deal to stay informed. Lately there has been a lot of hateful and negative media written about our police. Last council meeting, for example, featured individuals that were not even members of our community and all in favor of defunding our police department. That's not the way all of us feel. Rather than listening to a small, angry vocal group, it's more important to get an individual sampling of how local residents feel. Take time to visit the Mastic Center and talk to people in front of one of the local grocery stores, or possibly visit individuals living in Section eight housing. Of course, I understand all communities evolve and revisiting their policies are a good idea. But cutting or defunding our police is something I'm not in favor of. This would disproportionately affect the low income residents as the more affluent citizens can pay for private security to patrol in their neighborhoods. Stop for a moment and consider who would arrive when your security alarm goes off or your child doesn't come home from school or someone has just dropped you in your garage? No one. Police are the ones who are first on the scene when there's a suicide domestic abuse call. Not to mention the numerous robberies and car thefts. As long as I have lived in Alameda, the police have been courteous, committed and diligent in protecting us. Now is the time to stand up and support our police. The motto in our community is Alameda stands against hate. And that includes the hate shown towards our wonderful police.
Speaker 1: Next commenter Mikayla be.
Speaker 3: My name is Michael Hall. I am a lifelong black resident and I am concerned about recent the direction this Council has taken on behalf of the city, me and my family living across the nation and here locally. We have heard from thousands, including advocacy groups, who are seeking equality, evaluations of police policies and for minimal police interactions for non-criminal offenses. I think we can all agree that this is an important and overdue conversation. And without hesitation, APD took swift self-initiated action in reviewing policies, removing officers from the schools and minimizing unnecessary contacts for non-criminal offenses. While this is a large topic to tackle, these actions provided the community with an initial course of action from the PD. However, through a motion put forth by this council, the same council that has sat and sympathized with protesters demanded change. And we have facilitated a slew of town hall meetings. APD was forced to continue business as usual, was placed on a hiring freeze and forced to give up a vital safety equipment, despite CPD's desires to initiate long term community policing. Last week, the city saw several violent crimes a shooting, a number of assaults with deadly weapons, kidnaping, sexual assault, a home invasion and multiple robberies just to name a few. Yet, as directed by council, APD is to continue business as usual and must do so with less staffing, less life saving and protective equipment, and must respond to our calls for service, including these non-criminal calls. From June 22nd, a child refusing to do chores. A tenant refusing to pay rent. A person collecting recyclables. An unknown person walking in a neighborhood by an anonymous caller. And a neighbor who threw egg shells over a fence. If you're okay with APD going to calls about eggshells as opposed to people being held up at gunpoint while walking down the street, that is blood on your hands and is not a reflection of the majority of residents. Peeps does not speak for our island. My.
Speaker 1: Next commenter Anna s.
Speaker 3: The last meeting, a fellow alum had mentioned the name Miko, the 15 year old girl who was shot in the back in Washington Park in 2008. Iko actually sat next to me in math class. Her death was senseless and an atrocity to the community. Thanks to Alameda Police Department's investigation, her murder and his accomplices were brought to justice. This is just one of the many incredible things are alameda police officers do on a daily basis. Alameda is population is growing and so is the crime. Look at the police blotter. I've personally been a victim of assault, robbery and attempt to steal my car. Our police department is extremely understaffed and overworked. No wonder they can't keep up with the crime on social media. I've never seen as much hate towards another human being as I've seen towards these cops. Why would anyone want to work for a community that hates you and a local government that won't have your back? How are you going to defund a department who doesn't have enough cops as it is? Who's going to protect us? I think it's questionable that our vice mayor, John Knox White and Councilmember Giamatti, show up for racially charged graffiti on a car, but not for a victim who was shot at this week on the island. This further proves that our city council care more about political persona than the actual well-being of all of our citizens. I wonder if they even know the name of the victim who was shot at. Do they even care what race they are? Where's their social media post about that? Two of our council's key priorities are to one protect core services and to support enhanced livability and quality of life. This Council fails to support the entire community as a whole and is pushing policies that put our families in danger. I honestly believe that more funding, more training and support of our police department is the only way to keep our community safe. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Next commenter, Amy. Dismissed.
Speaker 3: I am emailing to demand serious and swift reallocation of money from Almeida's budget, from the police department to community services, mental health, education, health care, homeless services. And let me be clear I'm not calling for reform, implicit bias trainings or independent investigations. Those tired solutions have only resulted in the continued brutalization and murder of black Americans. It is time for a different strategy, and you have the power to enact that change now. We need to defund the police and reinvest in our community, especially communities of color. We need to follow in Oakland school districts footsteps and cut ties between Alameda police and Alameda schools. We need mental health counselors, not police in our schools. We need more senior and low income housing, not increased police budgets. We need to follow in Minneapolis footsteps and pledge to defund the police. We need to show other cities and governments that Alameda cares about its citizens lives more than its police badges. It has been too long, too many black people harassed, profiled, brutalized, too many black lives lost to state sanctioned, city sanctioned violence. Alameda hasn't seen a black resident killed by its police force yet, but it has seen a black man arrested for dancing in front of his street. And it could so easily become the next Minneapolis. Ferguson. Louisville. What will you do to ensure it doesn't? What will you do to actually protect your citizens of color? Will you stand up in the face of racism, police brutality and injustice with action and change? Will you honor and fight for the black lives lost to police violence as if it were your own child? Husband, father? I hope so.
Speaker 1: Next commenter, Maria Gutierrez.
Speaker 3: I have been a citizen in Alameda for over 15 years now. I wanted to express my support for the police department. I have some concerns with the changes that you are proposing to make. I have always felt safe here and I believe we depend on our police department to keep all of the citizens safe. I feel like cutting the budget or having a hiring freeze will put the citizens in danger. We live next to a city that is always on top of the list as most dangerous or most homicides in the United States. I do not want Alameda to turn into Oakland. We need all of these officers to keep crime down and continue to make the citizens feel safe. The last meeting hosted by this council discussed the possibility of selling the police department's armored vehicle. Is this a joke? Can you explain the reason why we are thinking about getting rid of a safety tool that could potentially save lives? If you mistakenly decide to do that, I suggest you call this move the Vela NOx white move. So if we lose a life in the future due to not having a bulletproof vehicle, we can say we lost a life because of the Vela NOx white move. I feel sorry. We are so misrepresented in this city. Thank you for letting my opinion be heard.
Speaker 1: Next commenter is Paul Foreman.
Speaker 3: I strongly oppose those who call for an immediate for defunding of the police or an immediate large budget reduction. We clearly need to reallocate funding to other agencies for services that can be performed without police intervention. But until we go through the process of determining what service is to transfer the cost thereof and the funding necessary to provide for police response to serious crime, we cannot strip them of their current funding. To do an immediate, full or partial defunding at this time would place the entire community at risk. Council has acted prudently in temporarily freezing the hiring of new police officers until we work through the allocation process.
Speaker 0: And do we have more?
Speaker 1: Um, yes. I'm sorry. There were two mentors. April Madison.
Speaker 3: I am concerned that Councilmember Ortiz seems more concerned about accusing the police of being racist than he is about the conduct of the police department. The issue of systemic racism within the Alameda Police Department is the concern we are here to address. To be sure, there is work to do in our larger society. But the reality is that only the police department has a badge, a gun, and apparently a license to kill. Let's start.
Speaker 1: There. Next commenter is Tiffany Jackson.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Tiffany Jackson. And for several council meetings I have listened to teens recite lines from the latest season of Netflix's 13 Reasons Why, in some cases verbatim, as to why police officers make them feel a particular way. Adults who recount, embellished, inaccurate or one sided stories of something they saw online as to why APD is not needed or why they are so bad. But as a black woman, I feel nothing but respect and safety from our APD, a resident for over 35 years, I have been pulled over once, one time not for being black , but because I was pushing 55 down McCartney. The officer was polite, unthreatening, and I even learned about his favorite baseball team. Alameda is in the heart of the bay, surrounded by San Francisco with 55,000 reported crimes last year. Oakland with 28,000 reports. Berkeley 6000. San Leandro 4000. Hayward 5000. And Richmond 12,000. Despite all of our surrounding city's crime rates, Alameda has been blessed with 2300 reports. This is not by luck, but because of the work our PD has put in. Livermore has 90,000 residents and 90 police officers with only 1800 crimes reported. They have more residents, more officers and less crime. And yet we are trying to take away the lifeline to our safety. Black lives do matter. Having a fair judicial system is absolutely necessary. Racism on this island is not OC, and I applauded APD for taking self-initiated steps in addressing these matters. They removed officers from schools before anyone asked, addressed policies to enhance safety on the street, and even tried to have officers respond to criminal matters to address the Karen calls and minimize non-criminal contact. But council told them they must must continue business as normal and even imposed a hiring freeze. Council two of you in particular. With all due respect, you have no experience in public safety and you are putting our island and the lives of people of color in jeopardy. Despite all.
Speaker 1: Next commenter is received from an anonymous text.
Speaker 2: Hmm.
Speaker 3: Hello, counsel. I have a few follow up questions and new inquiries about the way we're handling our system of policing in Alameda. One Why have you delayed a response to the list of demands written and publicized by the youth activist group in regards to Amara Watkins arrest and our path to police abolition? Two Mayor Ashcraft has shared her comments regarding the hate crimes that took place in Alameda recently targeting and vandalizing the only black family on their block. I understand that APD will investigate this as a hate crime. However, knowing that your police officers wear blue lives matter facemasks, how do we know that the investigation will be thorough and non-biased? Three. Upon revising and redistributing Alameda Police's budget. How will you ensure that you listen to black, indigenous and other people of color about where the funds are directed? How do you guarantee your city that black residents, families and youth are safe in Alameda? Four. Why has the City Council and Alameda Police Department not yet issued a public statement regarding the militarization and brutality present in neighboring police forces such as S.F. PD or Oakland Police Department, as they terrorize protesters, particularly black and brown protesters. What are you so afraid of? Your silence shows that Alameda can sense to the police officers responsible for violent injuries, sometimes deaths of protesters. I expect you all to speak out now. You represent us and you need to use your privilege for good. When I serve on a city council, if you choose not to care about the lives of black residents.
Speaker 1: Next commenter is Melissa Scott.
Speaker 3: Melissa Scott I am sharing a link here from the Web site showing up for racial justice or that outlines how white supremacy manifests in organizational culture. This page outlines common problematic characteristics and dynamics that emerge in particularly white led institutions, as well as constructive actions to take in order to change organizational culture. I call on the City Council to thoroughly read this piece and take into consideration its suggestions when making institutional reforms.
Speaker 1: Next commenter is Anthony Russell.
Speaker 3: Dear Council members, I am writing to express my support of the police and distress over recent proposals to defund and alter the current leadership structure. I understand that what you may want is a fair and just system, but I fear that the policies you are enacting are rooted in ignorance, fear and lack historical foresight. The national debate over defunding the police has ideological and philosophical connections to Marx, as a man, historically, has been the first step in fascist regimes. For those who think this claim is alarmist, please look up Hitler's rise to power in Nazi Germany. The first step the Nazi Party took was the defund the police and install a community operated platform, much similar to what this council is proposing. Secondly, what our police need is more support and funding from this council, not less. Our police force is already understaffed and underrepresented in this community. Serving our community takes a team skilled professionals. If the goal is to have a quality police force, then vacancies must be felt over time shortened, leave taken, and training improved. All of these require more funding and more candidates, not less. Please look into these issues and educate yourselves on the actual problems. I assure you it won't be a problem of too many police officers.
Speaker 1: Next commenter Carlos Williams.
Speaker 3: Morris Morales Dear Alameda City Council and Mayor. Police budgets grow because the prison industrial complex grows. As long as we have prisons, then police will feed demand for prison labor by arresting predominantly black people and also poor people because their society has attached to profit motive to jailing. We must decrease contact between oppressed people and police in order to make a meaningful change. Police are looking for people to arrest. They will always target the most vulnerable in our society because we measure their effectiveness and how many arrests they make. That metric is commonly mistaken for how many crimes they've prevented. When we say police violence is systemic. That is to say that violent targeting of oppressed people is built into the institution of policing. Body cameras will not help. Banning chokeholds will not help. There are many jokes and officers will learn new ones. What will help is policy that diminishes policing. And if we're going to do that, we might as well cut the budget as well. By the way, where is the police chief tonight? Did he get sick of us? Also, for the police dispatchers who repeatedly call in and try to trivialize this issue by individualizing the crimes of officers. This is an institutional problem. It doesn't matter if a cop is a good person because the badge turns them into an oppressor.
Speaker 0: Next concert be before before the next come in is ready just for the listening public that might not be aware. Police Chief Popolare has been present at this meeting since it started at 530. Thank you. And go ahead, Ms.. Quittin.
Speaker 1: The next commenter is anonymous.
Speaker 3: If you honestly believe that defunding the police is going to make us a safer community, then we deserve what comes next. We deserve the consequences of a 50% deduction of funds to our police department. This will not make us a safer community. I implore everyone in this community to do a ride along with our police officers to see what a day is really like in their shoes, to see what each interaction is really like.
Speaker 1: Next commenter is Debra mendoza.
Speaker 3: Tonight, I would like to address the mayor and council. I would like the council to make an amendment to the city charter and create a citizen led oversight committee. And two members represent system impact at people appointed by the council, not the mayor. I am concerned that the plan presented by Vela and NOx White will have no power. We need oversight and power with accountability, not suggestions or recommendations that will not be followed ultimately. Lastly, what are you going to do with the $150,000 that was earmarked for the 4th of July parade? I would suggest you distribute that money to the black residents of Alameda as a beginning gesture and action towards reparations.
Speaker 1: Next commenter is Zack BOLLING.
Speaker 3: Hello, members of the council, thank you for quickly bringing this issue forward. Most of you know where I stand and my issues with the current Alameda police policy and some of the reforms I think we need to make from my past emails and discussions with many of you to speak quickly on the steering committee plan. I think the plan put forward by John Knox White and Malia Vella is a good starting point. One point I am concerned with is the need to give every council member a subcommittee in this plan. I understand it's structured this way to give each member a chance to contribute, given Brown Act issues, but the layering may be adding a bit of excess complexity. I would ask. We are on the side of moving quickly by reducing some of the complexity the five subcommittees create, given a great amount of overlap with the topics to be discussed. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Next commenter is Roland Wing.
Speaker 3: Roland Wing is being Asian a person of color. Alameda resident for over 30 years. One on June 8th, 2020. I was offended by what Vice Mayor Knox White said. I was appalled to see that body camera footage released on Friday. Police wasn't fully transparent about what initially happened. In my opinion, Mollie escalated the situation by not listening to the police and resisting. He was in violation of a pedestrian being in a bike lane. 21,966 CVC 21,955 PED not in a crosswalk and 21,950 bcbc ped leaving the curb too. I would like to keep our armored vehicle because it's a depreciating asset. If you get rid of it, the city will never make the budget to purchase one one needed. If there is a citizen hurt, I needed to be rescued. This would be a life saving tool for the police. It would also be invaluable for protecting our police in an active shooter situation. Three mental health cases are not arrest. It's a detainment called a 5150 when I possible up to 72 hours or longer if necessary. Four. How does anyone on the city council or government criticize police for their use of force protocols without the training? Until you go hands on with a resistor, I don't really think you could experience how difficult it is to arrest a resistor without using more force to overcome the resistance of a resistor. Governor Newsom was correct in banning the chokehold. However, he should not have taken away the carotid restraint, which is a very useful tool to be used with resistors to minimize injury to both parties, suspect and police. Five. I think the police in Alameda do an excellent professional job given the resources that they have. Six. I request that you do not defund the police. There are certain training requirements by the CIA. Post Police Officers Standards training. Seven. I think the police would be open to the idea of having the city assign professional social workers for mental health and homeless issues. Is this what unbundling services mean? If not, what does it.
Speaker 1: That is time. And that was our last submitted written comment.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much for and so council and audience we have now been here to sell it ours and listen to lots of comments I'm going to call a 15 minute break and so it is almost 730. So I will say that we will return here at 745. So see you back here. 745 everyone. Thank you. And you probably want to mute your microphones for your and maybe close your cameras while you're away. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Q okay. Going live now.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Hello, everyone, and welcome back to this special city council meeting. This is Monday, June the 29th, 2020. And we are here to, um, uh, to continue the discussion we began in a previous special meeting about developing a work plan, including community dialog, to address a number of items. And we've heard from many public speakers. Um, the. I, um. So, um, I want to first suggest that counsel make a motion that we've done before when we've discussed substantive, substantive matters, which is to waive our nine minute speaking time. Because I think sometimes the things we need to discuss at these times cannot be contained in nine minute segments. I see. Okay. Um, counselor, I just made the motion. I see. Vice mayor, not content or piece. Um, and so then maybe we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Jason.
Speaker 0: Can't decide.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Sorry.
Speaker 0: Yes, I think you did. I thought you. Yes.
Speaker 1: Council member Vella. By Council member OTI.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Vice Mayor Knox White.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Mayor SC Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: Hi. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. So we will begin. And of course, we are respectful of the time and we have lots to a lot to address tonight. I am just going to start out with a few brief thoughts and I've thought a lot about this topic since the last time we met. This process, all of the topics that are before us tonight is about finding solutions to serious long standing issues in our community. The process should not be about further dividing our community or increasing mistrust. We need to direct all of our energies to achieving these important objectives. I feel that it's important to know what problems we are trying to solve, and I'd like to see a discussion of that this evening, because I believe you always need to start with the end in mind. If we don't know what the different problems are we are trying to solve or address and we won't be as successful in the outcomes and we want to look at the the most effective ways to accomplish our goals. There is something. There are a lot of topics and I'll I'll touch on each of them when I speak, which will be when I've listened to all of you. But I've thought a lot about the topic of systemic racism. That was among the topics brought to us by the Vice Mayor and Council member. Vela And systemic racism is is a topic we hear a lot, especially now. It's very appropriate that we're discussing this in. But what do we mean when we say systemic racism? One definition or discussion point that I saw was from Derek Johnson, who's the president of the NAACP, who defines systemic racism or structural racism or institutional racism as systems or structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantage African Americans. And this can include schools. It does include schools, workplaces, the court systems, police departments, housing policies, medical care, medical system and more. I believe it's extremely important to just to address systemic racism, but I think we all would also acknowledge that racism exists outside of our institutions in the community. And while we may not be able to, to legislate to address some, uh, racism that occurs in the community or all racism that occurs in the community, I feel that it's something that needs to be a part of the discussion. So I'd like you to keep that in mind, and then I'm just going to raise something that is of concern to me because I believe that this is such an important topic. These topics taken together are so important that we need the input from all five of the city council members. We we work as a team on this and we will do our best work if we work together. So I was somewhat taken aback when two council members, my colleagues, the Vice Mayor and council member Vela, came to us with a proposal ready made and presented it to us for a vote and the way we voted to to move forward. And and with this as a framework, I always like a discussion that actually is a little more organic and starts with us all starting at the same place rather than going from something that was brought to us. Um, I also am mindful of transparency and bringing the public along. And so, you know, an occasional statement to be included is, is probably fine. And I will always defer to the city attorney's office on this. But I was concerned or a little confused, I should say, when I heard a number of speakers refer to the vice mayor's proposal and the vice mayor's proposal. And I, I take notes on everything people say, at least until my iPod freezes. But it was pretty good. And there was detail that was shared about the vice mayor's proposal. And I was scratching my head metaphorically because that wasn't included in the the proposal that the vice mayor and Councilman Ravello brought to us at the last meeting. It certainly was in the staff report, so it wasn't out there for the public. What I did realize when I did a little searching on our break is that it was opposed. From the vice mayor's Facebook page, I think maybe on Saturday of this or maybe even yesterday or on the weekend, and it's a rather detailed outline. I was seeing it for the first time, and I would imagine there's a lot of people that haven't seen it. And I'm just concerned because I really envision this as an opportunity for all of us to sit down, to listen to staff and some suggestions they have, because after all, it is staff who's going to do a lot of this work, but we're going to direct them. And I was anticipating that we were all coming at this. Starting fresh today. I know we've all been thinking about these topics since we last met, but I I'm just I'm concerned. I'm a little thrown off. And I, I would have preferred that say the proposals the suggested for part of this staff report or an attachment that we could all be on the same page. Um, and, you know, I've referenced your, um, your proposal, which unfortunately I'm reading on my little bitty phone screen and I'm, I'm having a hard time enlarging it enough to really get a sense of it. But, um. Vice Mayor, help me out here. How can we how can we, how can we, um, how can we have a full and, um, participatory discussion?
Speaker 2: Sure. So, you know, it was not my intent to, uh, to drop this and say, I want you to support this. But I, you know, as you know, I like to get a lot of community input on things. So, uh, working along with Councilmember Vela as a, as a partner, we started thinking about what would one way for us to go forward look like, what would be important in that? How would we design it? How would make sure that it was, you know, kind of fair, that it centered black voices, that it centered youth voices , that it really brought to the table people and members of our community who are not often led. And so yeah, I posted it on Facebook and ask people for their feedback. Um, I didn't encourage. No, I'm sorry if I could. Okay.
Speaker 0: I was going to ask if you could share it with us so we could be looking at it in real terms.
Speaker 2: Like to send it to the council. The city clerk has a copy of it. I did send it because at some point after we had all had a chance to speak, I was going to say, Hey, I've been thinking about this and here is one way we can go forward for consideration. The reason you haven't seen it is because I wanted to make sure that there was space for everybody to have their say before we started diving into something that has bullet points, etc. So while it's true I was way I probably should have, but I wasn't expecting people to say I support a specific proposal. What I would say is I think that, you know, try to find something that outlined what the way I think would be a way for us to consider going. If you'd like, I'd be happy to talk about actually my thoughts instead of defending why I thought engaging the community before the meeting was a worthwhile thing.
Speaker 0: So I want to hear your thoughts first, Mayor. And I also believe in engaging the community. My concern is simply that it's a limited community, although maybe you shared it other than with people who might follow you on Facebook. But I want to have I want to have a full and robust discussion. And I want to hear yours and Councilmember Vella's thoughts. But I also want to hear my other colleagues and also from from staff. This is going to definitely be a team effort. That's okay. So should we wait a moment until or maybe has it been sent to us?
Speaker 2: I see it in the email now, which is popped up on my screen.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um, as the council member already has his hand up.
Speaker 2: Next question, Madam Mayor, since I think you suggested this, it might be wise to first, in my opinion, to hear your thoughts before we get into a specific plan of action. Because when I glanced at that proposal and it has a couple of things I wanted to chat about it, I really haven't thought about it in depth . So yeah, that was that was that was my idea actually, that we would not talk about a specific proposal, but actually I'll talk about what our, what we had to say.
Speaker 0: Okay. Hi. Um, that sounds good. So, um. So shall we start with you? Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay. Sure. So I thank you. I appreciate your comments of of being includes what's the word inclusionary for all of our council members. And I think I mean some of this may be. Repetitive to folks. But no, our job as the city council, as the elected representatives of our 80,000 residents, give or take, is to set policy. You know, our city manager's job is to take that policy direction and implemented. And those who work for him, you know, report up to him. So if I can just ask staff a couple of questions before I get into my comments. So there was an allegation that, uh, uh, our officers were wearing blue lives matter face masks. Is that true? Can somebody answer that?
Speaker 0: Who wants to take that that question? Just go ahead and unmute yourself. Uh. I see. City Manager Levitt.
Speaker 2: Sure. I'll answer it. Although I can't answer it. Well, I'm not aware of it, but I was going to check on that tomorrow. At this point, the chief might have better information on it. I heard it for the first time tonight as well as you did. Okay.
Speaker 0: As I did. I, um.
Speaker 2: And I guess I'm sorry if that's true. Do you really think that that's conducive to us all coming together and working together? Because we heard pretty divergent views today. Maybe. Mr. City Manager. I do. I understand how some people have taken that. And so that's why it's going to look into it tomorrow. And then there was a lot of talk that a lot of commentary in the public comment about the fate of the officers involved with Mr. Watkins. I mean, can you kind of update us on what you can say and what you can't say and what we can say and what we can't say? And, you know, if if hypothetically, we told you today we wanted you to fire these guys. That's against the charter, right? I mean, we can't do that.
Speaker 0: And so you're this is a question either for I am you know, whichever of these two city managers would like to answer, please do that. Or the city attorney for the sake of the audience listening. And I appreciate that, um, Councilmember Rudy is going back on some of these points that were raised because as I stated earlier , public comment is just that it is not question and answer and I did on a couple of occasions clarify something in real time, but I see the city attorney unmuted. So, um. Mr. Chan, please.
Speaker 2: Yes, Madam Mayor. Members of the Council, I'm happy to clarify for the members of the public. The first question Councilmember City inquired about was could council members ask the city manager or the police chief to take any kind of disciplinary or terminating action against any of the officers? No, that would be a violation of the charter. Councilmember Ody also asked what, if any, information could be made public and very, very little state law makes clear that any information related to an investigation of a police officer are considered confidential peace officer files. And so therefore, the city could not invite, for example, public participation in the interview and office of the Officer, or allow the public to review any investigators findings or conclusions about the officer. And the city could confirm the employment status of the officer when asked. So, for example, the city could say, officer, you know, Joe is employed with the city of Alameda or as a state officer Joe is not. The amount of information that could be shared is quite limited.
Speaker 0: Okay, Mr. Shinn.
Speaker 2: And then correct me if I'm wrong, because I read our our contract with our our police union that's not contained in the state law. The police officer civil rights, not in our our our contract. That's right. That is covered by state law, but the council does not. The confidentiality provisions are all covered by state law. So the council would not have the ability to either adopt ordinances or contracts to change those confidentiality provisions. Okay. So I just want to make clear that, you know, there's a lot of people that are asking, you know, as to make statements this way or that way and, you know, call for this this type of action or other type of action. And, you know, we're not doing it because we're being idle or being incompetent or we're being ignorant of the public's outcry. We're doing it because this is what the state law guarantees for these officers, whether you agree with it or not, you know, that's up to you to talk to your state representatives about. And as far as the investigation process is going, I mean, there's a limited amount of things that we could say, except that there's one that is going to be initiated or is initiated or whatever, whatever stage it is in. So I want people to just you know, they're now kind of transitioned to my my thoughts. I mean, this is like coming up on six years here and. I don't think I've had an issue that has been so emotional and so raw, and there's just such a dichotomy of viewpoints on one side or the other. Ranch was kind of that way, but I don't remember it being this vitriolic and some of the words that are being used. And, you know, I'm used to being called a lot of stuff. You know, we we kind of let it roll off our backs. But, you know, I think we've been called, um, you know, insensitive, racist, reactionary, too slow, corrupt, um, you know, complicit, you know, all, you know, a wide gamut of things and you know, the cannot be true. Um, but what was missing from the conversation, which was disappointing to me, was, except for maybe a few people, I think . Mr. Sondland and, you know, maybe Mr. Forman kind of had a little more of a moderating, um, comments, but, you know, it was either an, either or. And, you know, policymaking is not an either or. And you know, I the first to admit, you know, I have never walked in the shoes of a African American teenager who , you know, was walking to his car or walking to school and, you know, worries or his mother worries whether he's going to come home alive that night. You know, one of my first experiences here in Alameda when I got involved with the Democratic side is Tony. You remember Wilbert Wilbert Crane. You know, he was one of the officers and he was an FBI agent, lived on the West End. And, you know, I drove him home one day and he just talked to me about how he'd even get routinely stopped from the police walking from his car parked on the street in his apartment building. And this is an FBI agent. So, you know, I don't know if that makes him any special or any any better than anyone else. But, you know, there seemed to be 20 years ago, law enforcement didn't even know who other law enforcement was living in their town. So. And, you know, I'll I'll never know the experience of, you know, a Central American immigrant that has a tail light out and, you know, worries about getting pulled over and, you know, could be deported because their tail light is burned out. You know, I do know what it's like to walk down the street with the person you love and worry about getting your head bashed in. But, you know, I don't think that that's, um, anywhere near what what some of our young African-American youth, um, experience. But, you know, there is somebody who I think is that has known those experiences and that and experiences of being an elected official. And she was actually one of my new heroes since she was elected mayor of Chicago. And that's Lori Lightfoot, woman of color, progressive LGBT community member. And, you know, she basically said last week, and I know the mayor quoted somebody, so I'm going and I'll quote somebody, um, she says, Defund the police. It's a nice hashtag, but it ignores how reform works and it hurts the diversity of the force. And, you know, I'm not going to make policy by hashtag. You know, I'm just not going to do that. And, you know, whether it's, you know, defund the police or abolish the police or, you know, cut 50% or, you know, any of this stuff, you know, it's just it's just not the best way to make policy. Know it sounds good when you write about it, you know, but you know, it is it's not it's not going to work. And then, you know, Mayor Lightfoot went on and she talked about how if you literally defund the police, it puts the newer recruits the city needs at risk because they lack seniority. So what you have is the most young, the most diverse, the most well trained officers. No offense to those in our force who have been here many years, but I think you'll agree, if you look at the hiring, that we have done a good job or at least a better job than we have in the past of of adding diversity. And, you know, with that diversity comes better training. And then you lose that if you just say a 2% cut or whatever. But she did say and this is what I completely agree with, the status quo has failed. So, um, you know, that's not an indictment. That's not to say that every single police officer in the country is a racist. That's not to say that every police officer in Alameda is is a racist. I have not met one, but I know other people in town have had experiences. Like I said, I can't live with I mean, I can't understand or walk in their shoes. But I think we have to be cognizant of that. And then, you know, Mayor likes it also talked about, um, um. You know, you can't just snap your fingers and make these changes. She says. And this is what I think we need to do here. And the vice mayor's idea and others, I think, are going to help with that. We're talking about building authentic, authentic, lasting relationships. And in some instances you're starting to see some partnership. In some other instances, you're starting with nothing. That's hard work, but it's necessary work, and we've got to take that time that is necessary to build those relationships. So to me, what that means is everyone that spoke today and everyone else and this council, we have to put in the time and the hard work to kind of build partnerships. And you start, in my opinion, doing that with having a little empathy and trying to understand, you know, what it's like to be in the other person's shoes. That's why Keesha invited me to sit in on this batch and, you know, to see that people are calling the police because their kids are doing their chores . And I think there's a there's a numbers on that. And to hear, you know, that it's, you know, there's an animal problem or eggshells. And, you know, it's just we've asked a lot of our police departments. So the onus is on changing. It has to be on us. So I do want to talk a little bit. So I think that empathy is important. And, you know, people may look at us council members and say, oh, you know, their elected officials, they're really not people. They're like names on a wall or their pictures on a wall. They're people that sit on the dais. But you know what? You know, we're everyday human beings. You know, I see the mayor walking with her husband, you know, every couple of days around the neighborhood. I see the vice mayor riding his bike. You know, I see Councilmember Bella with her baby going around town. You know, I see Councilmember Desai sitting out of the of the maybe not now, but before at the farmer's market in front of his house. And people think we have no emotion, but it's not true. You know, we're real people. And the same goes for, you know, just because somebody puts on a blue uniform and wears a badge that doesn't make them a robot. It doesn't make them a totally unfeeling human being. You know, we have, you know, officers that are are very diverse. I mean, when I was with Keisha, she showed me the list of the names. You know, there's names on there that, you know, are not your basic white American names. So and, you know, we have they have families who are interracial families. And I think we have to put ourselves in those shoes before we start hating on them. Are there bad cops in the country? Yes, other racist cops in the country, yes. But you know, does that mean we have to paint a broad brush on every single police officer that works in the city of Alameda? I don't think so. And does that mean we have to paint a broad brush on every single councilmember that, you know, work hard every day to make sure we we keep Alameda a great place to live? I don't think so. But, you know, on the flip side, you know, our officers, I think, need to do a better job of of empathizing with what it means to be a young African-American child. You know what it means to see when you've been traumatized by police, you know? But she talked about his seven year old experience. You know, if that had happened two or three times and that individual child, whether it's received or someone else, sees a police officer in their school every day in school uniform, you know, that's trauma and that's terror to them. And we have to understand that and we have to empathize with that. And, you know, that's why I think it's important that we when we think about community policing and we think about cops in schools, you know, that that we we think about, you know, that person's frame of reference. So cross empathy, I think, is super important. And that has to.
Speaker 0: Be.
Speaker 2: In my opinion, a willingness to change. So, I mean, if you're responding to a call with a Blue Lives Matter mask and it's a it's a hate crime where somebody put a alarm on African-American person's car, that to me does not indicate that there's a willingness to change culture. You know, some of the emails I got today from employees of the city that were criticizing the council took in your pocket, take any criticism. But what it showed me was there's a culture that's resistant, and I know that everyone is is that way, because I've talked to a few police officers. I met with many of them last Thursday when I spent the morning there. And they want to be part of the solution. They don't want to be painted with the broad brush. They want to be at the table. They want to be proud of their department. They want to be proud of their city, and they want to be proud to wear the badge and they want their city to be proud of them. So I just want to, you know, two last things before I give get off my soapbox. You know, it's just ironic that there's. So people that want to talk about race and how ugly it is and it is, but then they use the word Karen calls. And, you know, a lot of women don't like that. It's misogynistic. So I think we need to be careful about the words we choose. And if you want to say a fragile white person, be my guest. Go ahead. But you need to understand that, you know, Karen is offensive to a lot of women. And I think we need to worry about that lasting, you know, systemic. This is why I brought this up, because there's a lot of systemic race issues in this country, in this city. You know, look at our schools. My kids were at Bay Farm. We raised $64,000 for the PTA. But yet Peyton, you know, barely scratched 10% of that. And nobody on the Bay Farm side wanted to share their PTA money with those people. And Peyton and I'm not on the school board. I'm on the PTA. But something seems wrong there. You know, we have new schools on one side of town, and we had crumbling schools years ago. On the other side of town. You know, we have constant battles over taking care of homeless and ballot initiatives to fight, helping out the homeless. And the battle cry that we hear is, well, we don't want homeless people from Oakland coming into Alameda. Well, sorry, stopped with a dog whistle. We all know what that means. Okay. So these are this is an ingrained city thing that these attitudes need to change. You know, we have zoning issues. Now. We're going to have this discussion next week. I'm not going to talk too much about it, but we have something in our charter, whether it had a racial intent or not. It sure as hell has a racial impact. And, you know, those are things like statues of Robert de Lee that need to start coming down. We had restrictive covenants. You know, I bought a house with my spouse here in Alameda. We couldn't have done that in France like 50 years ago because he's Asian. Mr. Chen is here. He couldn't have bought a house here in Alameda 50 years ago. And for inside that, there's still people that think that way. You know, we have other departments that, you know, I don't think there's racism there. But let's look at public works. Let's look at parks. You know, we have a transportation system that values wealthy people driving cars and not public transit. That helps those that can't afford cars to get to and from their jobs, which we make them cheap during the pandemic and don't even want to give them protection. And then I you even get into it because it's not our jurisdiction, but the entire criminal justice system outside the police department. You know, we wouldn't even get into that because we all know that that needs a lot of reform. So I think I've said enough. Yeah. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Odie, who would like to go next. Um. Okay. Councilmember Desai, I. She is being forward.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sure. I'd be happy to. Um. Well, thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Person. See any other hands up? That's first and.
Speaker 2: Foremost. Just want to say thank you very much to all the residents who had emailed us and participated in this evening's, um, uh, meeting, uh, directly or also indirectly through emailing our city clerk. Um, I think this is an indication that, you know, of democracy clearly at work. Um, I just want to, uh, start off by talking further about the experiences that I have had with the Alameda Police Force. I think the last time we met, I spoke about having grown up and, and having known as a youth of a, of the police forces, at least individual members involvement in in various parts of of of Alameda, whether as coaches of the football team, the Porter team or me directly. Having met officer bonded on the way back in 1984 when he was a member not only of the police department but also a member of the Veterans American Legion. Of course, unfortunately, the officer bonded on a passed away many years ago. Um, but I think more than the, my experience of growing up with the Alameda police force and getting to know them and be involved with them through different strands of our of our community as a youth, first and foremost, the police department is here because they serve they serve the residents. You know, we remember that old line on Adam 12 on on the car. To protect and to serve. And so let me tell you a story about March 2016 when I was on city council at that time in March of 2016. On a Wednesday night, I went over to my significant other, Carrie. She, by the way, provides all the flowers you see behind me. So I went to Carrie's place on Wednesday night because I need to move her car because Thursday is a street cleaning day and she was away in Arizona. And so this was on a Wednesday night. I go into her house over there on the in the Broadway area. And as I go there, I enter in the house. One of the things I notice is why are all the drawers open in the kitchen? And I'm going because she's not around open drawers and no one's around open drawers. And I'm looking further around in the first floor and I'm and I'm realizing, oh, my goodness, there was a break in. It had just occurred. And I call Carrie and say, you know, I think there was a break in. And then I go ahead and call the police department. And as I'm calling the Alameda Police Department, I could have sworn I kind of heard something upstairs. At which point, you know, I left the house, the front door, as I was leaving the house from the front door. So there were already two separate police cars there, one on one end coming in from one end of Broadway and the other one coming on the other. And as I was, you know, kind of told the situation and by the way, I didn't tell people, oh, I'm Tony Harris or city council member. I don't think they knew. I don't think they cared, although I believe I saw off as America there. So. So she might have known me. Um, but the thing that I. That I was impressed by was, you know, within minutes of standing outside, you know, policemen suddenly lined up and they went into the house with their guns drawn and they went in. And a group, you know, I don't know what the technique of police is, but I was kind of amazed the fact that, you know, on a moment's notice, these men and women, they put their lives at risk in order to protect and serve all of us. And I will never forget that. I will never forget how on a moment's notice those guys just went and they didn't ask, you know, should we wait? You know, they went in and apparently the there was a someone who did go in. And our thinking was that when I was in the house that indeed the person was upstairs because lo and behold, upstairs we found a cash, a wad of cash on the floor, which meant that, you know, he heard someone. A man. And then so he screamed whoever that was. So I just want to recount that story with regard to my personal interaction with our police force in a time of emergency and crisis. And I think it's not because, you know, as a council member at the time March 2016, I don't think they knew me, but they just go in there and they put their lives on the line. Now we can recount these stories of heroism by the men and women in blue. But as, uh, Rasheed Shabazz had earlier said, that we also have to face up to what had happened in the past. So when I look at reforming the police, you know, I see this as an opportunity to institutionalize new ways of doing things in light of what happened in 1991, but as well as what happened in just recently in May 23rd. And and so I look forward to this conversation of improving our Alameda police force. And it is my opinion that in improving the way in which we deliver our service, it is my opinion that there is that there is no need to to frame this discussion in a rhetoric from which there is no you know, there is no reconciliation. There is no middle ground. Um, when I look at the Alameda police force know, I look at people who are going to put their lives on the line for you at a time of emergency. And you also look at a police force that has always been there as a vital part of our social fabric, whether it has coaches of a Pop Warner football team or coaches of the baseball teams or or persons who are there as a member of the whether they're members of Rotary Clubs or members of the American Legion. So that is the lens with which I see the police force. But that doesn't stop me from from from realizing that, yes, we should seize this opportunity to improve our police force here in Alameda. So let me talk about the ways that I want to change the police force. But when I talk about the ways that I want to change the police force, also, let me be clear to the residents of Alameda about. What I am for and what I am not for. So in terms of the latter, I clearly I am not in favor of a 50% defunding of the police department. Earlier, I had indicated that I wasn't in favor of 40% defunding of the police department. So and my sense is that this is a city council that won't defund the police department by 50%. But that is not to say, though, that this is a city council that won't look at ways to generate some efficiencies, to provide the new level and types of services that we think is needed. So that's what I'm not in favor of. I'm not in favor of defunding the police by 50%. Let me also talk about one other thing that I'm not in favor of. And this might not be a popular position because as I counted, I think 97% of the vote of the persons who spoke on the subject matters that do away with the armored vehicle. Well, you know, I.
Speaker 0: I asked.
Speaker 2: The city clerk if she can show some pictures of the armor of our armored vehicle. If we can just if you can indulge me just for 10 seconds, if we can look at those pictures, that'd be great. Is a.
Speaker 0: City clerk able to put that on.
Speaker 2: Right now? I think there are two or three. Okay, great.
Speaker 1: So we'll share the screen.
Speaker 2: All right. This is the inside of the armored vehicle. It almost looks like Kari's Honda SUV, a Honda van. So another picture. And one more.
Speaker 0: Are we seeing different pictures? It just looks like the inside console.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is the inside console. Um, and if there's another picture, I think there's two more. Is the other one up? I don't see. Oh, here we go. Oops. This is the armor. And this is the inside of. So it's basically kind of the seats that you see inside the armored vehicle. This is another one. Great. So you can kind of see how it looks like. So it's basically a transport material vehicle and this is the armored vehicle from the outside. So I think we all agree it's certainly not a tank, but to me it seems like it could provide a useful service in time of an emergency. So I would encourage my colleagues on the city council to reconsider doing away with this armored vehicle, because I think the chief of police is right. Or even the even the Officer Horvath is right. Is that in times of emergency, this is a type of civilian vehicle that you might need. Okay, that's enough about the armored vehicle. I know that's not a popular position because I do agree with all of you that that we need to not militarize our police and that that does appear to be a national trend to militarized the police. Because when you look at the police as a military or paramilitary force, the lens with which they do their job is looking at this basically shoot to kill. And that's not the lens with which we want our police to operate. The lens which we want our police to operate is as a civilian force whose job is to protect and to serve. Okay. So let me talk about what I am for. So let me close by talking. There are three things that I like that's on the staff report. I certainly like unbundling services currently delivered by the police force. My only problem with that is it's a little too amorphous in my opinion. I think we should just be more direct and say something like, you know, going after some kind of service, sort of like the cahoots that mayor, as he Ashcroft had, I believe, is in Eugene, Oregon. The summary, if you look at on the website, say cahoots. Eugene, Oregon, is just that seems to be the answer that we're all looking for in terms of changing the way in which our police force might deal with mental health issues. And so and budget budget wise, it seems as though we can scale it to the size of the city of Alameda and it seems like something can work. The second thing I do want to work on is systemic racism, but I want to come back to number two in the staff report. Systemic racism stands as an isolated item. But to me, in and of itself, it's like, you know, systemic racism, whatever. I took classes with Professor Litvack and all the other professors at Cal about race relations. So systematic. No, no. I think the power of dealing with the systemic racism occurs when we we now see that with item number four, police department accountability and oversight. So I am of the opinion that if we are going to pursue a police commission or police advisory board, that we need to be upfront and say one of the reasons why we're creating this is because we want to deal with longstanding issues of race that had been a part of our police force. For example, looking back in 1991, whether a May 23rd is as part of that longstanding history. It is nonetheless, an issue that that that that that forces us to take action along with what's been going on in Minneapolis recently. But but it has always been going on across the United States. So I would want to marry systemic racism along with police accountability and oversight. Again, in my particular take on this is to have a commission or advisory board or whatever. I'm open to hearing what Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember Vella have to say, but making sure that that they understand that there is an intentional lens with regard to dealing with issues of race. But what does that mean in terms of practice and programs? Well, I don't know. Maybe it means that you strengthen our policies and our manual with regard to training, with regard to racial profiling. I mean, so that might be one particular task that would come out of a police commission with an intentional lens of looking at systemic racism and solving that within our institution. And the third item that I do want to look at is reviewing police department policies and practices. You know, my my I raised two things previously, and I will continue to push them. One is looking at how we deal with crowd control issues, largely because that's what I'm hearing from Facebook, from people who are communicating with me saying tear gas. You know, the thing that I think going on in Oakland is awful and and we need to understand. You know, how are we going to be involved in those kinds of crowd control situations? And what are our policies with regard to use of peer groups or any other kind of. Things like rubber bullets, etc.. So, um, so I certainly would want to move forward on reviewing police policies and practices with regard to crowd control situations. Part of that is also looking at training with regard to racial profiling, etc.. So those are the three things that that that, you know, I want to move forward on concretely when I look at the staff report. Um, uh, I see this whole issue about criminalizing survival. I get that. Um, but I think someone clearly said earlier that, that, you know, that a lot of that is addressed at the state level. Okay. So let me just conclude by saying, you know, I want to thank everybody who have taken part. And the reality is that as a council member and I'm speaking just for myself, we can't we have to try our best to speak the truth as we see it. And sometimes, you know, that might not coincide with with the way that you see the world. But my responsibility to you is as best as possible to articulate what's on my mind and what I think are the best policies for the city of Alameda going forward. And I'm in a unique position in that, you know, I happen to have grown up in the city of Alameda. And as a result, you know, I've been able to see this our police force with a certain lens on that that maybe others don't, you know, maybe others are just so affected by and rightfully so affected by what's been going on nationally, whether it was the George Floyd issue or maybe all the other issues that that had occurred. But and I respect that. But the lens with which I approach this issue is the history that I've had with our police force and our individuals there who had been a vital part of our social fabric and the particular crises in which they responded in such a heroic fashion. And so I hear what you're saying, and I hope that we as a community can move forward around concrete issues that have been put forward. And and I think this is at the end of the day, we're going to come out the better for it . Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember de side for your remarks. Okay. Who wants to go next? Councilmember Val, I see your handout. Until I feel so. You know, I want to just start with kind of addressing the process of speakers. Essentially what we did, in my opinion, was allowed white or non people of color speakers to essentially center themselves in that space by basically saying, you know, I'm going to go ahead and cede my time. And I just which actually ended up taking, I think, more time. So I just in the future, I feel like if we could if we if we want to move forward by saying, you know, we're going to give a particular space or priority to a certain group, I think.
Speaker 2: It's.
Speaker 0: Just clear the hands down and reset. And I don't think it'll take that much time to do that. And then it's not about each person kind of waving the flag of, hey, look, I'm going to go ahead and cede my time. The second thing is, you know, the the I guess this is perhaps a conversation for another time, but the the robotic voices are really hard to follow. And and I guess I also want to understand the and that's just what the inflections are. And what's getting highlighted is sometimes disconcerting. And anyways, I want to put that out there. I also am curious about how how speakers get lined up into that, because some of them seem to be emails from like earlier in the afternoon and then some of them seem to be from 530 or on. It just seems odd to me. And then we had some anonymous text messages that were like seemed to be a continuation of speakers and getting around the time limit as like additional thoughts. So I just anyways, I feel like we need to kind of figure out what that process looks like a little more and perhaps even go back to having somebody read the, the emails because it's just, I don't know if it's just me, but it's, it's very, it's, it's hard to follow for a long period of time when we have a lot of those. I. You know, I want to talk about and I'm glad we've heard from a number of different members of our community. We certainly gotten a lot of emails and.
Speaker 2: Phone.
Speaker 0: Calls messages, but I'm still trying to reply to everybody. I and I'm glad to hear some members of our community and talk about how safe and secure they feel in Alameda. I think it's my goal and the goal of my fellow council members to make sure that that's the experience of everybody in Alameda and not something that occurs at the fact that some members of our community feel safe and secure at the expense of others feeling that way. And so, you know, I want to acknowledge that. And I think it's really important that we hear people when they say they do not feel safe and secure. They do not feel comfortable that they feel unsafe moving around in our community. I think that that is something that we all need to take heed of, listen to process and find a way to respond to. Because I think we can have both. We can move towards a community that really provides safety and security for all. And I know that those are loaded words. We've heard about Secure Communities. That's loaded in a way that I certainly am not aiming towards. But I think part of redefining how our community services are structured is about redefining what those words mean and making sure that there is space for everybody in our community, regardless of race, gender, creed, ethnicity, you know, status, to feel those things. And I think, you know. Yes. Our police or residents are our every city department serves residents. None of our departments are independent, autonomous wings of government. We are all accountable. I like to think I have 80,000 plus bosses. We all do because we represent the community and we are not. We don't represent districts. We don't represent segments of the community. We represent the entire community. And so when there are people that say that they don't feel like they are being served, you know, that concerns me. And I want to think about how we can improve that. And I think that that's a value and a virtue that's shared by my colleagues. You know, we can hear anecdotes about good responses. What I know is that when you have a bad response, the trauma from that is life changing. I'm going to share an anecdote, not because I think that it's part of data or anything like that, and it's not a mark on our department, but I think it's reflective of kind of a bigger thing that that we we need to keep in mind. I am a woman of color. I serve on city council. I was heavily pregnant when several members of APD were called to my house and banged on my door in the middle of the night trying to come in for a mental health call. And they were ready to go. My concern is and they were ready to to come inside. They had been called by somebody who was a criminal stalker, who was literally trying to force out somebody that they had been stalking. It was a woman who called in for somebody that my husband and I are friends with. And she had been doing this to any friend she thought he was staying with. He was a domestic violence victim, and she was doing this to make him feel unsafe wherever she thought he might be seeking refuge. I use this anecdote for several reasons. One, because I think the commentary and the discussion on anti-racism is beyond. And I want to make this very clear. It is beyond the four walls of the police department. Yes, it should be inherently part of our review of policies within LAPD. It also needs to be part of our larger conversation throughout the city, through our hiring processes, through our policies for our practices, through the outcomes that we are seeing in terms of a number of different things. And I think it's beyond just anti-racism. I think it's just the need to have a concerted conversation about that continuum. But I think it's beyond that. It's about diversity in all and not a mayor. I know that. But you have been a stalwart in terms of making sure that there's gender diversity, that there's different types of diversity throughout. And I think that that is also part of that conversation citywide. How do we get a city that is reflective of the diverse community that we have? I also raise the anecdote because there is also a bigger problem of the community and people weaponizing the police force and that experience. And it was it was it was terrifying. It was the middle of the night. People were banging on our door. But the fact that we have community members and people that feel confident and comfortable enough to call in to misused police authority that way. That is also, and I think inherently needs to be part of the overall anti-racism conversation that we have. It's not just about systemic racism, it's about anti-racism. It's about misuse of different different types of governmental or structural or institutional power. So I think that that that's all part of it. I. I also think that this is about. More than just law enforcement. And I want to make it very clear that this conversation, while there will be certain aspects of it that should be law enforcement centered, particularly a review of policing policies that absolutely needs to happen. And I stand by the direction that we unanimously gave as a council to do that. But it's about so much more it's about the overall reimagining of services. And I think if we give this the title and the heading law enforcement, law enforcement reform, we are going to continue to get law enforcement responses. And I think we want to transcend that. We want to move beyond that. We want to think about how do we provide services that are responsive to what people need. Now, that call that was made to my house was for somebody who was supposedly a threat to himself or committing suicide. And that's concerning. I want people that are prepared and ready to handle that. I think we we do not do a service to our officers. We do not do a service to members of the public. When we send a team of armed officers to respond in that scenario, I think we can do better. I know we can do better. We've done better. We certainly have models for that. We know of models for that. I think we have an ability as a city to to shift how we reimagine services. I also want us to focus on the process. I think to me tonight, what I really want to do is I want to talk about what is that end goal that we're trying to get at. I want to think, you know, I think it's very difficult being on council in that we can't because of the Brown Act, we can't deliberate kind of beyond just this meeting . And I want to have a transparent conversation about that. So I kind of want to explain my thought process behind what was put together in the document by the Vice Mayor, at least in terms of goals and objectives. And by the way, I'm not married to what the subcommittees look like or don't look like in terms of these are the five categories. I think that there are five categories of things to talk about. Whether we combine them is a separate issue. I think there will inherently be some overlap that is okay. But I also think that some of these issues require a deep dove. Like I said, beyond APD and require are going to require more than that. So where there may be some overlap, I think it also will be good to have one group focus specifically on one lens of things, and that needs to help inform policy and practices moving forward, going back to the goals and objectives. The other thing I want to put out there is yes, this is that this is I think whenever you talk about racism, systemic racism, anti-racism or power structures, there will be attention. Tension is okay. This is not an either or conversation. Sometimes it's going to be uncomfortable. Madam Mayor, when you had your roundtable, that was one of the points that came up was that tension that existed. We have to acknowledge it. I think sometimes that tension helps lead to a better conversation and a better work product. We need to be deliberative and thoughtful. We also need to create a safe space for people. And and by that, I mean not inviting people to the table who are not usually part of the conversation. By that I mean creating space and letting people lead us. And and sometimes that takes, you know, outlining goals and a process. And so for me, you know, and this is just kind of generally is how are we going to create safety and security for all all people in Alameda? And I think that that schematically is something that we've been talking about. Or general, good welfare. That's really what we're talking about. I want us to spend time and we can talk about steering committees, ad hoc committees, all these different things. I think there are a bigger question who selects these individuals? What is the process for assembling? What type of commitment are we asking from these individuals when we ask them to serve? Madam Chair, you made a fantastic point at the other meeting about states, and it's it's kind of ironic because we're going to have all these special meetings and as council members and I'm going to just put it out there, we don't get paid for all those who think we're making big bucks. We're not getting paid and getting paid for an act for tonight's meeting, and that's fine. But if we're going to go out and ask our members of the public for their time, we need to be thoughtful and inclusive. And that may include stipends to cover things like transportation or childcare or purchasing dinner for the family. Because you don't have time to cook that day because you have, you are going to be a part of a larger conversation. I think the other the other thing is, I think including a variety of voices finding a way to do that in the long term, you know, that that means diversity on a number of different levels . It also means trying to find individuals not just because they have a title next to their name, but trying to find individuals who are members of the community. And I don't care how long they've been members of the community, but that are members of the community that are going to want to be a part of this and that have a unique experience. Who can speak from that perspective. I also you know, I'm also just going to put out there, you know, I feel very strongly that whatever we do, we need to create space in the short term so that we can start working on this, understanding that there is going to be a long and a short term process. And finally, I just want to put out there again and I'm not married to the number of people on it, on the steering committees or committee. I think it's going to be difficult to have too many people because getting everybody to set aside time and have a facilitated, you know, productive conversation with too many voices can be very difficult. But I also don't want to have too few seats that we are not including people. And then I also want to put out there that I think it would be perfectly appropriate for the mayor and to be a part of the overarching process conversation. She is the mayor. And so at least in my kind of vision of this, Madam Chair, you would be part of it if we did have kind of a two person committee to lay out this whole process. I think you should be a part of it. So I would have loved to been able to have this conversation with you and with the vice mayor. We're having it now. That's the purpose of this meeting. But that's at least my thoughts and where I'm coming from. And I think we need to create the process. The people will tell us what they want and within the finer lines, and then we can work with staff and there will certainly be space for staff to weigh in. And I think also part of having ad hoc council members involved or ex-officio members is to kind of remind people of the confines of of both the city charter and what rests within council authority as well as where we might be overreaching or in an area of state law, that sort of thing. So I think, you know, I think that the you know, I'm certainly biased and that I and I support kind of the overall structure of the process laid out that the vice mayor and I put together. But I also think and want to put out there that I really tried to hear my colleagues in terms of the things that you had said that you wanted to include and to include those things. Because I also think that everyone made some really valuable and everybody contributed and made great points. And so I just want it to be a process that we can all stand by so that we can get to an end product that that is going to really be transformative. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Vela, and I appreciate it. I appreciate everyone's comments as far. And before I call on the vice mayor to go next. My preference would be that we all throw out some ideas and suggestions for the way we would like to see this move forward. I, I actually don't want to work from the attachment. I know the assistant city clerk sent it to us, but I'm not a good multitasker and I can't vote to read a document while I'm running a meeting. So I think that's something that can certainly be sent on to staff and we can ask them to factor into the mix and I'll I'll amplify further on my thoughts, but I am going to go last. And so that leads us to Vice Mayor. That's right.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I won't deliver the point, but I will acknowledge being a little taken aback at being called out for talking to the people we represent about ideas. You know, I thought it was great when you called some residents and met with the police chief and had a conversation and learned and heard from the community, etc.. And I think actually all of us have a reason to do that. So while I appreciate that you were surprised to learn that I had talked to people and that they had liked an idea. I'm not going to I don't feel chastised for having engaged my community in doing that. So I will also just quickly point out the confusion. City Manager Levitt, I have forwarded you the email that we received from the Salem police chief. Larry, the mayor and I all received an email. It was about two and a half weeks ago. The chief responded about our officers wearing blue Lives Matter face masks at that time. The chief explained why, you know, it's not really a big deal, but that we now have a policy that says they can't do that. And yeah, I raised that because I was very concerned by the comments of my my colleague, Councilmember Odie, who I consider a friend and I respect. But it was very difficult to listen to nearly 10 minutes of of tone policing, of people of color and them expressing their feelings about their interactions with the police and whatnot, and basically telling them that they need to step back and and accept. And equivocate that everybody's experience is the same. Everybody's experience is not the same. I am very lucky. This white male, middle aged. You know, I am. I try to keep myself centered and remember how entitled and privileged I am. We, you know, I. I just I can't sit here and listen to the idea that, you know, I agree. Our officers, our people, they do a difficult job. I have a lot of respect for them. I have done ride alongs and I have talked about the impact those ride alongs have had on me. I do not discount any of that. But the impact of them hearing the community complain about the racist system that we live in is not equivalent to the impact on people and the speakers that we have heard and the people who are speaking up for the people over here. And I just I have to say that we can move on. I look forward to having many conversations about this because I think we need to keep talking about it. Racism is not an individual action. It is a system. Making it into an individual action allows us to feel that we are somehow morally superior to people that we label as racists. So while I am very I really wish it didn't land this way that when we talk about the racism and the outcomes that we saw on May 23rd, that that lands as if we are complaining . We are we are indicting specific people as being immoral. That is not what is happening. And if anybody listens, the way that I have spoken about this, I have never once talked about the specific actions of any given person involved in that incident, because at the end of the day, it was a system and it's a system that we as the council perpetuate and when we tell people to calm down and step back on that. We are perpetuating that system. That is exactly what how that how this works. So I'm going to start. I appreciate Councilmember Vela's comments. I echo them all. We spoke at length about this, about how we weren't going to try to just float something out and say approve this, but that we wanted to hear from people and that we wanted to make sure that there was a conversation before we talked about it. I think almost everything that Councilmember Vela said we discussed and are in agreement on. I'm a little disappointed. The Council adopted and asked to have a specific conversation come forward, and it was not a conversation about enforcement. We actually wrote the language and we adopted the language for this item, and it was regarding the city provision of community services responses and law enforcement, including policy reviews of existing policies. And it was intentional because we did not want to get into this. Are the cops good or bad argument? Because at the end of the day, at least from my perspective, we are going to have law enforcement in this town to provide crime prevention and violence prevention. When I talk to our APD staff at all levels, they talk about all sorts of the mental health issue responses, all sorts of responses. When our dispatchers call, they talk about the silly calls that they get, that they are, because the council has asked them to be responsible for responding to when the police department's TIO writes in and chastises says Having no idea what we're talking about. We are supporting the chief is at the same time literally proposing the types of things we are saying we should be talking to our community about. All we have done is say that we need to have plans and programs in place to be responsive, that we cannot on one day say that the police are no longer responding to 5150 calls and that the fire department can do it and not talking to the fire department about it. And not talking to the city manager about it. So my idea, which I was hoping was going to we would be able to talk about without the drama. And what I hear from a lot of our speakers is that I think we need a community led process, not a staff led process. I mean, we need to bring the community in and we need to trust them to tell us which direction we need to go. We need them to help us identify our goals and our objectives. And that was what we proposed tonight, was to actually identify a couple of council members who could work to find 79 people, to fill it, to fill a steering committee, bring back those names. We can even continue tonight's meeting so those names could come back for a Final Four for approval by the council next Tuesday. And and to hold some town halls this month to get community feedback and propose for the full council the objectives and goals that we are looking for as a community. I don't think that those seven or nine people or 11 people or whatever the right number is, should be of all like minds. I think that they should represent a diverse, diverse range of voices, because when I talk to people that we are getting emails from about what they want. What I find is as we as we converse, most, not all are going to agree with everybody. Most actually agree with what we're trying to talk about, providing safety and security for everybody. People are under the idea because of this conversation, which is perpetuated by city staff and is extremely problematic to me, that we are somehow suggesting the police are not going to come if somebody is attacking you, that the police is not going to come if your house is broken into and things are robbed. Nobody has proposed that. So what I would propose tonight, just as a general idea, is that we have a community led process that kicks off tonight. We're a month into this. Next week will be a month since the video came out. We need to take we need to start moving forward that we identify a couple of council members. I do not need to be one of them unless this body decided that they would want me to be so to serve as ex-officio non-voting members of a steering committee that they identify the people and that they bring back for just input and ratification from this document. And that additionally, we have requested our city staff start looking at Chief Hillary's June 10th policy direction to his staff and identify ways to put things into action and come back for discussion so that when we tell our community we're not we're not going to respond to non crime calls. We're going to also be able to tell them what that means and how we're how we're responding to their concerns or let them know that we're not going to provide that input in that conversation for our community before we before we move forward . I won't walk through the entire process, but for me, what is important is that we get going and that by the end of the month we have a goals and objectives that we have agreed to and we can start moving forward. When we talk about anti-racism. It's not systemic racism. Systemic racism is the thing that we are trying to overcome. But what we want to talk about is the anti-racism. How can our city start acting as anti-racist? How can we take actions that are working against racism? It imbues everything we do. I can sit here and I will sit here and is uncomfortable. And it is I have benefited from racist racism. I have participated in racism. I am a part of a racist system. And every time I don't speak up and take action, I am perpetuating that. So I absolutely reject the idea that we can talk about law enforcement, community services, planning anything without talking about racism. What we need to do is work with our, I guess, in this case, our law enforcement staff and help them understand that we can talk about racism and racist outcomes without impugning people's moral goodness or badness, because that is a false dichotomy. So I appreciate like I said, I one of the first things I did when I got elected was take a ride along with Officer Schmidt. I had one of the scariest experiences I've had. On that ride along, pulling over somebody who just had dark tinted windows. I have talked about this a lot. It informed me heavily about what people who are doing policing are going through and why they respond the way they do. I can understand that and also think that we need to do better and that we do not have to set up this, this, this, this dichotomy where if if we're not, you know, cheering on the police as saviors and patriots, that somehow we are anti the people in the job that they are doing. And so I would say to the people that carry guns. Every year we meet with you outside the police station and we honor the officers who have been shot and killed in Alameda. Anytime somebody is hurt, we are there. When you do great things, we honor you at the city council meeting. This conversation is not about us people. We appreciate you as people. I appreciate Mr. Horvath coming and speaking out and being open. We may disagree on the ballistic armored tactical transport, but I appreciate that he at least comes out, acknowledges who he is, speaks his truth, and engages in the conversation. And I hope he will continue to do so. But at the end of the day, I am also here to represent the people that voted our community. I don't want to get into a conversation about law enforcement, good or bad. I want to talk about what we want and who we want to be as our as and as a community. And then I want to talk about how we get the outcomes that we that we say we want. And somewhere in there is absolutely going to be law enforcement. And somewhere in there, we're going to have to talk about oversight. We're going to have to talk about policies and all this other stuff. But I don't want to start there. I want to start about what do we want? Who do we want to be and how do we know? What is the road to get there? And it's going to be long. And I understand the frustration that we are dragging our feet and we haven't just cut the budget and whatever else we can cut the budget tomorrow . We have nowhere to put that money. We're not going to fire half the people who work for the city police department overnight. I don't think we're going to fire half the police department, but that might be right. It's on the table. Everything is. So anyway, tonight, I you know, I think we need to identify a process. We have to approve it. I hope it will be community led and not staff led. I appreciate that staff gave some thought to this. I do not want to put more on their plate right now. They will obviously be engaged and involved. Our law enforcement experts, who are the people who police in our city, will be able to participate as expert voices, providing their perspective. But we also need to be hearing from the people who don't get to generally sit at the table, and we need to put them front and center. So those are my comments for tonight. For now. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you both. Mayor and now Councilor Odie wanted to have the floor again. So Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, I also respected vice mayor a lot too. And, you know, I've enjoyed working with him, but, you know, recently passed a code of conduct that basically said that, you know, we're not really supposed to attack the integrity and impugn our colleagues. And, you know, I've tried to live up to that code of conduct. And, you know, I, I, I, I'm not sure that, you know, those, those remarks lived up to that. And I think a lot of what I said was, was the point was missed. And I, I also don't think you can be called a racist just because you want folks to see the human side of somebody behind a badge, because ultimately those are human beings. And I also think that we as leaders, when we say things, whether we think we're, you know, important or not, they mean they mean things. And people react to those. And we're leaders. And when we get up in public or go on Facebook and accuse people of things, whether they're true or not, it's going to incite hardening of feelings. And what I saw earlier was a hardening of feelings on one side, you know, one group that won't even utter the phrase Black Lives Matter. And another group that basically wants to abolish the police department. And neither one of those are feasible alternatives. And in trying to ask people to calm down the rhetoric, you know, I'm being criticized in violation of our code of conduct for asking for, you know, a rational approach to solving a major problem. And, you know, I agree with a lot of what everyone said, and I do think we can probably set goals today. And I think Councilman Vella talked about what those goals are. You know, if we center it around Black Lives Matter and everyone, regardless of age, race, gender, you know, we all have to feel secure and be secure. Then everything else can fall into place. And however we want to do the process, you know, I'm open to anything. I like the ideas you guys mentioned in your column. You're taking a community centered, um, and, you know, led by, by us, the council and not staff telling us what they can do or what we should do. But, you know, at some point, we as leaders have a responsibility to chill the rhetoric a little bit and, you know, act like leaders and not like insiders. And not that I think anyone is doing that. But, you know, that's what people are looking for us to do right now. And, you know, when you go against the code of conduct and, you know, attack another council member by name, I don't think it does that. As much as I respect you and have a high opinion of you, I don't think it's helpful to to to a solution. And, you know, like but John, you did say, you know, we need to envision where we want to be. And then we build. To that. So, I mean, that's what I want to do. And I hopefully we spend the rest of of today talking about where it is we want to be and then figure out how we get there. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Odie and I. And Vice Mayor. If you want to say something else, I'll give you the floor. But I want to just say something first. Um, I want to acknowledge all the hard work that this council is doing, has done, will do in the future. We, um, we have had, I think, more tough issues in a short period of time or even a long period of time than any council that I can think of. And I mean, I you're chuckling. You know what I mean? It is 24 seven, and it started with the COVID 19 pandemic. And I have been so worried and, you know, waking up at three in the morning, I'm not doing that anymore. But but I was just worrying about this this pandemic. And then we have the the second crisis within a crisis. And it is not easy. And a number of you have said this, that we are all humans with feelings and we're caring people. We chose to get involved. Some people, you know, ask me, were you crazy when you wanted to run for mayor? And, uh, but no, we're not. We're just we're committed. We're passionate. We are also impacted by all that swirling around us and and the impact of hearing public speakers. And some of them are very one sided, which is absolutely their First Amendment right. But it is our responsibility to somehow rise above the fray and understand that we may realize that there is more to an issue than meets the eye, or it simply isn't possible to do some of the things that people are calling for us to do. And of course, we want to please people. We want to make everyone happy and say yes all the time. It's not possible. So what I'm what I'm just my my advice and ask of you is take a moment or several for yourselves. Take a few deep breaths. I hope you're engaging in some form of self-care, because these are tough times to be a leader, trust me, and and you know it as well as I do. And so what we don't want to do is be seeming to attack each other. And I'll just hasten to say, Vice Mayor, I was not chastising you at all, but I was sharing my feelings and my concerns about the way your proposal was put forward. And I was just, you know, trying to keep up with speakers and going, wait, did I miss something? But the staff report wasn't even that long, so I couldn't have missed something. And my fervent desire for us to do our best work collectively and you and I have discussed between ourselves the frustrations of dealing within the Brown Act. I get that. And so, but I, um, I also have a right to express and share my views. Um, but I didn't mean it to be a chastisement because you, of course have every right to do what you do. But going forward and tonight and I will speak well, there's a couple a couple of speakers that are going to get interjected now. But, um, again, let's, let's take it a little easier on ourselves. We've, we've been working really hard on really tough issues that are not just local. They are national, they're even world wide. But as I remind myself every day, this is not the White House. And we don't have to be divisive and we don't have to try to, you know, create as against them. And we're always going to stick to the truth. But, um, but anyway, Vice Mayor, if you'd like to say something, fine, if not fine to. Okay.
Speaker 2: I just I know I says I respect Mr. Oni. I think calling out certain behaviors is not an attack on a person's character, though I understand it can land that way. And as I said, I look forward to talking more about this offline.
Speaker 0: Good. Thank you. Okay. And now the police chief would like to just address some of the concerns that were raised about policy changes coming from the police department.
Speaker 2: So I can ask a point of order.
Speaker 0: You may.
Speaker 2: Sorry, are we going to start a back and forth between staff and.
Speaker 0: I was going to go for a clarification of some things that were raised. And actually, I believe I even noted that you would like some explanation. And I think that's a very fair point. And I often times like to do things so that the public that's listening at the time can get the answer rather than, you know , if we have the people here to do it. So and briefly because it is I don't know what time it is, but it's 920, 920. Thank you. Okay. So way past his bedtime. But look at him. He's one of the most alert with spring fever, Larry. So I hate to compete with babies, but key for Larry. Can you give us some clarifications of the the policy changes we heard referenced?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. Council members, I, I appreciate everything that was said tonight. Um, I, uh, I agree with Councilmember Velez when she said that tension is good in conversation. I totally agree with that. And we don't really move forward without them. So I'm happy to be part of any of those tense, tension filled conversations. So it's kind of a regular part of what what I do in my office. I also appreciate the fact that we can call out behaviors without calling out people. But I'd like to point out this to the vice mayor, that some of the comments that I think you're hearing from members of the police department have to do with maybe not the toned down rhetoric that we're hearing tonight, but some of the things that were happening early on after the videos of the March 23rd incident or May 23rd incident came out. I think I think some of that dialog has been dialed back a little bit. But I think that the people have been feeling a little hurt and attacked personally. And then I would also add that even from members of the council, that, you know, that that has happened with me, which has caused some a lack of confidence, I think, in some members of the public who are listening to some of the things that were said on the news or, you know, theories that I somehow was looking the other way, as the caller mentioned tonight, or was engaged in some kind of a cover up, which is absolutely false. So as far as the policy things go. Back on April 3rd. And I think most of the council knows this city manager certainly knows this. We had dialed back a lot of our self-initiated enforcement because of coldness, not because of anything that happened. This was a good month and a half before the incident on Central Avenue occurred. That was based on me trying to protect the officers from COVID and doing our part to try to protect the public from COVID. We I dialed back a bunch of our self-initiated activity for that reason, and I reported that out to my boss . And I think all of you have since been made aware of that. So when I made my comments on June 10th in the interview, to me I was not making a drastic departure from what we'd already been doing. As I've also mentioned to some of you, the the statement about not going to a mental health course was I was edited. I went on to say that I had hoped that we would start a conversation at City Hall, which we now have, about how we approach mental health calls. And unfortunately, all of that was not included in the television report. And I regret that. And I apologize to the city manager. I think I could have been done in a better way. But to the public and to the council, just so that we're clear, the policy direction, which was more of a procedural thing in terms of what we respond to, was already in place on April 3rd and it was 100% COVID related. So again, did not mean to cause any consternation in community or with anybody in city hall. And I just want to be clear that that was the primary goal. And I was trying to also respond to the reporters questions about what could I say to the community to make them feel safer at Alameda and to let them know that, you know, I was being responsive. And that's that's how I answered. So I just thought that that would be important for everybody to hear that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you for that. I appreciate that. Okay. With that, I'm going to make my comments and then let's talk about our next steps going forward. So. Great comments by all my colleagues. Thank you. And thank you to all the public speakers who talked as well. Couple of things that I think I just reiterate because they've been raised, but I think they bear repeating and this is where I like to say it's possible for more than one thing to be true at a time. So while I appreciate hearing from residents who who say I've never had a bad experience with the police, I, I also understand and I hope other people can, too. And that's where I mean, walking in someone's shoes or imagining what it must be like to walk in someone's shoes becomes a useful attribute because it, it is I , I don't need to be told yet another time of the horrendous experiences that people of color have had just being stopped by police, just having to factor more time into getting from point A to point B because they might get stopped by the police and received hours. If you're still listening, what you talked about as being this little kid who, you know, found this bike and brought it home and your mom, you know, told you to do the right thing and you did. And what an awful experience and one that has stuck with you from the time you were seven until I don't know how old you are, but older than seven. And and it's similar to what I heard when I met with the young people and in the vice mayor referenced that conversation that I put up and put together. I was wanting two groups to hear from each other. I wasn't, you know, soliciting people's responses. I was being informed just by listening to it. But I it was a very valuable conversation and listening to these kids, I there's no reason to believe them. And I will just say that there was one commenter who said, Oh, we've heard teen after teen quote from a Netflix series. I'm not going to go blank on which one it was, but that I, I believe the kids. I believe the kids. And and we can do better. And that's partly what this is all about. Um, yesterday I went over to the home of this African-American family who we've mentioned their cars were vandalized with spray paint and racist messages. And I was talking to the husband and he looked me in the eye and said, what is the city going to do about this? And I said, about about the racism that exists in our community. And he said, Yeah, what, what is the city doing? And I said, Well, you know, we've started a process beginning with the arrest of Mr. Watkins on May 23rd. We have had two meetings that that talks about these issues. And in fact, we're meeting tomorrow. And I said in my hope and I'm just one of five councilmembers, but what I would like to see is some community task forces with members of our communities of color who have had these these experiences. And I said, I would love you to be involved. And he said, I would love to be involved. And so I gave him my business card and and he posted on the city's Facebook page in response to the the post that I put out, we put up yesterday about the incident, and he's a marine who served his country for many years. And this time he talked about the oath that he took as a marine to serve and protect anyone. He said not to ask what their race was or what their creed was before I protected them, but just to serve them. And so he said, that's, you know, that's the way I expect things to work and we can do better and we will and we are starting to. And so I'm going through, um, I talked earlier about starting with the end in mind and Councilmember Vela and others have talked about that too with the issue of unbundling the services currently delivered by police. That is something that I think has some pretty exciting possibilities. I have reached out to cahoots the the program in Eugene, Oregon. It is community assistance helping out on the streets, I believe. Um, and um, if, um, if all the planets are aligned on Friday, the, um, the coordinator of the Cahoots Program, he works with an outfit called the White Bird Clinic in Eugene, Oregon, and works closely with Eugene Police Department. And he's hoping I'm hoping he'll be my guest this Friday at noon on my mayor's town hall. So what's the city's website? So we'll get more information up there. And he is even going to reach out and see if someone from the Eugene. Police Department who they work with could also be on the town hall because it would just be great to hear their experiences and people can ask them questions. And speaking about the Eugene Police Department, I happen to know that our police chief has reached out to the police department to get information about how that the cahoots program interfaces with the police department and how they set it up, the structure and the contract and all that. And there and as far as other ways to deliver police services, I know that our assistant city manager, Jerry Boden, reached out to the county. In fact, I think Councilmember O.D. actually raised the fact that there are county services that are available. And so I email introduced Mr. Boden to Dr. Karen Tribble, who is the director of the Alameda County Behavioral Health Services Health Department. And, um, and she was great. She was she was in earlier in April. She was one of my guests on my, my town hall. And I know, I know they've connected and they're going to talk about, you know, how the city might be able to work with the county to do some of these these kinds of services . So so things are happening. They're happening as we speak. I do believe that anything we do needs to be fact based and data driven. And I mean, the vice mayor said this, that that we could, you know, cut the budget of the police department tomorrow. But where is where is the money going? And what I would like to know more of and this is actually I'm not going to take credit, but the city of Oakland, by the way, the city of Oakland is also in talks with the folks at Cahoots and the Eugene Police Department because a good idea is a good idea. And I think it's kind of exciting that it may be trickling down to the Bay Area, but one of the things that their Department of Violence Prevention has a fairly new department or maybe it's like a a task force, but they it's a community council led effort. They have started to look at the collect and analyze data on the number and types of calls that come in to the dispatchers at APD. And I commend Councilmember Odie for sitting down with a dispatcher for 3 hours and just, you know, gaining that experience. Good for you. But but the point was made from Oakland, because I was reading the abstract of their effort that the way their data is collected isn't as useful as it might be. So they're looking to collect dispatch data a different way. I have no idea what that would look like for Alameda, but I do think it's important in deciding how we might reimagine the delivery of police services and how things like mental health cause and substance abuse and homelessness issues might be handled differently. Let's find out how many calls. I mean, I get that it's a large percentage, but let's let's look at a year's worth of data and let's, you know, based are some of what we're doing. Well, all of what we're doing should be based on reality. But I think we'll just be better informed about what kinds of services we need and where we might get them if we have those that information. The one thing I want to just throw in and Mr. Boden and I talked a little bit about this yesterday, is that the codes program is unique in its own right because they are connected to this white bird clinic that is a 30 year old institution in I think it started in Eugene, Oregon. And I think they were able to buy a house. And now there is also maybe in Springfield, which I think is a neighboring city, there is like a clinic, a dental and health care and substance abuse treatment clinic. So when they go out instead of the police or on the rare occasion when they find someone who is seems to be a danger to themselves or others, they can call for police assistance, but they're able to then and again it's a voluntary transport. But if someone is willing to avail themselves of their assistance, they can take them to the clinic. They can take them to these different treatment facilities. It's not to say we have nothing in the county. We we have some things I've done, George, but I just you know, that's something that that we're going to have to think about to counsel that when we, you know, we can have different means of response. But then what what's the next step? Where do those people go? So just, you know, keep that and keep that in mind. Then the something that Paul actually let Mr. Bowden tell us about, that is an implicit bias training. It was done. I think the city of Berkeley did this a couple of years ago for its police department, but also for its city council. And so we just might think of and then apparently there's a of renowned facilitator that we might consider for ourselves at some point. The, um, uh. Other things that I do think it's important is we need to have stakeholders at our tables, whatever tables these are as we discuss these different areas and in whatever form that takes. And sometimes we need to have police at that table, too. And this is where I don't want this to be an us against them because when we're talking about police policies and practices, I, I do think it's appropriate to have someone from the police department there and to be able to say, well, you know, don't you might want to consider this and here's how we would do that . And, and just to listen and to hear and. Then. I do want to come back to something that I raised at the previous meeting, which came out of the facilitated forum with the youth, and that is the Youth Advisory Commission. And I will tell you that some of the teens in that group are very interested in that idea. And so I told them, Well, why don't you do a little research and get some information? And man, did they. And so I've got a lot of information from them about what Oakland does, but I have no idea how we would go about doing that here. But I would hope that it's something that council would consider because I think it's and by the way, I do hope that we have some youth of color on some of these if we decide to do subcommittees or task forces or what have you. But I that what I like about the Youth Advisory Commission is it gives youth a voice in real time to talk about issues they're facing and to raise things that, you know, I hope it wouldn't take until they become adults to say, you know, this happened to me, but it's not just about policing their experiences, but there's a there's a lot of things that are part of our community. So I hope we can think of a way that we might we might be able to work there to incorporate their concerns. So the what I would like to just direct to the next part of the discussion to Ward is so I think it's a reasonable statement that we probably can't do everything that we've set forward at once, notwithstanding the public's desire that we move quickly. I think we will move with all deliberate speed, but we also need to do this right. I would suggest that the the one that could maybe be set aside or or referred to elsewhere might be the laws that criminalize survival for reasons that were already discussed. But I think that some of some of these might some of these topics might be the subjects of task forces. I think we do need to talk about the size of the task force, the mission. It's given the expectation objectives. And I also was mindful that not only did a number of speakers say that this should be a community led process, and I agree, they said the city council shouldn't be part of it either. And I think I also agree there. I think that I because and here's why. I think that to have a city member, council member or to sit in on task forces.
Speaker 2: Just.
Speaker 0: Takes it in a little different direction. It is not simply members of the community. I think that members of the community and I would say meeting with a staff person who is, you know, tasked with. Carry out whatever we've directed them to do might be the preferable way to do it. And I also had a talk with the city attorney this afternoon, and he and I'll let him speak for himself. But there is some concern about Brown Act issues that come into play when you have different sets of council members on different subcommittees that are all items that are kind of going to come back to the council . Um, I would be happy to work with another council member to, um, to take a look at how, how we should work with staff to move forward on this. I think I'd like to see if we can give staff some direction because what I'd also like to have come out of tonight is a work plan and a timeline. But I think that it would be useful to have a council subcommittee to advise on that. And I want to obviously hear from all of you. Um, my suggestion, just listening and, uh, television I am thinking about it is that I would be happy to work with Councilmember Vela if I haven't assigned you too many, too many to ask lately. Um, if you felt you had the time and the inclination and obviously subject to the approval of our colleagues, that I would I would put that out there as this as a possibility. Okay. That's all for me for now. That's me. I see your hand up. Yes. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I would absolutely support some kind of collaboration with you and vice mayor. With former Vice Mayor Vela. I still can't drop it.
Speaker 0: We're off. We're off. Former vice.
Speaker 2: President once.
Speaker 0: The vice mayor.
Speaker 2: I guess that's it. Yeah. Um, I wanted to call on a different time, so for me, I am less interested in task forces whereby you pick people and they make decisions. For me, I use the term steering committee because the steering committee wasn't actually making decisions, it was developing the process and figuring out how to bring the community in. And, you know, I would really encourage us not to in the you know, not to. Well, first off, I really hope we can just kind of move forward tonight, not just on the subcommittee, but with some actual, you know, when we're going to have things back. Because I my concern about the subcommittee is the subcommittee goes, it meets, but it's not a public. The public is not there. So no decisions are being made without the community and less subcommittee members are choosing who they want to listen to. So I think that there might be a model where the subcommittee really is just an ex-officio non-voting committee that comes back with a proposed process and goals and objectives by the end of the month, which I think is kind of you know, I mean, there's lots of ways to get there, but that we actually identify some people who who really help figure out what that looks like rather than deciding tonight, it's a task force. It's nine people, here are the voices, etc.. So that would be my one comment.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Um, and I agree with you. I didn't want to get into number or individuals. I wanted to, um. Send the that decision for a policy or for a proposal to bring back to the council, to the subcommittee, if it were to be Councilmember Val and I sitting down with staff looking at the proposal that you came up with and and other considerations from everything that has been and will be said tonight. But I agree with you that we we don't want to take an inordinate amount of time. I just want to take enough time to think it through. As far as other, you know, size and and and then the yes, the the issue of meetings and some meetings probably would be not in public, but others others would be would be opened up. This is just my thought. And again, these are meetings in the time of COVID. So I think we probably have to think that they're going to look somewhat like this is for Councilmember Otis had that person and council member Vela back to you.
Speaker 2: That a mayor I mean one thing I remember the council did I maybe it was nine years ago eight years ago was an ad hoc committee for the America's Cup and I think there was a council member on it. But it did meet it had public meetings and public agendas. So, I mean, I like the idea of you and Councilmember Vela working together. I think that to bring a bring a big picture view of what needs to be done and maybe we don't like, say, individual folks or people, but, you know, the the basic categories and goals, geographic diversity, gender diversity, members of the black community, community interest groups, business high impact, you know, centering black and youth voices. You know, I think those those could be your guiding principles as you as you go forward. I mean, the thing about must being from Alameda, there's a lot of great social justice groups, you know, just over the estuary, you know, that, you know, well, we're not as blessed as as Oakland is with the great social justice groups. So in some areas, it may be necessary to, you know, look elsewhere for, you know, some type of expertize. But, you know, I think the proposal, as long as it comes back quickly and it's open and the community can be a part of it, you know, I think it's going to be a good thing. I do think we can come up with at least what, like you said, the goals and objectives that the vice mayor said. You know, by the end of the month, we know what we're doing. But if we decide we want well, I guess that's phase two. So let me just I'll. Gosh. We'll talk about that later. But I like the idea, but I don't think we can waste time. The only other thing I would ask a question of, I mean, there was a lot of discussion today about accountability and a possible citizens board. I mean, I don't think we fleshed that out so much. But, you know, if I believe if that was something the community wanted to go in the direction of, we'd have to put that on the ballot. So I don't know if, you know, maybe having a different subcommittee that could work on, you know, what ballot language might be possible. That leaves us with enough leeway. I don't know, just because that has to be done by like the beginning of August, right?
Speaker 0: Um, so I would say, um, and maybe we'll call on the city attorney and I think to put people on the spot. But we actually had a little bit of a discussion about whether or not that actually does require a ballot measure. And the other thing about our city attorney even is besides that he's a talented attorney, is he came from the city of Santa monica, where they had done a number of citizens. I don't know whether they were called task forces or subcommittees, but around some media topics. And so that that just, you know, helped inform my understanding of how these things might look. But, um. City Attorney If you could just. Mr. Chan, if you could just talk a little bit about the accountability piece, Citizen Oversight Board, what, what might that look like? And as far as that, how it could be formed.
Speaker 2: So on that issue, I think the Council has wide ranging discretion on how you'd like to ultimately form a committee and what that function of that committee is. And depending upon the function that you assign that committee, there may or may not need to be ballot action. So, for example, the charter assigned the administrative function to the city manager and the policymaking duties to the council. So if you assign enough duties, a decision making authority is, let's say to this body, it is possible that that body begins to infringe upon the city manager's authority to administer the police department. At that point, we will need to ask the voters for their consent to organize. On the other hand, if you were establishing a committee that, for example, gives the council and the city manager recommendations about policy changes, that clearly does not need a ballot approval because you are establishing an advisory committee to advise the decision makers, which is the council, the city manager and the police chief on operations of the police department. So, you know, and there will certainly be some gray it depending upon where the council wants to go. You know, the more authority and decision making that you ratchet up to this body, the more likely and at some point infringe upon the city manager or the council's authority to run the city on a policy or administrative basis. I hope that answers that specific question.
Speaker 0: Yes, I think it gives council something to think about going forward and as it did for me. Okay. Did you want to. Councilman Brody, did you want to?
Speaker 2: I mean, I.
Speaker 0: Did.
Speaker 2: Not. Not yet. So I guess people need to understand then if if the ultimate outcome is that we have a civilian body with more authority, then less so that, you know, it's going to take going to the ballot. And, you know, we're almost up to the deadline for this year. So we have to wait for the next election or we have a special election, you know, and that's another, you know, 90 days plus before we can schedule that. So, you know, that's not something that's going to be able to be implemented as quickly as people want it to be. So I don't know where we're going to fall on that. But I, I guess in the process, one, we're going to identify, you know, some type of of path forward on how we're going to decide that . Sorry.
Speaker 0: Finishes Alpha. You get the sign. Okay. Councilmember Vela, you're next. The city attorney had his hand up. Oh, I'm sorry. I had to say something. Thank you, city attorney.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. I just want to add one more point about process, which is that the council could not modify the charter by special meeting. So you would have to do that either at a general and primary election or a general election. So that's middle. If not this year, the middle of 2022 or end of 2022. I just want to share that one more fact. Thank you very much. Election that special Guinea.
Speaker 0: Special election is.
Speaker 2: What did I say? Special meeting?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: That's all I can utilize. The charter amendments. My apologies. My phone is beeping at me that says it's dying. So I'm going to turn off the works and.
Speaker 0: Plug it in.
Speaker 2: My, my, my apologies to turn around and flourish.
Speaker 0: But you also cannot modify the charter at a special meeting, so just remove that.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 0: All in favor. Oh, no, just kidding. Okay. Um, so it can't remember. You said you were finished. And, Councilmember Vella, you are next. Yeah, so I just kind of. I want to kind of. Reiterate what I think I've heard from people in terms of where I hear consensus. So I think that we have consensus in that there will be a perhaps a steering committee of some kind to help lay out the process to move forward and that there will be a council subcommittee member. I'd be happy to serve with you. I think we've worked together well in the past and it would be you be happy to to work on it. I think what there's a couple of things. So one, I think what I would like to hear from my colleagues on is do we have agreement on what kind of the general scope of consideration is or the aim of where we're going? I think there's lots of great ideas and I think we can hear from the specifics about implementing and how we respond to it. But I think I guess what I'm looking for is are we looking towards just an effective safety and security for all our needs? Is there a different way we want to work that, but what's the kind of proposed overarching goal? I think we can all agree it's beyond just the term law enforcement. But but what is it we're looking to achieve? And I think that's that's one thing that I would like to hear hear from my colleagues on. The other thing that I would put out there is, well, I think that many of the laws that criminalize survival are state laws, where we prioritize our response and how we actually respond to enforcement of them. We get a lot of calls for people who are unhoused, and I think that that is going to be a larger part of our conversation about our policing policies and practices. And I want to get away from just talking about policies because of both of the practices and then the the outcomes that we continue to get. Are we getting disparate outcomes, what we're looking at all of those things. So this isn't just about policies. I think we're all aware of that, but I wanted to highlight that. So I think there is going to be a place for that conversation. I don't want it to necessarily go away. I think it just maybe gets brought under the umbrella of some of these other conversations. And it also, I think, will go part into the unbundling conversation as well as we look at how we can be proactive about providing services. I also want to just get a sense of kind of meeting dates from my colleagues. I think it's all well and good for a subcommittee to kind of say, okay, this is when we're going to start scheduling things. I think if we could get a sense of is there a mixture of weekends, dates, times that that people could be amenable to and what is the overall timeline? Are we I mean, I think the goal is to get this done by senior set this month till June. I'm hoping he means July. I think he means July. Yeah. So that's one day. Yeah. And then, you know, I, I hear the community and the calls for oversight and accountability. I think that there's this was brought up before the council before and I had questions is what's the process and does it go in the charter? I think it depends on how we define oversight and accountability, and I think that's going to be part of the community led process. I think it's all good and fine to be like, Look, let's get something on the ballot, but let's vote. I think if we did that right now, all I have that I could go off of is something general along the lines of the community authorizes council to create some sort of oversight committee. I don't I wouldn't know what the bounds of that are because I think people have different definitions of what oversight and accountability are. We have some people calling for literally a review of police officers in the civil service process. We have other individuals calling for oversight of policies, and then we have other groups that want data and a review of practices. I think part of this is, yes, I want to get change. I think we all do. But I think in order for it to be the transformative change that we all want, it might not mean rushing to get something on the ballot right now. As much as I'd like to be able to say, yes, I'm for oversight, accountability. I think those are big words that mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. And I don't want to be disingenuous about, yes, we're doing something when it may not be the thing that people think that it is. So and I know I'm not accusing any of my colleagues of trying to do that. I certainly have gone back and forth on does this belong on this ballot or a later ballot? But I think that this is where I at least personally want to take a step back and say, let's listen to the community. That's why we're going to have these subcommittees. This is part of what I want. To work on, go through what are the best practices? What do they want? What has been effective in communities the size of Alameda, that sort of thing. Or charter cities. And I think that that's going to be a robust conversation that I'm really looking forward to listening to. And also, you know, I think part of leadership in this area is, like I said, going to be outlining the process and then empowering people to tell us what they want. And I think that's what I'm really excited about through this. And I think that we can all get by in and where we're going to be able to say this was community led and we can stand by this. And there were multiple opportunities for people to weigh in and that we went to people. The last thing I want to put out there is because I think a lot of these meetings are going to be via Zoom. The other thing is just recognizing that and I want to put this out there to people who would be.
Speaker 2: Potential.
Speaker 0: Steering committee members. I don't want the digital divide to be an issue. And so if that means that the city needs to come up with like a my or, you know, an iPad or something that we get to steering committee.
Speaker 2: Members for the purposes of.
Speaker 0: Digital meetings, that's also something I think we need to figure out and work into all of this. Good points. And I just want to touch on a couple of things. You mentioned Councilmember Vella. When we talk about out outcomes, I would like somewhere in this process to build in to what we're creating a way to measure outcomes . And we can you know, we can decide among ourselves the these groups of community members can help us with that. Um, another reason Councilmember Vella is a particularly good choice for this subcommittee. Is she in her day job which probably seeps in tonight is is a labor lawyer and does represent union employees, including public safety. I'm not in this city but in other places. And so it's just good to have that understanding also of policy. And so I think that she know as far as time, I just want to get your I mean, one minute Councilmember Day. So I had a timeline and next meetings I think we want to ask staff because we are going to be asking them to work with us to help pull some of these things together. And so and I do think that they understand that the urgency that and the community's desire. So it is both our availability when we then need to call a special meeting to um, to discuss things that have, you know, developments and to keep things moving on track. So, um. Assistant City Manager Bowden, could you talk to us a little bit? I know you've put some thought into how to get more than 24 hours in a day, I think to get all this done expeditiously, that the floor is yours. Please.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I just I appreciate the conversation tonight. I think I've. I've heard a lot more. Um, just to be able to develop the work plan, the way that the council has tonight helps. I think that we can take the month of July and, and work through what it's going to look like. And, and using the the subcommittee and steering committee concept works. Well, I just I need to sit down with you all and really look at a calendar and lay out a plan that helps us do this. I I'd love to be able to give you dates tonight, but I just don't think that, um, we're there right now . But we can be in during the month of July. I think that's realistic.
Speaker 0: Okay. But during, during the month of July. So, um, I don't go anywhere in the month of July. People just kidding. We'll get some specific dates, but I, I can commit and I'm sure Councilmember Villa, who might have just disappeared, that probably for good reason. Hi. Um, that, um. I think we can, as early as tomorrow, we can coordinate our schedules with Mr. Boden's to to sit down and start moving some of these, um, these ideas forward as soon as possible. Um. So thank you. Um. So I, um. So. Yeah. Councilmember Gates. I'm sorry. Sorry.
Speaker 2: Just just quickly. Is the idea of having a steering committee, a subcommittee or whatever community input process to look at one, two, three and four? Or are we going to look at one separately and kind of bundle together several others so that there would be a steering committee or whatever committee input process for the unbundling services and one separately for the other. And the reason why I'm kind of framing it that way is because it seems to me that the you know, the specifics of quote unquote, unbundling services currently delivered by the police, I think we have in mind a good example. It might not be the perfect example and there might be some specifics that are only true in the Eugene Springfield area. But nonetheless, there are some things out there that perhaps if there was a committee that was able to evaluate that and say this is why it works and this is why it could work even better in Alameda. And maybe that same task force might, you know, pick up some lessons learned from, I don't know, maybe something Hayward is doing something or maybe something that Oakland is doing. And the reason I'm kind of framing it that way is because it seems to me that if there's a task force that's going to be looking at issues regarding two, three and four, I think there are some deeper. Issues there that are about, you know, history and that I don't think are intractable. But I do think that that that they require kind of, in my opinion, a separate community input process. I'm just going to throw it out there like that, because at the end of the day, let me just end by saying this. At the end of the day, I think the reason why we're here. One of the big reasons why we're here is because persons that our community was concerned about the way in which Molly Watkins was treated on Central Avenue. And that out of that came a concern to kind of, you know, look at different ways of having our police doing things. And I think, one, your idea of the cahoots model is such a touch it feel, it's the kind of thing that people, you know, are attracted to with. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I. I think. Okay. Well, I'll. But I think I saw Vice Mayor then Councilman Brody. So in that order, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So I want to make sure. Well, from my standpoint, I'm not ready to move forward with any specifics tonight. I tell you, that's putting the cart before the community. As I said at the beginning, we are a month out. And we are. I am going. I am not going to be able to support a subcommittee to come up with a process tonight that doesn't have dates and does not commit to coming back with finalized recommended goals and objectives by the end of the month. And I'm not going to be able to support if we don't have milestones. I hear that you're proposing a subcommittee that's going to work with staff and that that is going to slow things down because that is the process. And that's fine. I just I just want to be clear. I we I want I think our community kind of expects it deserves some action so that we're not telling them to wait another month because that's how long it's going to take. If we have a subcommittee that's going, you know, we're bringing things back, trying to bring things back. We only have two meetings in July. So I would like to if we're going to move forward with some model, I'd like to know when they're when we're coming back with who's on the steering committee within the process so that we have the objectives and goals by the end of the month, because I don't want to wait another month.
Speaker 0: I mean, okay. So I agree that I heard Mr. Bowden say that this can be done in the month of July. And so we have two council meetings regularly scheduled in the month of July. I believe I indicated this may take a special meeting or two and what I am intending working with Councilmember Vela is to very quickly come up with proposals that we can bring back to Council for Finalization. But I, um. I want to see. For. Specified plans and timeline and measurables and how we're going to how we're going to decide outcomes and so and yeah and a better idea of who will who will inform us and in what shape that body takes. I do see this as being very community community driven. So month of July is a busy working month. Um, I think some of us have talked about there may be some things we need to do in August to if everyone's, you know, not leaving town or around some of the time. Councilmember Val's got her hand up. Oh, no, I'm sorry. You know, it counts. Everybody had his hand. Up next, you will be after that. Councilmember Vella. Sorry.
Speaker 2: Um. I mean, they were not going anywhere. So, I mean, I'm here in August. Then he went to dispose of. I mean, I agree with the vice mayor. I mean, there has to be a definitive date. And that was one of the beauties of this proposal, is that it had a fixed schedule that was fairly rapid. So to the extent it includes that, I would need that to support it as well. But it's interesting. I mean, the two comments about the unbundling, I think there's kind of unanimity about unbundling. Um, um, I heard Councilmember de some say, well, you know, we have to figure out what that looks like. And then I heard the vice mayor say, well, we don't want a preordained solution. So, I mean, what are we are we just expecting that in a month this is a come back and say unbundling is one of the things we need to focus on or I mean, are we giving them direction that, you know, um, we've decided we want to do some type of unbundling, you know, tell us how, how we do that. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I don't have an opinion one way or the other because they both made valid points. But I mean, if we've already decided that's what we want to do, do we just let them ratify that or do we start the work on it? So I don't know.
Speaker 0: So if my interpretation and we're going to you next, Councilmember Vella, is that I think there is agreement across the board that you all can start me or you chime in if if you're not there that we do need to and bender police services that currently sending police out on every call is not working not for police the community and there's better ways of delivering service now what those resources are out there to help divert those some of those calls. I have a general sense I have an aspirational goal of what I'd like it to look like. But as I said earlier, among other things, I think we need to analyze some data to to know, you know, we need this many social workers, you know, nurses, paramedics, what have you. I don't want to speculate, but I, I think the the unbundling is not do we do it or not? I think it's I think I'm hearing, yes, we do it model what's the right model. And, um, and then how do we get there in terms of, um, shifting funding and things.
Speaker 2: But so my question to the Vice Mayor, yes, if we give that direction is, is that qualify under his definition and I'm sorry, customer development does that part by definition of, you know, a predetermined outcome or because I want this to be successful? So. We look, I from from my standpoint, there are people who know this stuff. I am not that person. Right. So my proposal was that we take the police chiefs list of I think there were five different policies to include not doing traffic enforcement, not responding to five 5152, etc. And we give staff direction to have staff and the experts on our staff who know how to do these different things, to come up with a model and come back to us with a recommendation, they can look at cahoots and they can say, This is great, or we recommend doing something that's similar but in a different way. Again, whatever, whatever it is, what I'm saying is I don't want to pick. Cahoots is the thing. Let's go figure out how to do that. I want to figure out what is the you know what I would drive it again from the from the from that would be kind of the more outcome based which is the police saying here are some things that are not crime and violence reduction activities that we think we could find a different way to do this. But to have our staff go off and see how they can figure that out and come back and hopefully they can come back in August or September with a with a framework. That's what I meant by by choosing I don't want to choose like it's it's it's an X, Y and Z. It's more, you know, unbundling can be an ongoing conversation because it isn't a thing. It means looking and taking. And we might it it can be iterative even through the chair ways. So, I mean, what what do you envision and the steering committee deliverable on a monthly. I mean, if from my standpoint, they would come back by the end of the month with a community derived goals and objectives, definition and also a process for having a conversation with the community to identify what Lay looks like and what is the important things to unbundle and sets, you know. And then it comes to the council for decisions. So we're not right. This is that tension. I know some people want the community to actually decide and do it and we were elected to be that voice . Are we are actually the civil the civilian community voice in this process? It's okay. I mean, I'm good with that if everyone else is. I just want to be clear.
Speaker 0: Yep. What he said. I agree. Okay. Anything else, Councilor Brody?
Speaker 2: No, actually, I'm good with it, no matter what anyone else says already.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Vella, you've been waiting patiently. So I think the other the other kind of action items here that I just I think that we have agreement on is that that we would come back by the end of July. So that last week of July, there would be.
Speaker 2: Kind of.
Speaker 0: I think.
Speaker 2: We would we would.
Speaker 0: Schedule some sort of special council meeting to actually get concurrence with the with these proposals. And I think that we can we can agree on that. I think there will also be and I think I heard this there will also be a number of town hall opportunities at different times in different days. We are going to coordinate with staff on that, also recognizing that there's other committees and groups that are meeting outside of.
Speaker 2: Us that.
Speaker 0: That we have to coordinate all that with. And then, you know, finally, I think the only other thing is just talking about. You know, and making sure that we have agreement on whether or not we want a consistent membership within the subcommittees. I personally think that that's important for for these conversations. I think that there's going to be a lot of kind of items that are going to need a lot of discussion around what they entail and what people's intentions around it. So I would like to get some sort of guidance from from our colleagues, because I think we need that as the subcommittee to go when we're we're thinking about how to who's going to be on the steering committees, what sort of commitments we're asking from people. Are we asking them for a month? Are we asking them for to carve out time for a longer duration? And obviously, I'll come back to the full council for approval. But I think that we have to know that now before we go out and.
Speaker 2: Recruit people for this.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I would say good point and I would be interested to know what people envision as I think somebody raised that earlier. One of you did. But what what period of time are we looking at to to have this community engagement? Because, you know, people need to know that. And it is my hope as I lecture everyone about COVID safety measures that more parts of our economy will open up in the not too distant future so people can get back to earning their livelihood and all that. So in some some regards, we've we've got kind of a captive audience right now, but I'm hoping that it won't always be for that reason. But what what time frame? Give me some some thoughts, folks. Council member Vice Mayor Knox White Council member. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: Yes, um.
Speaker 0: Honorable doctor. I don't.
Speaker 2: Know. I'm going to start with I don't know the answer to your question. I struggled a lot with this. We have five subcommittees. I think we had some some members of our community say, you're going to disperse way too much. And I think that there's a lot of validity to that. I think anti-racism and unbundling are long term projects and probably need you know, I have a personal interest in engaging with the anti-racism work and how that looks even at a city level and a city government level is a whole nother issue. But those two conversations, I think we need to kind of think about it by the end of the month. I think that the steering committee should say, here's how those things should look. I think the other ones could probably be much more time like know policy review and and oversight, which are more, you know, kind of tightening up things, looking at policies. You know, you could at least start spinning off things that could be acted on pretty quickly and may have different people coming in with different viewpoints. Right. But might not anyway. I would leave it up to the steering committee, but I think that looking at maybe having two or three tracks that don't hold the other tracks up would help. So we don't have to solve racism and then we can talk about oversight. Right. We should we should do that because that's an ongoing, lifelong discussion. Yeah, right. That's my focus. But I'm not sure if that's helpful or not, but that that's kind of how I would look at it. I don't know what the timeline is, and I trust the steering committee to make some work.
Speaker 0: Think we can probably dig deeper into that and figure out more precisely timelines, but the good and good input and I agree with that, that some of those are definitely longer term and others are shorter term and I definitely sense this community interest in participating. Council voted. Did I see your hand go back up?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I saw it. Mr. DeSantis, too. But I'll be quick. I mean, I think I would trust that council. I mean, the the the subcommittee to kind of make that decision, because for some people, it may be a month and then they're done, but for some, just let them know. I mean, if you if you have an interest in something that we want to keep in the steering committee, you know, it could be longer. So just, you know, give people that expectation. And but I trust you. You will be able to communicate that and determine that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Daza, you had your hand up.
Speaker 2: Well, in terms of the my response to your question is what kind of time frame might be looking at? I'd be looking at at the end of July, if not early August. And I say that because two things. One is, you know, our neighbors like San Leandro, they've made some major decisions with regards to defunding police. Now you know how they defund police. It certainly isn't aligned with the way that defunding has been defined nationally. But but it was an important decision that they've made. And so they've made it fairly rapidly. I've got to believe that that we can make a decision, a good decision, on a similar timeframe. But the second reason why I think late July, if not early August, is because I still believe that the unbundling services idea is looking at cahoots as a model. It gives us a start. I'm not saying we have to automatically adopt cahoots, but it certainly is such a great idea and it gives us a touch to see it, touch it, feel it kind of vantage point from which that we can begin to make some, some, some, some good decisions. And it seems as though staff is looking into this. Parts of it might not work. I think you mentioned something that the mental health or social service provider as a key part. And then and is that kind of a thing available here in the East Bay? We don't know. Um, but I think because we've got such a model, that's something that, that we can then have art committee members or task force members, whatever you want to call them, you know, look into it in addition to the range of other issues that Vice Mayor White had raised, you know, with regard to. Okay, what other how how in what other ways do you want to look at unbundling services? But my point is just simply, I think, you know, we can do a piece, baby, by the end of the month, if not early August, because I think if San Leandro can make some quick decisions, important decisions about defunding police, because this is how I'm defining defunding police is is unbundling services. So when people say, well, what did you do but defunding police? Well, I didn't do 50%. But but we did look at something like this, whatever came out of the unbundling services. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I happen to think we're doing a lot. Um, but that's just me. Okay, we have heard great suggestions. We. I think we have two orders of business. One is we need to approve the subcommittee that I've proposed to move forward to bring you back these proposals as quickly as possible. And. Second, can we agree that we are just sending giving staff direction on the discussion and ask? I guess I should ask staff if they feel that they have. Has got sufficient direction from us. So why don't I start with, you know, we haven't heard from our city manager, Mr. Levitt, much, if at all, tonight. So. Mr. Levitt.
Speaker 2: No, I think we have some good direction. And if that subcommittee of Marisa Ashcroft and company Revelle get put together to set up the steering committee format, I'll be getting in contact with the office tomorrow morning and having them set that up for the end of the week so that hopefully by probably wouldn't be able to be July 7th, but by July 21st, we can at a minimum come back with a status report to the council.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um. Uh. Okay. And I might be looking for a little more than a status report, but.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean, but at a minimum, we'd be. I'll come back from the subcommittee with a status report, if not a final report by twice.
Speaker 0: Okay. And cancer O.D..
Speaker 2: I'd like to at least make a motion on the first one to authorize the creation of a steering committee to develop discussions with the council member Vela and Mayor Ashcraft and subcommittee with the membership based on, and based on the document from, uh, Councilman Vela and Vice Mayor Knox White with a deadline to report back. Um, let's just say July 31st. And then you could. I'm open to a different date. That's either a day earlier or a day later.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. And I would just ask that we base our work on both the policy document that the vice mayor and councilman rebels have come up with in addition to this entire discussion that the full council has had. Yeah, we would modify. Okay. Okay. Vice Mayor, I see your handout.
Speaker 2: And I think I'll second I just want to be clear. Reporting back by the 31st means with it with the proposal and the definition. I just want to be clear that reporting back could just be like, we're not ready yet. No, no, I want to I would like to change if we can change that language. To really clarify, we'll bring back a final recommendation for goals, objectives and a work plan. I am 100% on the support to the status of the Special Counsel meeting by July 31st.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That that's my understanding. Okay. We have a motion. And Councilmember Vela, you're nodding. That was your understanding as well. And staff does that doesn't give you too much. Well, let's talk about that later. I probably all. Okay. We're gonna move with all deliberate speed, but we want to make sure we're okay.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. So we had a motion by Councilmember Ody, was seconded by Vice Mayor Knox White. Madam, quick, may we please have a roll call vote?
Speaker 1: Councilmember Dysart.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Obie.
Speaker 2: Odie.
Speaker 0: I had a new member who killed herself.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Vice Mayor Knox White.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Mayor. As he Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: I know. Just because you're sick. Thank you. Just because you're from Chicago. We only vote once.
Speaker 2: I'm still getting.
Speaker 0: That. Yes. So do you want to talk about stimulus payments to get people in that? We don't want to do that. So. Okay. We have established a steering committee and we will get going. As the city manager indicated, I'll be talking to folks in the morning. We'll get and we will get going. And so do we have a direction that has been given? Is the staff require anything further before we adjourn this meeting? Vice Mayor Not quite.
Speaker 2: Which button to mute. I want to just clarify with with Councilmember Odie that your recommendation included the request staff to review the the Chief of Police June 10th policies and bring forward ideas to help implement them. Um, if not, I will make that, make that a separate motion. Was that was that in your proposed process one month? Yes, it was. It was the fourth bullet under Monday action. And I just wanted to make sure it was clear it's actually incorporated. Okay. I don't know that I won't move it.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Um. Okay. This, um. You guys are amazing. This has been 5 hours. Um, and, um. And there's going to be more, but maybe not always. 5 hours. But, again, I. I just want to emphasize what I said before. You were doing really tough work. We don't have a lot of roadmap for doing this, but it's long overdue. And I'm I'm proud of us for tackling it. And so, um, let's just keep on doing what we're doing and get some rest because there's more work to be done. Um, and with that, if any note has anything else to add, I will send you say you um, yes, you may.
Speaker 2: I just want to say, regardless of tensions and whatever else which are going to happen, I appreciate working with all of you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I would I would second that. Everyone's nodding yes. Good. Good work, everyone. And thank you to staff. Thank you so much to the clerk's office for for making this happen. And we appreciate you and take care. Stay safe. Wear your masks. Be really careful out there on the 4th of July, please. No large crowds. All right. Take care. We'll see you all soon by everybody. Bye bye. Good work.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Develop a Work Plan, including Community Dialogue, to Address the Following: 1. Unbundling Services Currently Delivered by the Police Department; 2. Systemic Racism; 3. a Review of Police Department Policies and Practices; 4. Police Department Accountability and Oversight; 5. a Review of Laws that Criminalize Survival; and 6. Other Matters which may be Pertinent, including Vacancies. (City Manager 2110)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_06162020_2020-8032
|
Speaker 3: I actually want to move approval and thank the staff. Debbie, Ms.. Potter and everyone else who worked on this. I mean, there's a couple good things about this. Um, we are basically picking up, incentivizing landlords to take Section eight housing. And, you know, while some of our tenants haven't been able to pay their rent during COVID, the government has been able to. And then it also recognizes the the difference between partially regulated units and just a different level of work required of abiding by the, um, administration. So I want to, I will move approval.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have a motion to have a second. Vice Mayor next.
Speaker 3: Wait a second.
Speaker 1: All right, maybe we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 1: Was there. I'm sorry, was there any discussion? No. Okay. Sorry, Rock all the.
Speaker 0: Council over days.
Speaker 3: I know.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor Knox White.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: Councilor Brody, I. I as the Ashcroft. Hi. That carries 4 to 1.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. So that was 5 a.m. and now we come to five are.
Speaker 0: 5 hours of public hearing to consider adoption of a resolution approving the engineer's report, confirming diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of assessments for the island city landscaping and lighting district 84 to all zones.
Speaker 1: All right. Councilmember De thought you put this.
Speaker 3: Yes. I believe I have to recuse.
Speaker 2: Myself from this one.
Speaker 1: Okay. You don't take care of doing that.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: How come we can just take him off the screen? It's okay.
Speaker 1: That's true. Right.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 1: All right. Um. So this. This time around, make a motion of.
Speaker 3: I am of approval of staff recommendations.
Speaker 1: Thank you. You have a second? And Councilmember Vela is seconding. I could see an interest rate. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion saying then we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. Next light. Hi. Councilmember.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: I and that carries 4 to 1 with Councilmember de SAG absence.
Speaker 1: All right. And and then. Right. And and item five, as is being continued to another time, is that correct? All right. So with that, I believe we have finished the consent calendar.
Speaker 0: Yes. And if I may, if I could report back that there have been no protests received outside and that. Okay. Very quick. And so we have the tally and we can still double check and make sure the tally doesn't change quickly if we call that item after five.
Speaker 1: Okay. And so, um. Uh. Okay. Um, I, we're going to go to the regular agenda in just a minute. Um, I, I am going to share a text message that a member of the public has has asked me to share.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Recommendation to Receive the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Rent Program Regulatory Fee Study; and
Adoption of Resolution Adopting a Tier-Structured Annual Rent Program Fee for the City’s Rent Control, Limitation on Evictions and Relocation Payments Ordinance and Implementing Regulations: $132 for “Fully Regulated Units” and $84 for “Partially Regulated Units.” (Community Development 265)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_06162020_2020-8010
|
Speaker 2: That evening, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council and with Accord Public Works Coordinator, I will keep this brief this item for you asked council to move forward with the collection of delinquent integrated waste account your property tax bill. This is the last step in the process conducted annually to resolve the delinquent accounts that began the process in January, following at least two years worth of collection attempts made by the city franchise hauler Alameda County Industries. The city sends a series of letters to property owners who then have until June 30th to resolve the delinquency with our city finance department. Otherwise, the outstanding amount is collected. The Property Tax Bill. Staff is recommending moving forward with this process and that report. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Court. Any questions for staff? To the motion.
Speaker 3: So move.
Speaker 1: Was that councilmember data?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. It's a move by a councilmember.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. If we could quickly just make sure nobody on the zoom call is make you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Do we have any public comment on this item?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Just making sure.
Speaker 1: All right. Yeah. Thanks. I'll get this by the end of the day. By the end of the agenda. Um, so we've had a motion. Do we have a second? Ten. Councilmember available second. So it's been moved by Councilmember Desai, seconded by Councilmember Vela. Any discussion? Councilor Brody.
Speaker 3: Just real quick, I mean, I was a little leery about doing this given all of the financial pressures facing our residents under COVID. But I asked staff and was informed that if we don't do this by June 30th and we're not allowed to do it for another year, so I will reluctantly support. But I'm sympathetic to those that are impacted.
Speaker 1: Right. Any further comments? Okay. Hearing then maybe have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Jason. Hi. I.
Speaker 3: Hi. Yes.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 0: Mayor, as the. Hi. That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Staff. Nice to see you. And then we will move on to item six. Be Madam Quick.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts Via Property Tax Bills. (Public Works 02741)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_06162020_2020-8016
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Staff. Nice to see you. And then we will move on to item six. Be Madam Quick.
Speaker 0: Public Hearing to consider introduction of ordinance revising the city sewer service charges.
Speaker 1: All right. And is that his present? Is that Mr. Garland?
Speaker 0: And this accord myth we're promoting.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think there's an announcement right soon. When I say anything. City manager. He loves it. When I put him on the spot.
Speaker 3: Tour and I this was one of my few announcements I was going to make in my same manager report. But today we decided, I announced Aaron Smith is going to be the interim public works director when Liam leaves.
Speaker 1: All right. Yes. All right. Well, with that, may we call on Nick Smith to give the report on item six be?
Speaker 2: Hello, everyone. Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: I can hear you. We can't see you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know why. Oh. Oh.
Speaker 1: I know it. I miss everybody. At like I see your face on the screen, but maybe.
Speaker 2: There we go. There you go. See?
Speaker 1: I can see you.
Speaker 2: Wonderful. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor, members of the council, and Aaron Smith, a current deputy soon to be interim public works director. Thank you for the opportunity to serve. Tonight is public hearings for proposed revisions to our sewer service charge. I also will keep things brief. I appreciate the agenda shifting as we do have a staff member downstairs. Back in April, we presented a rate study to council that was prepared by our consultant, Bartle Wells. That rate study looked at funding needs and revenue sources for the sewer program and recommended a 3% annual increase over the next five years. That's 3% per year for the next five years. Just to be clear, the objectives of that rate increase are multifold. One is sufficient funding for pipeline replacement, capital improvements and operating costs. We want to maintain sufficient operating and capital reserves to meet any debt coverage requirements that we have and of course, mitigate impacts to ratepayers smoothing out the rate and avoiding rate spikes in the future. I want to take just a minute to highlight some accomplishments of the sure program since the federal consent decree was in place in 2014. We have met and exceeded all requirements. And just to refresh memories, the two primary objectives of our consent decree are is to reduce the amount of stormwater entering our sewer system, particularly during rain events where that excess flow exceeds the regional treatment capacity and partially treated wastewater discharged to the bay. The other objective is to minimize or eliminate overflows from our collection system onto streets or back up in people's properties. So to date, in the last six years, under federal court order, we've replaced 20 miles of old sewer main. That's about 15% of our collection system. That shifts the average age from nearly 90 years to 55. So a significant accomplishment, but a lot more to be done to avoid failures. A reminder that this work is guided by a 20 year rehabilitation plan that's in our sewer master plan that is prioritized based upon condition assessment. It's also renovated nearly 80% of our 32 excuse me, 34 pumping facilities. And with the island flat, dependable pumping facilities is essential for continued service. We need to continue forward with this good work. And the study identifies the 3% increase in order to do so. Back in April when the rate study went to council. Council also adopted a resolution declaring their intent to revise the sewer service charge. Shortly thereafter, we sent over 20,000 notices to affected property owners, announcing the public hearing this evening, giving instruction for submission of protest. As of 530 this evening, we had 14 protests and just texting the individual downstairs. We've received none this evening. So that leaves 14 total protest, which is not the majority, which allows council to move forward in voting on the ordinance, which puts forth the rate increase. And with that, I can answer questions and report.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Smith. Any council questions for staff? Do we have emotion?
Speaker 0: Do we have any public comment?
Speaker 1: I'm so sorry.
Speaker 0: I try. Okay. We have no comment, so we're all right.
Speaker 1: I'm not. Okay. So no public comment. We'll close up a comment and and I will initiate a movement motion. So move gets then move by Councilmember Odie. And do I have a second? People are going to be here a long time. Councilmember de 6 seconds.
Speaker 2: With a.
Speaker 3: Comment.
Speaker 1: Yes. Comment. Councilmember Desai, quick comment.
Speaker 3: When you look at the bottles and well study in table three, we have a comparison of the city of Alameda, monthly service charge for a single family residence and it compares it against Berkeley, Oakland, Albany and Piedmont. And we come out pretty favorable in terms of how it what our rates are. The typical monthly rate is for a single family home. Emeryville has a much lower rate than Alameda. But when you look at Alameda relative to other cities in North Alameda County, we come out pretty well. So. So that's why I, I certainly support this and we're paying it right now. And the new amount that we're going to pay next year at 3% increase is relatively reasonable.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you for your comments. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Maybe we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: Councilor Dayton, Guy Knox White.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: Hi. I may as I carry five fi.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. And please call your staff member inside.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm back. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Nice to see everyone. Staff and consultants. And then with that, we move on to item six. See?
Speaker 0: Public hearing to consider an appeal of certain conditions of approval imposed by Planning Board Resolution Number PB 2010 approving a waiver of the Universal Residential Design Ordinance Alameda Municipal Code Section 30, Dash 18 for the proposed development and 2229 to 2235 Clement Avenue and adoption of related resolution.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Revising the City’s Sewer Service Charges. (Public Works 602)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_06162020_2020-8021
|
Speaker 0: Public Hearing to consider adoption of the Community Development BLOCK Grant Home Partnership Investment Program, five year strategic plan for fiscal years 2020 through 2025 and the Fiscal Year 20 2021. CDBG Home Action Plan and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute related documents. Agreements. Modifications.
Speaker 1: And I am. I'm just reading to constituents who text me during the meeting. I don't pay close attention to my text. Somebody texted a little while ago, Madam Clerk, asking if you could turn your volume up, that apparently some of the audience are having trouble hearing you.
Speaker 0: I just got that, too. And I turned it up. So.
Speaker 1: You okay? Yeah. And, um, then could, um, the C and then Ms.. Potter had said that when she let me know that city public hearing, CBG public hearing has to be heard tonight. As the plan is due to HUD on July three, we can dispense the staff report and open and close the public hearing quickly. That's music to my ears. And unless any of the council wants to hear the staff report, report it on. Why don't we just open and close the public hearing quickly? Just get yourself.
Speaker 2: Yes. I think that that's exactly right. We're prepared to have the counsel open, the public hearing, taking your testimony, and then staff is prepared to answer questions at the conclusion of the hearing.
Speaker 1: Right. Um. So. Um. I'm sorry. My iPad just froze.
Speaker 2: Perhaps the court can let us know if there are any public speakers.
Speaker 0: There are.
Speaker 1: Three here.
Speaker 0: Presently.
Speaker 1: Right. Okay, good. That gives me time to get my iPad back up. So if if we don't have any clarifying questions of the staff report. Counsel, are you okay if we go right to public speakers? I think I'm sitting nodding. Okay. Would you please call our public speakers?
Speaker 0: Oh, sorry. Okay. Scott, there I am.
Speaker 1: All right. And Scott.
Speaker 2: Can you hear me? Yes. Hello? City council members and Mayor Ashcroft.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to thank the city.
Speaker 2: Of Alameda for.
Speaker 3: Allocating some of the extra CDBG funds.
Speaker 2: For.
Speaker 3: Emergency shelter needs for.
Speaker 2: Domestic violence.
Speaker 3: Survivors. There's a group of survivor providers throughout Alameda County who have been meeting regularly since the beginning of the pandemic, discussing the needs of survivors. And I just wanted you.
Speaker 2: All to realize.
Speaker 3: That you're in the vanguard on this issue that we've been asking other cities, as well as the county board of Supervisors, to allocate.
Speaker 2: Funds.
Speaker 3: For this pressing need. But the city of Alameda jumped to the idea. I think even city staff might have suggested it before we suggested it. So I just really it's something I think the city should be proud of. You know, I suggested to city staff even that you release a press release.
Speaker 2: Talking about.
Speaker 3: What you all are doing.
Speaker 2: For survivors.
Speaker 3: You know, because unfortunately, the needs are going to continue to be significant even after a shelter in place is completely lifted. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Again. We look forward.
Speaker 3: To our continuing partnership.
Speaker 1: And Ms.. Scott, I should remember this, that my brain is a bit overloaded these days. Remind me who you're affiliated with.
Speaker 3: I am so.
Speaker 2: Sorry. There were way.
Speaker 3: Too many Zoom calls.
Speaker 2: So, Aaron Scott.
Speaker 3: I'm the executive director of the Family Violence Law Center, which we free legal services to.
Speaker 2: Residents.
Speaker 3: Of Alameda.
Speaker 2: Who are.
Speaker 3: Struggling with domestic violence and sexual assault, as well as a 24 hour crisis intervention.
Speaker 1: Services. Yes, that's good work. Yes, I. I know we know each other and we've met. Like I said, I just some technology. So I need I need details. Introductions, but thank you. Yes. So much important work is being covered by these funds. So thank you. And then I know you said quick, we have other public speakers.
Speaker 0: We have three more. And the first one is Lynne.
Speaker 1: All right. Welcome. You hear me? I can.
Speaker 2: Okay. Hold on 1/2.
Speaker 1: I can do that, too.
Speaker 2: Okay. My name is Sofia Carson, and I'm a sophomore in high school. The current budget that's being grossly unfair ends the current political discussions and awakenings that America's reckoning with. Oh, in our demands to this coffin.
Speaker 1: Ms.. Coffin, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I think you're on the wrong item.
Speaker 2: At the time. We are.
Speaker 1: We're voting for some wonderful funds that are going to things like homelessness, support and shelter. So I think you probably want to be an item. Help me out, Laura. Six G.
Speaker 0: The budget.
Speaker 2: I'll be back then. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we'll see a little bit. All right.
Speaker 0: So. So our next one is Allison. Get the young.
Speaker 1: Welcome, Mr. Young. DeJong.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me? I can. Oh, perfect. I'm out of their city council and city staff. I'm young.
Speaker 2: I'm the executive director of Eat in INR, which is, uh.
Speaker 1: Operates two one, one, two, one, one. Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Spoken before you all. Several times.
Speaker 1: I wanted to sort of.
Speaker 2: Dispense of my usual two, one, one.
Speaker 1: Song and dance. I just wanted to take the opportunity tonight.
Speaker 2: I know when I've come before you in the past, I always make sure to mention the role that 211 plays in disaster response. Did I ever think I'd be coming to speak to you on Zoom about pandemics? No. No. But here we are. So quickly, I just wanted to let you know that like all of us, we have been very busy since shelter in place. We have had an increased call volume. The first four weeks of shelter in place. We had a 52% increase over the immediate four weeks prior. Since then, it's calmed down a little, but still about an average 40% increase in calls over pre shelter place time. The other sort of perfect storm for 211. Not only did we have do we have a greater increase in calls, but when shelter in place started, so many of our resource records needed to be updated. Obviously hours of operation, things like congregate meals. We quickly deployed additional staff across the agency to support plan to.
Speaker 1: Make all of the.
Speaker 2: Necessary record updates. We've also been utilizing some volunteers and some temporary staff to handle the increased call volume, which has been amazing. We deployed our entire staff to work remotely within the first eight days of shelter in place, which has been working out amazingly well. I think we'll continue some combination of remote and in-office down the road. We have had our disaster preparedness coordinators stationed at the county's emergency operations persons that would be relaying all of the updated information, both for shelter types and then a couple of weeks ago.
Speaker 1: Related.
Speaker 2: To the civil unrest and various curfews. All of that, we get calls and handle those calls from 211. We've also been handling calls for the COVID 19 line set up by Alameda County Public Health Department, my statewide COVID 19 line that was set up and we had a text campaign. People can particularly right before shelter in place when people had more sort of general coronavirus calls. If people text two, one, one, people text the word coronavirus, two, two, one, one, two, one, one. They get some general health information and then they're further prompted to add their zip code. And Alameda County specific information is then texted back. So I just wanted to share all of that with you and just thank you, as always, for the city's continued support of the vital service of two on one. So thank you very much.
Speaker 1: And thank you for your remarks. And you provide a very valuable service at two, even two, one, one, two. Thank you. All right, who's next, madam?
Speaker 0: Liz Varella.
Speaker 1: Hi. No, Liz are areola. Welcome. Hello. Hello.
Speaker 2: This is my executive director of Building Futures and it's nice to see you all on screen. Can't wait to get back in the chamber again. I want to take this moment to do a couple things. I want to echo what Aaron Scott from his law center said that really, I am proud to be a Alameda city of Alameda Agency. The way the city staff have approached the domestic violence crisis here during COVID is impressive. We have had a few meetings of domestic violence task force, and the funding that went to Family Violence Law Center is really going to help address the issues that are going on in in the city of Alameda. And we're definitely telling the rest of the cities we're working with in the county. What you guys are doing. I also want to thank you all for the funding that is supporting the Midway Shelter. Again, we need to keep up the Midway Shelter. It's serving a really important purpose, housing women and children who are homeless. And so we really want to thank you on that. And lastly, I am excited to partner with the city. We are building futures to administer the funds for rent relief for those folks who have lost income during COVID. And thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And thank you for all the good work that building futures does. You were one of our just go to partners. So thank you. All right, Miss Seger, who's next?
Speaker 0: We have no additional speakers.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then on the neighbors raising their hand on Zoom or any. Correct. All right. All right. So any comments or questions or. You know, Mr. Potter, if I could ask you just for the benefit of our listening audience or watching audience, however you're experiencing this meeting. There's that exhibit. It's I think it's the last one, exhibit five of this summary of activities. You don't have to read the whole thing, but can you just give some highlights? Because I happen to think we're doing some really special things with this this many and just to give the public a sense of what that is.
Speaker 2: I am I'm happy to do that.
Speaker 1: See. But I lost your volume. Miss Potter, I am reading lips. What happened? Can you turn your volume up?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You are?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Did I throw you off with my ass?
Speaker 2: Well, I. I was. I needed time. Regardless, I was hoping that Lisa Fitz would be here. She should be. I don't know if the Kirk hasn't had a chance to admit her, but in the meantime, I'll start.
Speaker 1: Sure. I see her down at the bottom of the screen. I mean, I see her name. Yes. She did a nice presentation to the Social Service Human Relations Board.
Speaker 2: Lisa, do you want to do the highlights, Lisa, if they're in otherwise? Sure. Okay.
Speaker 1: And quick highlights, because we've got we still have more to hear. But like I said, I just I want the community to know what we're doing here in Alameda. But we it's.
Speaker 2: Hi, I'm Lisa Vince. I'm a management analyst with Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. And yes, to answer your question, we've got a lot of the usual suspects. So the Alameda Food Bank, domestic violence, you heard from some of the new ones, our school based mental health uh, through Alameda provided by Alameda Family Services Emergency Case Management will be offering for the first time this year with CDBG funds as well. And then some of our public improvement projects include helping Alameda Food Bank improve their warehouse so that they can handle the shelter in place. Social distance requirements. We've got a teen technology lab proposed by the Boys and Girls Club. Um, and then I think you heard about some of the health and safety improvements that we're going to do at Midway Shelter and then, uh, park improvements at Woodstock Park.
Speaker 1: And how about that safe parking and day center?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: And then yes, we will also be, um, one of the proposed public improvement projects is health and safety improvements at the U.S. 15.
Speaker 1: Yes, including shower and kitchen facilities. Thank you. Thank you both. And it sits in this potter for for all the good work on this. So Council, do we have any questions, comments, motion. Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 3: And then all of that.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Second move.
Speaker 1: All right. We've had a motion by Councilmember Oti, seconded by Vice Mayor Knox White. Any comments? Any discussion? Hearing? None. Let's take a. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 2: I just wanted to highlight and thank staff for working to expand the school based mental health services. And I think our partnership with Family Services, we have. We did a one time expenditure last year. I think based off of the numbers, this all works together and I'm glad we were able to find the funds to do that . I just wanted to thank staff for their work on that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. But if there are no further comments, maybe we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Next way.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: Odie. Hi, Vella. I may or as the Ashcroft. Hi. That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you to everyone, including our speakers, and thank you for the good work. And it's so, so well needed and so timely. All right. So with that, we will move on to item six, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 0: Introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager or designee to execute a Third Amendment to the license with Amber Kinetics Inc, a California corporation for the unimproved lot located at 641 West Redline Avenue in Alameda to extend the term for 12 months and provide for a one hour period for 112 month extension option.
Speaker 1: And Ms. Party, this is your item, right?
Speaker 2: Yes. And I'm hoping that.
Speaker 1: Ms.. Mercado yeah? Where is Ms.. Mercado? And that cute little dog of hers is still outside. Maybe it's dark outside now. Well, there she is. This is your name. You're muted, Ms.. Mercado.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)/HOME Partnership Investment Program (HOME) Five-Year Strategic Plan for FY 2020-25 and the FY 2020-21 CDBG/HOME Action Plan; and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements, and Modifications. (Community Development 236/235)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_06162020_2020-8044
|
Speaker 0: Public hearing to establish the Proposition four appropriations limit for fiscal year 2021 and consider adoption of related resolution.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And this is for this item is this.
Speaker 0: Jennifer Tab is joining now.
Speaker 1: Oh, hello.
Speaker 2: Hello, welcome. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the council. I'm Jennifer Tyler, a budget manager in the finance department. The California Constitution requires local governments to adopt an appropriate appropriations limit annually by state law. We cannot levy taxes above the allowable limit based on the state's formula for calculating growth for next fiscal year. We would be at 64% of what we are allowed to levy or well below the limit. Please let me know if you have any questions on this item.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Any clarifying questions of staff council? And Madam Clerk, do we have any public speakers?
Speaker 0: No one has raised their hand in Zoom and no one has submitted a comment.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, with that. Do I have a motion to move? Councilmember only moves the motion. Do I have a second? I swear. Next sex. You two are getting the prize at the end of the meeting, by the way, there'll be a special prize for the most motions in seconds made. So it's been moved and it's been seconded. May we have any. Any further discussion? We have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 0: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Next site. Hi, Odie. Yes, Bella. Yes, Mayor. As he Ashcraft. Yes. That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Thank you. Mr.. Nice to see you. And Ms.. Brownstein. Hello. Even though we didn't see you. Um, okay, so we have completed item six F and counsel before we move on to item six, which I think is going to be a big one to call a break, just a ten minute recess. It is. Let's see, it is 911. Okay. Promise to be back in 10 minutes. Is that enough time? Yeah. Okay. All right. We'll see you all in 10 minutes. Thank you, everybody. Oh, my. I just know it. They tell me.
Speaker 3: Eric, I think you're on mute.
Speaker 0: And I'm here. We just lost power on the timer screen, but I'll get it back.
Speaker 3: She was in the council chambers. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I think she was. Yeah, I am here.
Speaker 3: There, but may not be on the air.
Speaker 0: Can you. Can you hear me? Can I.
Speaker 3: Go check? You want me to?
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: I go check real quick.
Speaker 0: No, I think you can't hear me.
Speaker 3: There she is.
Speaker 0: Okay. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. I didn't know. We didn't know.
Speaker 0: No, sorry. We're. We're here.
Speaker 1: You sound breathless. Catch your breath. Okay. You tell us when you are ready and we will be ready.
Speaker 0: We're ready.
Speaker 1: All right, everyone ready, counsel? Okay. Let's do this thing.
Speaker 0: A6g is adoption a resolution approving in adopting the City of Alameda Operating Capital Budget Mid-Cycle Update for fiscal year 2022 2021 and adoption of resolution approving workforce changes and amending the Management and Confidential Employee Association salary effective July 1st and a recommendation to accept report on settlements approved between November 1st to May 1st.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Public Hearing to Establish the Proposition 4 (Appropriations) Limit for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and to Consider Adoption of Resolution Establishing the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2020-21. (Finance 2410)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_06022020_2020-8038
|
Speaker 1: Adoption of an urgency and kind of fide ordinance of the City Council of the City of Alameda, declaring the existence of a local emergency in response to civil unrest. Ratifying the city manager's decision to order curfew on June 1st and second 2020, ending at 5 a.m. on June 3rd. Provide direction extending, modifying or discontinuing the curfew and authorize staff to take further action to implement this declaration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And so this item is being presented by let's see. Sorry, it's the city attorney, is that correct?
Speaker 2: It'll be me, Mayor. This is.
Speaker 0: Okay. Oh. Assistant City Manager Jerry Bowden.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft. Thank you very much. Members of council. Everyone can hear me. Okay?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Okay. Great. Perfect. So, my name is Jerry Bowden, assistant city manager and staff recommended recommendation tonight as as the mayor just mentioned, is related to civil unrest in Alameda County and locally since the tragic and unfortunate death of Mr. George Floyd in Minnesota on the 25th of May, as we've seen, in addition to the many lawful and peaceful protests, there have been events and gatherings that have turned violent, resulting in injuries, death and significant damage to and loss of property. Tonight's staff recommendation includes four parts. First, to address the unique local public safety and related demands and better position the city for the possibility of recuperating funds associated with our response. Staff is recommending that the City Council declare a local emergency related to civil unrest. This action does require a 4/5 vote and we sincerely hope that the need for this is short lived. Second, consistent with the city, charter staff is recommending that council ratify the city manager's decision to order a curfew from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. on June 1st and second, ending at 5 a.m. tomorrow morning, June 3rd. And third staff is seeking Council's direction regarding extending, modifying or discontinuing the city of Alameda curfew. For context, I'll note that some communities are taking this decision to have a curfew day by day in the area, and others like neighboring San Leandro have a curfew in effect until the morning of June eight unless it's decided that it should be lifted earlier. And as you all know, the county has implemented a curfew from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. until the morning of June 5th if the city's curfew is extended, if that is what council decides to do. We have seen correspondents today asking for a little more flexibility with respect to the allowed activities, including volunteers helping homeless individuals or elder elderly population in the community that needs that help. The request is that they are also exempt from the curfew or given flexibility and council may wish to consider that or provide staff with direction. And should that be the direction the council goes? The fourth and final part of this recommendation is to authorize staff to take further action necessary to implement the declaration related to civil unrest should that become necessary. And an example of that might be if there's a decision to not continue the curfew today and and ultimately in a few days it becomes necessary. Then staff would go ahead and do some take that action if if that was deemed necessary. So that concludes staff's very brief presentation on this topic, and we're available for any questions you may have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Bowden. Council and anybody any other staff, some city attorney or city manager want to weigh in on what was just said. City Manager Eric Levitt.
Speaker 2: Fat man, mayor and City Council. I'll just add that this is a difficult issue because I think any time you restrict people's rights, it's a very serious issue you need to look at very carefully or even in doing it for the last two days. Yesterday and today, I took very seriously their discussions over the weekend and I felt that it shouldn't happen. But yesterday, especially with neighboring cities doing it, I felt that was the appropriate thing to do. So I would ask that anything we do that we we try to keep it as narrow as possible in a decision and not take it out too long.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Levitt. Council comments are city attorney. Mr. Shen, did you want to comment? Sorry.
Speaker 2: Not at all. Other than to say that I reviewed the legality of the city manager's declaration and find it to be fully compliant with all applicable laws. And I'm happy to answer any questions that the Council has.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. I see Councilmember Desai with his hand up.
Speaker 2: Quick question. We had a nice email come in from a resident named Susan Rios who asks how many residents are working from home and can only shop after 8 p.m.? What should we do? Which what would what do we say to Mr. Rios and others who are like her?
Speaker 0: Well, staff can certainly respond, but my understanding is businesses are covered by this curfew as well. Is that correct, Mr. Shin?
Speaker 2: Yes, that is correct. And so I don't believe that stores would be open after. Okay. Okay. That's the answer, then.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And again, the curfew these two nights last night and tonight, 8 p.m. to 5 a.m.. So, um. Okay. Councilmember o.T.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I mean, I guess my question is just hypothetically, say hours expires at 5 a.m. tomorrow and we're still under the county. I mean, just the interplay of that and what happens or what happens tomorrow night if we don't have a curfew and the county has one?
Speaker 0: Okay. City. City attorney Mr. Kane, I know you emailed us about this, but do you want to share with the public?
Speaker 2: Sure. At this moment, unless the county order changes or a judicial decision is issued, altering that order, the county order purports to apply to all incorporated cities and unincorporated county areas. So as of this moment, our understanding is that that order would apply within the city of Alameda. And therefore, based on the text of that order as it exists today, it would apply. So an ATM curfew would still remain in effect even if the council discontinues our local curfew. And then if that happens, I mean, right now, our city manager is, you know, our emergency director, if I remember correctly, going to our emergency plan . And, you know, our police department reports up to him. I mean, would that change at all if we didn't have a curfew and suddenly it was just the county one, which I don't want to get into legal argument here. I still think we have some sovereignty issues. But regardless, I mean, how would that work? I mean, what are we would we be forfeiting our city manager's authority and our police chief's authority? No. The city manager remains the director of emergency services. With respect to the enforcement of the county's order, any California peace officer could enforce it anywhere within the county. And so law enforcement decisions within cities are made by the police chief. And so the police chief would have discretion in how he wants to deploy his resources and undertake enforcement. I believe he may even be in the audience and may be able to answer further questions in this regard. And additionally, obviously, county sheriffs, to the extent that they are operating within the city of Alameda, for example, pursuant to mutual aid, they would also enforce that they would have the authority to enforce the county's order.
Speaker 0: And do we know is is the police chief on hand to answer any questions? I don't know that. But. Okay. Who else? Council. Is a merely a council member of the Surrey. My question is, and I don't think we're the only city grappling with the two questions raised by Councilmember Odie is if there are other cities that are challenging the authority of the county ordinance.
Speaker 2: Or.
Speaker 0: Where does that leave us? That's part one. And part two is. You know. But I understand the law that was was cited or the decision that was cited. But is I guess my concern is the overall enforcement of this and how we would go about actually enforcing a county ordinance. If if, if the word gets out that we don't continue our curfew and people are confused about what's going on. And, you know, like Magic Police Chief Porter Larry just appeared on the screen and have these magical powers. So, Chief, for Larry, if you'd like to meet you, unmute yourself and answer. If you're able to answer the question posed by Councilmember Vela about how does it how does enforcement of a county or two right now we are under both our city's order, but also the counties. And so if the this went on and the city didn't choose to extend until Friday morning, when the county order will be rescinded, if not sooner, how does enforcement work? Chief for Larry.
Speaker 2: Drew. Thank you for having me on. I. My understanding of the county order is that much like the health department order for the COVID crisis, that the more restrictive order would would rule the day. I was on the phone with the business leaders earlier, and I understand the inconveniences, but we also have a fairly significant public safety concern that's happening right now with not the peaceful protest, but with some of the looting and the burglaries that have been happening, including here in town. So my my stance would be that we would be operating I would be operating the police department under the county order. If the council did not extend the local order, I would I would intend to to follow the county order until its expiration, which I believe is June 5th.
Speaker 0: 5 a.m. just I think. Yeah. Okay, Counsel. Anyone else want to want to weigh in? So I have a question. I think it was discussed in the staff report that we could delegate to staff. I think the city manager, the police chief, probably conferring with the city attorney and I would include the assistant city manager as to this. Well, what the police chief said, I agree with if the county's order is continuing, the county's order is continuing. But if for some reason, the county says, you know, things are looking pretty good almost everywhere and rescinds the county order, we could still defer to staff to say, okay, what was the situation in Alameda last night ? And, you know, moving forward, what do we think is the best course of action? So is that is that a possible approach? I'm seeing the city attorney nodding. You want to weigh in, Mr. Chan?
Speaker 2: Sure, Mr. Mayor. The council could give direction tonight to authorize staff to take actions necessary to further the declaration of the local emergency. If the council chooses to do so and give direction for the staff to work together to implement it and to report back to the council, which I believe is consistent with what you've indicated.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Avella. I wanted to go back to my question about if there are cities within Alameda County don't or challenge the county order. Is that something that our staff is going to be following up on and the implications of that? The case law that was cited was, what, 40 years old or something like that?
Speaker 2: And so maybe I'll start and I'll turn it over to the chief. To the extent he has additional information, my understanding is that I'm not aware of any city that has that is preparing to file a legal challenge, though any moment could change. I understand that there are certain cities, certain elections, elected officials from certain cities have taken the position that does not apply or it may not apply to certain jurisdictions. And we are certainly following each of that closely. And the city attorney for the city of Alameda, for the county of Alameda have requested an additional conversation with the county council to have continuing dialog on this topic. And we've not received a confirmation that that conversation will happen. So we we at in your city attorney's office will continue to follow this on all fronts.
Speaker 0: And did I know if another councilmember wants to weigh in now, I would be interested in hearing from the chief. What you were hearing from the business community. But I see the vice mayor's hands went up as I was speaking. Do you want to go next to vice mayor?
Speaker 2: Sure. Thank you. So I think this is I think we're in an awkward position right now. I so I would like to thank the city manager and the police chief for making the decision you made yesterday. I believe on the information that we had at the time that this decision was made, it was probably the right decision . I have struggled very mightily to figure out what I would do had the question come before. Should we do it again tonight? I think at 45 minutes before it's about to kick in, it's whether we decide it's not a curfew or not, I think is go communications. Why? It's problematic. But I'm not confident that I now that we know where things went yesterday and where things have been today. And, you know, with hindsight, whether or not we would have continued this. I am extremely uncomfortable with the county sheriff implementing something at a county level with very little input for such a long period. And I understand I'm going to guess that it goes through Friday morning, because there are some significant concerns around unrest on Thursday following the memorial service for Mr. Floyd in Minneapolis. If we were to move forward tonight, what I would like is some sort of reporting about any police action in Alameda related to the curfew tomorrow morning . I'm not expecting any. But if there are any, I would like to I would like to have some sort of report back. I feel that this is a very significant act that we have taken on, and I want to treat it as as that. Similarly, I would be willing to support providing.
Speaker 0: Mr. Vice Mayor, I mean, forgive me, all of you. I quickly texted the city clerk to ask if we had public comment. And we do. And so before we get and this is I guess there are shortcomings to a virtual meeting, because if we were in chambers, she would be hissing or, you know, they'd be sending a note to me.
Speaker 2: So I will reserve my comments.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Just hold your thoughts. But unless someone else has clarifying questions about the report, I would request that we hear from the public on public comments. Does anybody have any clarifying questions they wanted to put in first? Councilmember Vella And then if I know we're being asked to adopt the emergency declaration, there's the second question, which is about what we do with the curfew. Could we adopt the emergency declaration and not continue the curfew? And then what would that look like and how long would the emergency declaration be in effect? If you could just clarify that.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: That's. Yes, Mr. City attorney, please.
Speaker 2: Yes. If the council chooses to adopt the emergency declaration, it currently does not contain an end date. The council could either set an end date right now or allow staff to bring you back when staff recommends an end date. With respect to your second question, if you adopt the emergency declaration and direct staff to discontinue the curfew, it would just it would be discontinued. And then the council would have to make a decision on whether to allow staff to reinstitute a curfew in the future if facts warrants or to direct staff to not institute a curfew in all circumstances. Those are decisions that the council could make, either give staff the direction or give clear direction one way or the other.
Speaker 0: And our city manager, Eric Levitt.
Speaker 2: And I would recommend that at the longest period for a declaration of emergency for this particular event would be through June 16th would be the absolute longest I would do and I would but I'm not staying for the curfew. I'm just saying. For the declaration of emergency.
Speaker 0: Okay. And any particular reason why that particular date, Mr. LEVITT?
Speaker 2: Because that's the next city council meeting had it.
Speaker 0: All right, then. Okay. Without it, there's no further clarifying questions. Um, the let's. City Clerk, will you please introduce the public comments or call on the public speakers?
Speaker 1: Yes. So if anybody present via Zoom would like to comment on this item, which is the curfew matter, please raise your hand now. Okay. We have three people who wish to publicly address you. And then I had three comments to read. So everybody will still get 3 minutes.
Speaker 0: Perfect. All right, who's first ready?
Speaker 1: She will promote you and you can speak.
Speaker 0: Good evening.
Speaker 2: Can you guys hear me?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you. Hi. My name's Diana. I'm a registered nurse here in L.A.. Is it Mr. Singh or is it Diana?
Speaker 2: It's both of us. I'm with. I'm with him. Well.
Speaker 0: You got it. One person got it. Okay. I didn't want your need from me to be so distant. That sends its regards to you guys to arrive late.
Speaker 2: We're going to.
Speaker 0: Take.
Speaker 2: A look inside. I promise.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I guess we're 8:00, but. But I'm so sorry. Call. We are. I remember the surfers here in the Bay Area, and I'm very concerned about the mental health of our guardians, our police officers during all of this. And. And I have friends that have cuts that are partners and husbands. And, you know, it's really, really tough. But I'm just wondering what is being done to address the mental health with with these officers. And because in the here has actually we've recently featured in the area news we're launching a six week long series about as a police department last year which ran over six weeks and they brought that run the mindfulness and just know you know just.
Speaker 2: It really it really helped the officers it was like really, really simple easy stuff to do that helped them with their sleep to help them with their. I've been sober for 99.
Speaker 0: Please forgive me for the interruption. I think you might not have realized that this is specifically to communicate comments about the emergency declaration and issuing a curfew right now. However, I love what you're talking about. And if you could possibly hang on when we finish the special meeting, we are going to move into our regular meeting. And there is an item, oral communications for speakers who want to speak about an item not on the agenda. Okay. We'll get to that shortly. Can can you hold on? Yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Apologies on.
Speaker 0: That. No worries. It's a little confusing when we're virtual like this, but thank you so much. All right. Um. Okay, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 1: Okay, now we have. Elizabeth Douglas.
Speaker 0: Hi there. Good evening, Miss Douglas. Thank you. In terms of the curfew, I just I don't know if you have enough data to make a decision on the curfew. It seems it seems like what I've heard so far, it says that there's nothing.
Speaker 2: No concern.
Speaker 0: From the protesters, but there are concerns about looting and burglaries. But I have no hard numbers to here. I don't know if it's correlated to. Two as a result of the protests that are going on. I just I really don't think that there's enough data. And I would be.
Speaker 2: Hesitant.
Speaker 0: To make any decisions or I implore you to be hesitant about making decisions without.
Speaker 2: Data to back it up.
Speaker 0: So I'm not in support of extending that curfew. Thank you, Mr. Douglas. Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Josh, he's being promoted now.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Oh, he's still muted. Mr. Ryan is.
Speaker 2: You know. Can you hear me now?
Speaker 0: Yes, yes, yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Thank you. Good evening. I'll just read a brief statement I prepared. I'd like to register my disapproval for extending or creating any curfew in Alameda. This measure is a failure of imagination and only supports those that would drive our communities apart. As a new homeowner now, I feel more of a threat to my young family by the powers this gives the police than in the promise of safety. Simply put, there is no basis of fact for any emergency in the city. Furthermore, curfews only create confrontation, not de-escalation. Other local and national police forces have used this crisis as an opportunity to brutalize protesters in feeble attempts to justify their outsized budgets. By adopting curfews, this city effectively endorses that brutalization. This measure is a direct attack on government and police accountability. We should be encouraging our neighbors to come together as a community and heal and be a model for what this town can be. Instead, this motion for mass panic and further drives the already loaded reputation of Alameda as a place where people of color are unwelcome. We can be better. We must be better. We should be. Instead of voting to defund and demilitarize the police department and find better means of preventing crime and keeping our community safe. Thanks very much. Have a good evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our next speaker.
Speaker 1: I think that was it for Zoom speakers. And now I will read two comments and take. The first is from Linda Asbury, executive director of West Alameda Business Association. Representing the West telling me to Business Association, please consider the curfew for the city of Alameda to reflect the curfew of Alameda County through June 5th. If necessary, this can be rescinded at any time. Thank you for your consideration. And next we have. Rob's tenacity. Size Kony, size Kony. Hopefully I'm not pitching that too badly. Okay. Council members, not only should you not ratify the decision of the city manager to impose this tinpot faster curfew order, but it should be rescinded immediately. Moreover, you should take any available steps to lodge the city's dissent from the county's curfew. Your colleagues in the city of Santa Clara have already taken those steps. Beyond, no doubt, nothing that has happened on the island this week remotely justifies the extraordinary limitations on citizens freedom of speech and movement. Curfew orders do not keep us safer. They serve as a legal fig leaf. For the police to initiate violent confrontations with unarmed protesters. To impose this curfew is to ratify and stand with the actions of authoritarians like the president and to equate the brutal police violence we have seen all over the nation in the past week with the chanting and marching of protesters calling for an end to brutal police violence. A progressive city like Alameda should be making every effort to oppose police violence, raise up the voices of oppressed communities that are the most frequent victims of police violence, and demonstrate that our city rejects the quasi military weaponization of police forces nationwide and the turning of those weapons against poor, black and brown people. Please do your duty to stand with the George Floyd's of the world and against the Derek. Sherman's up to oppose the curfew. And then the last comment I think was by Josh and he already spoke. So I will not read his since he spoke instead.
Speaker 0: All right. Okay. And that was the extent of the public comments. Act. Madam Clerk, is that the extent of our public comments on item two?
Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct. No more.
Speaker 0: All right. With that, I've closed public comments and we will return to council discussion. Vice Mayor, I think I cut you off. Excuse me. When I realized we had public speakers said, Do you want to resume?
Speaker 2: Sure, I'd be happy to. Thank you very much. And I will also acknowledge my clock hasn't moved yet, but I will not use the full 9 minutes that I still have. So thank you. Yeah, I as I was saying, I appreciate knowing knowing what we know about what happened on Sunday. The reasoning behind making the declaration that we have today. I was going to ask the police chief if he would be comfortable talking a little bit about what happened with our local law enforcement resources on Sunday, the day before the curfew that helped to inform why why we decided to move forward. Is that something that would be. Appropriate to speak about it at the council meeting? Certainly. I guess I'll ask that through the city manager.
Speaker 0: Yes. Well, actually, you you ask. Oh, well and I'll sit through the chair, but, um. Yes, Chief. Hilary, can you, can you comment about what we knew on Sunday or, you know, leading up to this probably Friday, Saturday and Sunday? Because I don't think the decision was made just in one day. But tell us if you can for sure.
Speaker 2: Thank you for the opportunity. I mean, I'll tell you that we you know, we really didn't know if there was going to be any violence or any crime or looting in the city. We were obviously concerned about it. I received several emails, some phone calls and texts from concerned residents, from concerned business owners, from the business districts, specifically on Webster Street. And we had information that there was possibly going to be a plan to shoot the target at Alameda Landing, which fortunately did not occur and has not occurred yet. Sunday night into Monday morning, between around 9 p.m. in the evening and about four or 5 a.m. on Monday morning, we had about a dozen incidents of either straight up looting or smash window smash burglaries, which is highly unusual for the city of Alameda, has not been happening in anywhere near those numbers so far this year. So we did not make arrests in all those cases. So I don't know what the motivation was for all of them. We did arrest three people for breaking into the Walgreens at South Shore. Three adults and then four juveniles for attempting to break in with a window smashed into the CVS in Santa Clara. I don't have the final numbers in front of me, but I believe we were somewhere between 12 and 14 ish. Either burglaries or windows smashes the CVS at Harvard Bay, IL, the Bedford Express on Blanding, the AT&T store at Alameda Landing and several others. So we it was a super busy night. We had 25 officers on the street, which is double more than double what we normally have. And that's what we continue to do right now in order to keep the city safe and hopefully deter additional stuff. Last night was much better. I believe we had one or possibly two incidents overnight compared to what we had on Sunday night. It was much quieter. We had. It was nice to have more police officers than we needed last night, which was not the case in some of the surrounding jurisdictions. And it's my understanding, even today and tonight, Oakland and Fremont have been very active again. San Leandro and Hayward were hit probably the hardest on Sunday night. So there's been a lot going on. Great. Thank you. And could you also if you're if you're able just talk a little bit about mutual aid and what was available on Sunday? Sure. So typically what happens on mutual aid is that the city the city in need, which in this case was the city of Oakland, they know that they've got this unplanned event. And so they make a request through the Office of Emergency Services at Alameda County. Sheriff Ahearn, as the emergency services official for the county, is the person who makes the decision whether or not to authorize the deployment of mutual aid resources. The sheriff, based on the Oakland request, the number of reports of people that were going to be down there protesting and demonstrating, he ordered or granted the request and then outreach was made to all the various agencies within the county. Alameda being one of them on on Sunday night, Saturday night and Sunday night, I'm sorry, Friday night and Saturday night, we sent about a dozen officers, I think it was 12 on Friday night, 14 on Friday night and 12 on Saturday night. Sunday night. We were not there because we needed to be here because of everything that was going on in Alameda. We are not in Oakland. Glad to get back. We were going to send somebody to Oakland earlier today, but we we wound up not having to do that. So anyway, the mechanism is that the city in need, Oakland asks for the county's help. The county makes the assessment, authorizes the mutual aid. And then all of the individual jurisdictions, if they can provide, people do. And we did. Great. Thank you. And my understanding is on Sunday, not only did we not were we not able to on to Oakland, but we were not able to ask anybody for help when it seemed like we might need it as well, because everybody was basically staying home because this was so widespread. Is that correct? In general? In general, it was partially correct. I was I did ask for and request for some mutual aid. I called over to the EOC and I was able to get and briefly and it turned out we didn't need them for very long. But I did briefly have a squad from the Berkeley Police Department that arrived. I think they got here about 1030 or 11:00 in the evening. I don't think they were here for more than an hour. And then we were able to kind of get our arms wrapped around everything and they returned to Oakland. Okay.
Speaker 0: I guess for clarification, Chief, when you reached out to the EOC, would that be the Alameda County Emergency Operations Center?
Speaker 2: Actually, no mayor on that particular case. I had somebody inside the EOC and the city of Oakland.
Speaker 0: Oh. Oh, okay.
Speaker 2: So I went, okay. I just called somebody over there directly and said that we needed help fast. And they sent me they sent me the 12 officers. Okay. So thank you for all that. I just I wanted to kind of explain some of my while. I heard a lot of comments that I certainly understand and at a gut level agree with. Again, I think that, uh, curfews are extremely, um, there are a significant event and they're not something that we should take lightly. I really do. Again, my comments about why I support what happened yesterday is based on the fact that from what we saw Sunday, we were stretched. And not only where we were stretched, but all of our neighbors were not only stretched, but really hit very hard. And it was, I think, a rational and reasonable response as we move forward in considering this curfew. I would certainly agree with the city manager's recommendation that we declare the city the state of emergency through the 16th, and I would be more than happy to give some direction to the city manager that would allow him to declare a curfew on a day by day basis based on information that's coming up, knowing that there are probably a couple of dates in the next week in which we should at least be alert to the fact that that, you know, we may need to join our neighbors in setting a curfew just to to to keep our region a little safer. Again, as if if we do so, I will request that we get a report early in the morning of any action that is taken related to the curfew and that all discretion and be be used in reporting out of when that decision is going to be made. You know, my hope is that we don't have to do it. I would also hope that if this council does not extend the current curfew to match the county, that that be at least a signal that we're not looking to overly enforce the curfew of the county. I do not really believe that. I do not stand in support of that decision. I think it was made far too quickly with very little input. And I think we're going to you know, if our county sheriff is going to act like this, there needs to be a lot more input and verification before just announcing it. Thank you. Done.
Speaker 0: Okay. Next, Councilmember.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thanks to the city staff that put this together. One suggestion I would have said murder instead of death of Mr. Floyd. But that that word is important. And I'd like to thank our chief for everything he's doing to keep us safe. You know, when I read about this, I was, like, super queasy. And it is the first thing that pops in my head is that 250 year old Benjamin Franklin quote that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. And watching the news yesterday, I think New York was under a curfew for the first time since 1943. New York City. And to show how things haven't changed, you know, that was when a white police officer murdered a African-American service member during World War Two. So these decisions are not things we take lightly and. I read the Supreme Court decision that came out over the weekend about Governor Newsome's limitation on churches. And there was a line in there that says our Constitution principally entrusts, quote, the safety and the health of the people, end quote, to the politically accountable officials of the states to guard and protect. And to me, you know, when it comes to public health, we don't have a public health department like Berkeley has or, you know, San Francisco as a county. We have ceded that authority to the county. So when they make orders on public health, then, you know, we've we've pretty much subjected ourselves in their jurisdiction, but on public safety. We have not on public safety. That jurisdiction remains with the five of us here today and through our manager come to form a government, the city manager and his direct reporting to the police chief and the police department. So I am extremely concerned about the sheriff exerting his authority over the city of Alameda. I believe we are a sovereign city. Um, my colleague, Mr. De SA brings up often that we are charter city and charter cities have certain rights. And to me one of those rights is that, you know, we are not going to be subjected to the county. So I am loathe to give up any decision making authority to the county sheriff. And, you know, we all know the reputation of the county sheriff. And this, taken in in isolation, you know, may be a great thing. But when you consider that the sheriff, with his history of heavy handedness and his treatment of people of color, is now asserting his authority. And the occupant of the White House is threatening to unleash the power of the American military on our citizens who are peacefully protesting. Then I can't consider it in its totality, and I think it's in isolation that's considered in its totality. So this is where I stand on this. I think we need to be in charge of our own destiny. And I completely trust our city manager. I completely trust our police chief. I do not trust anyone else. So I am comfortable giving them temporary authority to keep our our city safe. But if I my fear is if we decide we are going to let this die today or tomorrow morning at 5 a.m., then we we fall under the jurisdiction of the county. And I know this hasn't been litigated, but it's entirely possible it could be litigated tomorrow. And a judge could say, you know, cities, you have responsibility and the county can't control a sovereign city. And then where are we left? We're left with kind of a patchwork where these these perpetrators know who's going to be open and who's not going to be open. And the one advantage we have, and I hate to say this because it just but my my colleague from the NRA called me and they have the most porous borders, you know, around and they're just inundated. We don't have that. We only have five ways in and off. So I think I'd much rather trust our folks, our city manager, our city council, our police chief, our police department to enforce these things. So that's what I was saying. I can envision a situation where, you know, other cities have a curfew and the county, one is overrule four charter cities and then we're stuck, you know, having porous borders because we don't have the ability to control. And our city managers stuck with our direction saying we don't believe there's a city or a state of emergency and we don't believe and we're not giving the authority to extend a curfew. I'm a little uncomfortable with, you know, two weeks, but, you know, that's the consensus of my colleagues. I'm fine with that. I mean, it might be interesting to get back here in a week and have a special meeting, but I understand the request for two weeks. I understand the extension or the request to go out to Thursday, because historically, when we have had unarmed people of color murdered by white folks, whether they be law enforcement or not, law enforcement has said a lot of these things happen from non-law enforcement, the funeral and the memorials, our days of protest and unrest and the weekends are our days of protests and unrest. So I can understand the rationale for, you know, going out to Sunday morning. So I guess I say that I don't if I've given any direction, but I mean, I, I will agree with the staff recommendation. But, you know, this is a very short leash and I completely trust our local officials and I don't want to do anything that would see any control over Alameda. And I'm going to get very provincial, appropriate, whatever you say. But, you know, last night when I saw what the occupant of the White House did and I read the county thing, I went outside, I put my Alameda flag up because I'm in Alameda. And if anyone's going to be in charge of Alameda, it's all meetings. And I'm perfectly comfortable with Alameda as being in charge of Alameda. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Eddie Councilmember Vela. So I do know in a number of other cities are considering various curfews tonight. And some of those cities include cities that have spoken out about whether or not they believe the county has the jurisdiction over their individual city. Berkeley being one of them. I guess where I'm coming from on this is I think it's a very and I had this conversation with the city manager to very fast slide into what I feel are very kind of fascist type. Uh, scenarios, and I feel like it's been a conflation of a number of different things that have led us to where we are. So I actually I will stand by the city manager's decision to implement the curfew. But I also am very much opposed to curfews, and I'm going to get into that right now. So first, we've heard a lot about curfews, but we haven't really heard about why we think they're effective. What we know is and I and again, when I say there's a completion of a number of different issues that I think are lending itself. One of those is the shelter order. There are fewer people out. A lot of the places hit have been large shopping centers where there have been no one, no nobody, no customers, no employees at these sites for almost a couple of months now. So they're filled with inventory, but no one's there. They can't really operate. And all of the things that make those spaces safe, namely the people utilizing the space, are absent from it. The other thing is that the shopping centers are not anchored by things like grocery stores where like Alameda, where we have people coming in and out and still using these.
Speaker 2: Or other.
Speaker 0: Types of shopping malls. I know the Walmart was the exception to that as well as a couple of the targets that were hit. But I haven't really heard about how this curfew is going to make us safer. My concern is also that we have a number of exemptions under the curfews. One includes people going to and from work. And I, you know, in my day job, represent a lot of workers. Many of them are people of color. They're traveling to and from work. And they are terrified of being pulled over. And they're they're worried about what that interaction is going to be like. I think things are already heightened. We have high tensions because of what's going on throughout the country. And I'm just worried that having a curfew is going to give cause to pull people over, specifically people of color. And I'm not saying that that's necessarily happened here in Alameda, but I also know that the curfew itself gives the cause to pull people over for being out on the roads. And then people have to explain why they're there. And that gives me concern. The other thing is I think that we are lending to some of these rumors and fears. I heard from a number of business owners who were talking about they had heard chatter, they had heard rumors. I think it's definitely important to take steps to secure your business and to be safe. But I'm wondering how much this is actually lending itself to that fear that something could happen or will happen. I think that we need to move from a place of data. And I think curfew, certainly if we are going to impose a curfew, it needs to be a database. It can't just be that we heard a chatter. I want to see what probable what what real what actual information we have. I can understand a curfew. If we have credible evidence that there is going to be major violence or harm in many ways, I'm actually very frustrated that we're talking about taking extreme steps to protect property when a lot of the conversation should be about the sign that is behind my colleague Mr. Odey, which is that Black Lives Matter and that a lot of the unrest that's going on is the result of government, local government, governments like ours, the city of Alameda, failing to hold people accountable for police brutality, for actions that I think we should all be able to agree are not just and not from a place of what, you know, law enforcement should be doing. And our chief said that yesterday. So I think that, you know. I'm willing to support the declaration of emergency. I am not in support of further curfews or granting that authority. I think we need to give some more direction and guidance before I would be willing to do that. I again, I'm hearing about potential. What would be the trigger in order for the city manager to actually call for another curfew? I'd want to know what factors he would look at, certainly for me. And again, I would like to hear more information about how the curfew actually is going to be helpful in deterring crime. I think that, again, I haven't heard I've heard about reason, again, mainly based off of threats to property and merchandise. And while I don't condone vandalism or looting, my number one concern is the safety of human life and protecting human life. And so I would like to know how this curfew is is. Going to achieve the goals that are stated, which I fear would be to me protecting the safety of individuals that would be first and foremost. And then I would want to know also, for those of you who are concerned about merchandise and buildings, how the curfew is going to protect against that. And then finally, I would just say that I know that our city manager didn't take this decision lightly. And I very much appreciate the thought that he put into this. I personally do not want to be spending our forces of our police officers enforcing the sheriff's curfew order. And that's why I asked that question earlier about how are we going to go about enforcing it? Because if we're going to be going around giving citations to people, I'd like to know about that and I would like to know what that citation would involve and how much resources, how many of our resources are going to be spent doing that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember DeSantis, you want to weigh in?
Speaker 2: Well, sure. First of all, let me say thank you very much, you know, to all of us council members, the mayor, city manager and city attorney, chief of police, everyone who is here tonight, as well as the assistant city manager. I think we can all agree that these are historic times. To say nothing about COVID 19. But certainly, you know what's going on throughout our nation, start having started in Minneapolis and perhaps, you know, it's gotten steam. And as a result of things going on in Washington, D.C., and I think, you know, the looting and the mayhem that we saw occur in neighborhoods, cities like San Leandro indicate that we need to play it safe in these historic times. And so I think for that reason, I certainly support the the emergency declaration and the length that we're looking at the declaration until June 16, so or so. I also support the curfew. And my my take on it is that I think we have an opportunity to look at the curfew on a case by case basis on a day to day basis. So that would be my druthers. But as I walk up and down Webster Street, because, as you all know, I live close to Webster Street and I talk to business owners, many of whom themselves have single handedly beautified Webster Street, not just by one store's that they opened, not just by two stores that they opened, not just by three stores that they opened , but by four beautiful stores that they opened. You know, shop owners on Webster Street certainly have concerns about what's going on. And they know that situations can be incredibly volatile so that something that happens, say, in San Leandro could, for whatever reason, spill over into the city of Alameda. And so for that reason, I think we do need to have the flexibility to have our public safety, whether it's the police or the fire, be able to respond on a moment's notice. And if it means one of the prophylactics that we would employ is a curfew, then then I think that has to be one of the arrows in the quiver, so to speak. It's tragic what had happened in Minneapolis. It's tragic that that has been going on for for generations and for centuries. But it certainly has been picking up steam for whatever reason since 2000. But I think, you know, we here in the city of Alameda, you know, we have the police force in place that can understand how to respond to these kind of situations and as culturally appropriate manner as possible. We've grown so much since the early 1990s and we all know what I'm talking about. And ah, but you know, the progress that we've made notwithstanding I think we owe it to the residents and we also owe it especially to the shop, small shopkeepers to be proactive by allowing us to have the curfew as as at least one of the areas in our quiver. So I certainly support that. I really wish everyone to be safe, not just in Alameda, but in San Leandro and in the city of Oakland. But I also want to say to the men and women who. Who serves in the police force and often the fire departments. I want them to be safe as well. So I think one of one way to achieve that in this very, very difficult time is by having a curfew as one of and done on a case by case basis. By the way, I'm not sure I want to have a six day curfew, 8 to 5. But I think I have full confidence that the police department, as well as the city manager's office, can, can on a moment's notice, pull a curfew. For the right reasons. I have faith that they would do so. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Desai. So I will go last. And I want to say that we balance a lot of competing interests always, and this is particularly true in this particular instance. So we're balancing personal liberties. On the other hand, I have zero interest in protecting looters. We are not talking about peaceful protests or even protests that get noisy and messy. I will support those. Every day of the week. But what we have seen in other cities and right next door in San Leandro is not only looting, but also gunfire being shot and not by not by police. And at some point, someone's going to get hurt. There have been some pretty outrageous burglaries at cannabis dispensaries in the area, and one of them involved an armed carjacking. I understand. And at some point, someone, some citizen is going to get hurt. And we also need to look at the the personal safety, certainly, of our residents and our businesses. And these are businesses I mean, we never prioritize, prioritize public safety or, you know, businesses and merchandise over personal safety. But what we're talking about is allowing our businesses to open up again. And so these are folks who are employers. These are small businesses. We're helping them with a community fund because some of them are close to going under. And we we want to make sure that this is a safe city for people who live here, for people who come to visit, for people who work here, who have their businesses here. And I did get some emails this morning asking me as well as mayor, are you going to. Are you following, you know, the president's directives about getting tough? And, you know, I can't even use the sort of language I would like to in public. But, no, I absolutely am not. And in fact, what I've told more than one person who inquired is that I, as a mayor, one of many mayors across this city, know how hard we have all been working, along with our governors, to keep our residents safe during the COVID crisis. And we have implored the federal government for help from our for our cities. We haven't gotten it. All we have gotten is trash talk from the the current occupant of the White House. So, no, that is that is not my motivation whatsoever. And so I don't want to conflate those incidents, you know, last night in Lafayette Park and using tear gas to disperse peaceful demonstrators so the president could have a photo opportunity in front of Saint John's Church. This is not what we're talking about. And I can assure you that our police department, our police chief and working with our city manager and city attorney, they did not take lightly the decision to impose a curfew. And certainly, you know, working within the structure that we find ourselves in, in Alameda County, this is not a decision that is taken lightly. I, too, would like to see it be as brief as possible, but I am willing to cede that authority to our city manager who is in charge in an emergency informed by our police chiefs, and they'll run it by the city attorney. The city attorney has already advised us that, well, maybe I won't go into it. The city attorney has advised us, come to think of it. But but we we followed the city attorney's advice as well. So I am I think the vice mayor summed it up pretty concisely the way I would. And I, I think I've heard more than one of my colleagues say this as well, that you would like to see a curfew declared maybe on a day to day basis. People have. I've made suggestions about what I think is very valid about some upcoming events that could lead to, again, protests, demonstrations, outpouring of emotion. Those are all protected by the First Amendment. Violence and looting is not. And so on. And I do believe that our city manager wants to weigh in, since we're all talking about what we'd like to give him authority to do so. And Councilmember, a councilmember would welcome to the council, the city manager, Mr. Levitt.
Speaker 2: So I appreciate all the comments. And I think I'm I think I'm out.
Speaker 0: No, you're good.
Speaker 2: Okay. I've heard all the comments. And and I do want to explain a couple of things, because the public comments came after my initial discussion and after the assistance they meijer's presentation. There were factors that were looked at some of the factors, and I want to just for public purpose, talk about them for the two days. One was I knew the councilmember was councilman was coming in two days, so I wasn't going to do it for more than two days because I wanted to give the council the opportunity. The second was the vandalism and damage that occurred on Sunday night and surrounding communities was a factor in the decision. And rumors of potential targets in Alameda coming Monday night was a factor also. And then when many of the cities around us started doing it, that became a factor also. Those were some of the factors that led to it. On Monday I was talked about, it was brought to me as an option. During the weekend I did not see those same factors during the weekend. That and that's why I waited till Monday. And even on Monday was a difficult decision because I agree with many of the council members when you talk about the liberties and that being the foundation of our country. And and so I think that this is a concerning issue when you look at all of that. So one option I do have the declaration of emergency in my in my view, is different than the the then the curfew and the declaration of emergency is because we may have to have more . And I do see this happening probably over the next week or two where we'll have to have more public safety resources, either fire or police or a combination of the two. And the declaration of emergency allows us to document that if we were to get reimbursement from the federal government through the county. And so that's where I see that through the 16th. One option on the curfew, as are two options I would give, is either not provide me with the authority to do the curfew or provide authority through maybe the 10th. But if I am going to do more than one day or more than two days in a row, it has to come back for council action to go further than that. Those would be the two options I would recommend.
Speaker 0: So to just restate that, so separate the declaration of authority, declaration of emergency from issuing a curfew. And if you issue a curfew, it would not be for more than two days without going back to the Council for authority.
Speaker 2: That would be correct. That would be my recommendation. Or not give me authority for the curfew at all. Either of those.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. I see the vice mayor had to say, oh, I think council member Ella had her hand up sooner. So. Councilmember Vela, vice mayor. Not quite in that order, please. Thank you. So really quick. I think, you know, I have a couple questions again, how well the curfew is that? Could you explain how that how having the curfew will make it safer in those events that the city manager listed? I think the answer to that would be helpful is, is that we think clearing off the streets will make it safer. And then for individuals who are traveling under the exemption, what do our police officers, what do they need to do to make sure that it's a safe encounter? Because there are people that have to go to and from work and our police chief, our police officers are just going to be pulling people over. I would like to put out there what people need to do to ensure that they're not going to get hassled or detained or anything or cited unnecessarily. The other thing the other thing that I want to put out there is, you know, I think these are this is a major decision to cede authority to three people who are unelected. And so, you know, I feel very strongly about that. My question is, could we have a special city council meeting in a week, for instance, to see about extending the declaration of emergency? So could we do it for a week and then have another special meeting in a week to decide if we need to have it extended a week? You know, it's interesting. I just. My thoughts. We have a council referral later this same meeting about special meetings and how much notice needs to be given. So, you know, maybe we'll have to weigh all that at the time. I'm not sure what the answer would be, but could we hear from Chief O'Leary as to Councilmember Vella's questions about how there's a curfew make us safer? And what sorts of advice would you give to someone who might be pulled over? And maybe just let's start with a threshold question of who who is likely to be pulled over in a curfew in Alameda.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I'll try to answer answer this on the fly as best as I can. I'm going to make a make a quick comparison. Just like a couple of months ago, the thought of a county health order and a shelter in place for a pandemic was kind of, you know, off the radar for all of us. And when we jumped into it, what happened was we found that we were we everything that we've done for the last couple of months has been uncharted territory. This is uncharted territory. I've been a police officer for 31 years. This is the first time this has happened. So we're so everybody is trying to still figure it out. Electeds, police departments, the sheriff's office, everybody. You had civil unrest before. We've never in my career gotten to this point. So the only you had a call earlier that asked about data, the how do we know it's successful? I guess my honest answer is the only the only data I can give you is that on Saturday and Sunday night, we had lots of activity on when the when the shelter or the curfew went into effect. Everything dropped. And it wasn't just here. San Leandro, Hayward, Fremont, every everybody that had problems, big problems the night before, they all reduced last night. Maybe it was a coincidence. I'm trying to be as honest with you as I can. I don't know. My my role as an unelected but appointed police chief is to try to take care of public safety in Alameda. That is both protecting people and property. I'm trying to do that. We are trying to do that the best we can. I think we've done a good job. I will continue to try to do that with or without a curfew. The the reassurances that I could give the council and the public are the same as I would for any other law enforcement interaction. We try all the time to do the right thing, the right way in practice, constitutionally sound policing. Not to profile. Not to violate people's civil rights. We have not written any tickets on since the curfew was issued. We have only written a couple of citations on the county health order. We are primarily trying to educate people and get them to just be in compliance with the order so that we can, in the case of COVID, stop the spread of the virus. In the case of the the curfew that the sheriff imposed is to try to keep the city safe. Having fewer cars and fewer people on the road helps us with our response times. There's fewer cars on the road. There's fewer obstructions we are able to get from point A to point B more quickly. Does it guarantee prevention of crime? Absolutely not. Nothing does. Boarding up a business doesn't. Having 50 police officers on the street doesn't guarantee that we will stop crime. So if the notion is, well, we stop crime by having a curfew, the answer is no, we won't. And do we have a shot at maybe reducing it or helping our chances of catching people who are who are committing crimes? Yes, I believe it does. But we are still in the first couple of days of this, and it's uncharted territory.
Speaker 0: Thank you to you for Larry. Okay. With that counsel, do we have a vice mayor? Yes. I'm so sorry. You were. You were next. Sorry. Sorry.
Speaker 2: That's okay. It's just procedural question. With an emergency urgency meeting. Is that a 24 hour notice? Is it possible for us to do it on any shorter? A I'm sorry, I'm looking at even, but of course you can't tell me.
Speaker 0: I'm the city attorney. Okay. Mr. said.
Speaker 2: Yes. So the under state law, there are two ways to do an emergency ordinance. You could do it with a 24 hour notice. And if there are severe enough emergencies, we could even do it with a one hour notice. If it's just totally necessary. We have to make the finding under both that there are serious public public health and safety concerns that require the Council to meet under those circumstances. But it's either 24 hours or one hour of absolutely necessary. Thank you very much. So I would be interested in considering whether we could put a couple of special meetings on the books for later this week, possibly for Thursday afternoon and Friday afternoon, just to have a space where people know we may be we can always cancel them, but that we would have the House in our reserve so that if it looks like things are, you know, a curfew is going to be needed, we can have, you know, I believe Thursday is probably the next likely place where if something was going to happen, where where a curfew was probably going to be necessary for the city to respond to. I know I know the county has declared this. I really don't you know, I'm not confident they have the authority to do that. I'm not I would prefer our council, actually our city, take that decision. And if there is a general feeling this is coming, I don't know why it would we wouldn't just put that on the put that on the books and cancel it. If it look if if if that feels comfortable in that way, we could have the conversation before that before the curfew is called. And I just I hear. Right. A couple of my colleagues having some some big concerns. And I do think we can just proactively solve those concerns.
Speaker 0: Um, masks the city attorney. I, I guess I don't understand. Or maybe I need the vice mayor to clarify if the county's order is in effect until 5 p.m. Friday morning. And if you believe that we are. Bound by that order. I do.
Speaker 2: Not.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I was asking the city attorney. And so, Mr. Shin, if if you believe that we are bound by the the county's order, what would be accomplished by a special meeting and what sir just explained what emergency we would be moving forward under.
Speaker 2: Right. And so so that relates to a recommendation I was going to make to the council, which is that the council could call an emergency meeting with 24 hours or one hour notice. At this moment, if the council wants to schedule a meeting, let's say, two days out based on certain emergencies. It would be helpful for staff to provide you with some emergency basis as to what imminent threat to health, safety and welfare that would justify the the calling of the meeting. The police chief could probably do that and you may want to call on him. Alternatively, you could just reserve time if you wish, so that at least you are available to the extent that staff believes that there's need for you to to to convene without actually calling for the emergency meeting. If you believe that there's not enough factual basis at this moment to call an emergency meeting within 48 hours. I hope that helps answer the question. Sure.
Speaker 0: So I. Yes, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: Sorry, this pertains to the question I was asking. So could we also continue the discussion of the curfew to a time certain two days from now?
Speaker 0: You see Mr. Sandia?
Speaker 2: Yes. My apologies, sir. Yes. You could continue this item to a time. Certain? Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. So what's the. So, Councilmember Vela, you are out of time. I would need a motion for you to speak again. And I will just remind people that it's 830. So how much time do you think you need? 20 seconds. I had a question. Okay. Do I have a we'll give you a move.
Speaker 2: To give the city councilmember an extra minute.
Speaker 0: All right. And it's been seconded. All in favor, a roll call vote, please. People shouting, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Daza.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Knox Light.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Odie. Yes, Bella.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Mayor has the.
Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. Go ahead, Councilmember. Thank you, Madam Clerk. There were there was a question, I thought, by the vice mayor that if we don't agree with the assessment that the county has authority over us, what can we do about the curfew if we don't believe that the sheriff has jurisdiction? What, if anything, can we do? Okay. So for the city attorney, correct? Yes. Okay. Yes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember, if you're if your question is whether or not about whether the city could implement a curfew, I think you have complete discretion whether to continue, modify, extend or terminate the curfew. That's the city's curfew. I have I hope that the question that you're asking.
Speaker 0: You know, if we if we don't have a curfew and we disagree with the authority of Sheriff Ahern to implement a curfew, like if we're saying we don't want a curfew, and then the county has said, no, we have a curfew. What, if anything, can the council do? Do you want to challenge that authority?
Speaker 2: The council could. So I would suggest that we agenda this as soon as possible for the council to direct our office to take legal action.
Speaker 0: And then it's about a curfew that has to last until Friday morning or if it goes beyond that or what Councilmember Bell helped help me understand. If we do not vote to extend the curfew tonight, then, but we don't want to recognize the existing curfew for this week. Understanding that he could extend it. And so came city attorneys. And you were you were starting to say we would need to.
Speaker 2: Get the council to take a vote to direct a to convene. My recommendation will be in closed session to discuss the potential initiation of litigation, and we'd be happy to have that conversation with you.
Speaker 0: All right. I think I saw Councilmember Otis hand up.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd be interested in having that discussion. I appreciated the chief's response about constitutional policing. And through no fault of your own or any of your officers. There's still a fear among people of color doing day to day things that people that look like me can do without any any fear. So you know what? What can we tell that? I don't and I'm not expecting you to answer this. Maybe the city manager I mean, what can we tell? But people of color that live in town, you know what they can do? Well, what can we tell them to help with that fear that when they get pulled over, you know, something untoward is going to happen? Because like I said, it's not anything you had done or your officers have done, but it's just institutionalized in their in their brains. That's what I wanted here. I'm sorry, Councilmember. I understood you to say you did not need me to answer that question or you want me to. I mean, you could, but, you know, it doesn't matter. I don't I don't care who answers it. It's just something I'm struggling with and. I don't. I don't drive or walk. I don't run. But if I did, I wouldn't run with that fear. You know, so I think people's emotions are heightened now. And, you know, we're basically taking a day implementing a very strong law enforcement policy at a time when emotions and feelings are pretty highly wrought and tight. So how do we what do we tell people that are people of color that are driving to our city after 8:00? To help him, you know, navigate, pull over. Or, you know, a neighbor calling the cops on them. I'm just. I don't know. So I'll take a stab at this. And I think we're going to be coming around and talking about this more a little bit later in the meeting. I'll tell you what I told the people that were demonstrating in front of the police department yesterday afternoon, what I've told people in emails and other statements that I've made over the past week. We can all talk. Police chiefs. Elected officials. We cannot talk about things that are broken and wrong in this country. In this country, and and specifically with policing in the United States. And the history and the. The absolute valid concerns that people have about what happened to George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and to Eric Garner and to a number of people around the country. We've all seen those stories. That's real stuff. And I understand it and I get it. It doesn't matter what I say. It matters what we do. It's words and deeds. You all need a police department. Knock on wood has not been involved in a shooting in 15 years. We have 64,000 calls for service and about 3500 or 4000 arrests per year. We have about 30 uses of force per year on average. At 64,000 public interactions, it's very low, less than 1%. I can say whatever I want. I'm a white male police officer. Police chief. I'm asking people to consider the fact that despite things that have happened in the past, that this police department being run by me today. That you are safe in this community. We're going to talk about an incident later tonight where people might beg to differ. But all the facts aren't out yet, and I'm going to fix that. 30 uses of force per year on average for the last five or six years running without the stats in front of me. I'm pretty confident that's the right number. Less than 1%. Very few personal complaints. And not a shooting in 15 years. We're doing things right. We're doing something right. Are we perfect? No. Well, we make mistakes. Yes, we will. Absolutely. And it's my job. My job as the chief to own up to those when we do and to fix what's wrong. That's what I would tell people if they gave us the time when we stop them. If we stop somebody now in the middle of curfew, it's going to be please go home. It's not safe. Go home, be with your family. And as a and as a double bonus, help stop the spread of the COVID virus. That's what I would tell them.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 2: MORODER Thank you for that. And I guess I would say. To those of us who are not police officers. Stop calling the police. When? People of color are doing things that you get to enjoy freely, whether it's exercising, whether it's jogging, whether it's birdwatching, shopping. Having a picnic in the park. You know, it's just got to stop. And I wanted to see.
Speaker 0: Well said. Thank you, Councilmember Brody. Um, Counsel, do we want to. Call a special meeting to possibly bring litigation? Or do we want to give our city manager narrow directions, possibly following up on his own suggestions? We've we've heard it said this evening that Thursday, maybe even Friday might be pivotal days. And the county order extends until 5 p.m. this Friday morning. Do we want to initiate or have some limitation of if that curfew were extended beyond 5 a.m. on June 5th, then we might call a special meeting. What do we think counts on everybody? Yes.
Speaker 2: The city manager can hurt me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the curfew was for five days. But there was discretion to go to seven, right?
Speaker 0: I read in I read the order this morning and it said it was in effect until 5 a.m. June 5th, unless rescinded earlier, unless there has been an update today. But I, I went on the website this morning. Am I missing something?
Speaker 2: I thought there was a two day. I thought there was a two day. Maybe someone can help me on that.
Speaker 0: Okay. And I'm actually going to ask the city attorney or the city manager have it have information specifically about the order. And I'll get to you in just a minute. Vice Mayor. Mr. Levitt?
Speaker 2: LEVITT Let me look at that. I had the same understanding and understanding as the mayor that it ended on Friday. There are other cities that are through the eight, but let me double check if I can find anything more other on the county order.
Speaker 0: Maybe I should have asked. Assistant Manager. City. Assistant City Manager. Mr. Bowden, since this is your item. Yeah. Just put everybody on the staff on the spot.
Speaker 2: We have the version that was available publicly yesterday attached to the staff report. And the it the exact language of the order shall remain in effect until June 5th at 5 a.m., or unless rescinded earlier due to restoration of public order and safety. That's the that was the guiding language that we use to draft the staff report, and that's what's attached.
Speaker 0: I read that same language this morning. Vice Mayor, you had your hand up. Do you have a more current version or something? No.
Speaker 2: I was going to point out that the sheriff took the authority and used it. Whether it says it ends on the fifth or not on the fifth, he could say it goes to the 10th one.
Speaker 0: And precisely the distinction I was trying to make was, could we have something that said we would call a special meeting if there didn't appear, you know, without any indication of necessity, the county order was extended that. But again, I'm just going by what a couple of my colleagues have pointed out about events to be anticipated this week.
Speaker 2: So if I were to make a motion and I'll make it an offer, I will I will offer a couple of possible alternatives. But I would I would move that we declare this the state of emergency for the next two weeks. The state of emergency allows us to collect the funds that we need to if there are any costs that come up and does not give, I think undo. We already have a state of emergency in place that gives the city staff the authority to do a lot. So I think that's insane to me. That is mostly about about that. I would I would grant if it were me, I would grant our staff the ability to identify two days for curfews and if we were going to engage in more than two more days and I have two specific days and I'm thinking possibly could come up that there would be an emergency council meeting to discuss further, and that I would suggest that we'd prioritize enforcement of the counties. I don't want to get into a legal fight with the with the county in the middle of this, in the middle of this emergency. I think that that's just not a that's not where we are at this point in time, although I do think we need to kind of address this ongoing issue, given that this is coming up at some point in time in the future. But I would ask that we prioritize enforcement of the curfew unless the city has declared there's a curfew in our city, and that would be the way we would do it. And if people are acting badly, that doesn't mean we can't fight them if we're acting badly. But we would not pull people over because they're out after curfew.
Speaker 0: Mr. Knotts. Mr. Vice Mayor, may I ask you to tell us what the additional two days are would be that you referenced?
Speaker 2: Well, in my mind, it would be the memorial service on Thursday and then possible and then the the funeral in Houston on June 9th. I think those are the two most likely times. And then if they decide not to charge the officer, I mean, things are going to come up. So I think I have two ideas where I think it's probably likely that, you know, we could see. For me, this is about the stretched resources of our of our officers and the region's officers and keeping people safe and much. I think the chief was correct. At the end of the day, we are talking about you were never going to be able to prove it worked, but we're certainly going to prove it. Did you know, we should have done something? And, you know, I personally believe that our chief and the city manager will make or will take the series the decision very seriously. Thank you. Is not going to be made lightly.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your comments. I see the city manager is indicating he'd like to speak. Mr. Levitt, please.
Speaker 2: I just had a clarification. My clarification is if within your motion that it would be no more than two days cumulatively. Yes. Okay. Correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. Without getting special counsel permission. Right. Right. Okay. Got it. Okay. We have had a motion. Do we have a second? I think I see. I see misdirection. Okay, counselor. Everyday. Third question, then I'll go to you, Councilman Brody.
Speaker 2: So I guess I just need to understand the practical effect of this. So what does this mean? Does this mean that. Let's see. Our current curfew ends tomorrow morning at five. Right. Is that right?
Speaker 0: Friday morning at five.
Speaker 2: Friday morning at five. So does that mean that if we want to extend it for two more day.
Speaker 0: Hours in the city?
Speaker 2: Uh huh. So. So I guess I just need to know, what does the two day cumulative mean? What's the practical effect of that? If we can explain it not just to me, but to the residents.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Mr. Levitt, back to you.
Speaker 2: Well, the way I understand it, so just so I'm clear and it helps me to and just explain it, we understand it as our curfew ends tomorrow morning, Wednesday morning at 8 a.m. and at 5 a.m.. And so then if I were to let's say, just for example, to declare a Thursday and a Friday, let's say Thursday , let's say let's even say the next two days, Wednesday and Thursday, which that's not my intent. I'm just using as an example, Wednesday and Thursday, 5 to 8 or 8 to 5 and then 8 to 5. Then I would not again have any more authority until it came back to council. Okay. That was Wednesday. And then it just wouldn't have any more authority. Just needed to have that spoken out loud. Thank you. I think it's a good idea.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilor Brody.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Also get the motion, but. I think at least until Thursday. In the county on Friday morning when the county order expires. I would give the city manager discretion. And after that, I'd want to weigh in like. Whether it's Friday or Saturday to extend it over the weekend. You know, Monday.
Speaker 0: I'm sure you would give the city manager discretion to extend the curfew until.
Speaker 2: Until the county one is set to expire now. And then if we want to if he feels we need to go further, then we can meet on a Friday and have that discussion.
Speaker 0: I see. Okay.
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess so. I mean, what I worry about is that county shut down and that we're technically not shut down. And then, you know, it's open season on Alameda. Right. I mean, no.
Speaker 0: Way to be covered again. Mr.. I think you're out of time. And I believe Madam Kirk, you might have added the extra minute. Yes. Already.
Speaker 1: Dickie has already said that.
Speaker 0: Okay, um, let's see if we're getting close to wrapping it up as you've made the second call. That has already made the second. Okay. Any further discussion? Yes. Councilmember Vella. Quickly. Could it be could the motion be separated out? Because there's some parts of it that I would be willing to support, but I'm not willing to support granting additional authority for a curfew without counsel weighing in. I support Dee Dee prioritizing stops when we don't have a priority, when we don't have a curfew in alameda and I support the emergency declaration. The maker of the motion vice mayor.
Speaker 2: Happy to bifurcate that.
Speaker 1: And can I maybe even the city attorney can clarify better than me. But the urgency ordinance you are adopting both declares the emergency and has curfew language. So, you know, whatever curfew language you decide will be imposed in that ordinance. And so that will be one motion on that ordinance. Just to clarify and then any other direction on prioritization would be the separate motion. So just so everybody's clear, what's in the ordinance is being okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. And then the separate about deprioritized enforcement. If the curfew goes more than. Now. Correct. That's. For now, prioritizing, prioritizing enforcement if it's only a curfew and there is no city curfew. Got it. Okay. All right. So, Councilmember Dessa.
Speaker 2: Just quickly, I think I understand the energy behind the position of the prioritizing a county curfew when it does not coincide with the city of Alamitos curfew. I think I understand the energy behind it. But I'm concerned, though, that that we as a city, we still have to coordinate with the county on a variety of things that are public safety related. And I don't I'm concerned that things are not as easy as they might seem. So my my encouragement would be to phrase it in the positive. But having said that, I understand I think I understand the energy behind, you know.
Speaker 0: Where that.
Speaker 2: Language is coming from. And I'll just leave it at that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. So. And, Madam, quick, are you clear on the motion we're about to vote on?
Speaker 1: I believe the will take two votes. The first vote will be on the ordinance itself, and then the second vote will be on the direction item. So we'll have two votes.
Speaker 0: All right. Maybe we have a roll call vote, please. On the first I. Wait, wait. Um, I can't. I mean, city manager. Mr. Leavitt. Mr..
Speaker 2: Lemieux The first motion I understand the declaration of emergency. I don't I I'm not sure if it's to. To. I'm not sure if it's. No. Um. No curfew. Days to curfew a few days cumulatively. Or curfew days only through the end of the county order. I'm not sure which of the three that motion is that at this point.
Speaker 0: Mr. Vice Mayor, as make of the motion, you want to clarify.
Speaker 2: That that's too cumulative. To me, it's it's we are we're in Section four. We're ratifying the city manager's June 1st. Curfew order is ratified. The council extends the curfew until June 3rd, 5 a.m. five. That that's tonight. We would I guess here's my question, because I know that Councilmember Vela is concerned about the curfew language. That is the piece that she is would like to vote separately on. Is there a way for us to vote on the giving authority as a second to ordinance? And I guess that the question for the city city attorney.
Speaker 0: Mr. Shin. You're muted still, Mr. Sheen.
Speaker 2: My apologies. My suggestion to actually vote on the curfew language first. So that will be clear whether or not there are four votes for any amount of curfew and what it is. And then you take an overall vote on the ordinance. The ordinance is one ordinance, but take the vote on the curfew language first. If it doesn't garner four votes, then you take a vote on the ordinance and essentially just take out the curfew language if it's if they're not four votes to move forward. Sounds like the curfew is the one that will have a split of votes. So my suggestion that you whatever curfew direction you want to give you vote on that first, then you vote on the ordinance recognizing that you have four votes to do something about curfews. And if not, then you just strike it.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we've got to or we've got the curfew regulations. We have to ratify those, don't we?
Speaker 2: So I suggest you do all of that last. So I think the first vote might suggest that the first vote you take relates to the curfew language, and then you either find four votes to agree on curfew language or if not, then we'll know that there is no agreement on curfew language which must be struck from the ordinance. And then you vote on the rest.
Speaker 0: And when you say curfew language, are you referring to the language in the curfew regulations, which are exhibit one?
Speaker 2: No, no. Talking about curfews going forward. Choose to live day. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 2: Okay. So a suggestion would be that that that the motion that was made, whatever motion about going forward gets made, whether it's two days, two days cumulatively or no curfew, and see if you can achieve a four vote on something about curfews going forward. And if you're unable to then work a strike that's actually completely from the ordinance, because you if you could not achieve for both going forward on the curfew, then, you know, you can vote on the rest. Sounds like there is unanimity on the rest.
Speaker 0: All right. And so the city manager's had his hand up. Did you want to address this to.
Speaker 2: I think, though, what the two council members are asking for, is there a way to split split it where you could, let's say, not to the curfew, take the curfew out of the ordinance, vote on that, and then vote to amend the ordinance that way. Kashmir Valley could vote on the ordinance without the curfew language, and then they could have a second vote on adding the curfew language. I think that's what the question is, that I've heard both from Councilmember Bhalla and Vice Mayor. Not quite.
Speaker 0: Hey, Council Vice Mayor, you're smiling. Did you.
Speaker 2: Say that? Wasn't my question, but it was a really good idea. Yes, that's what I would like to do.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um, okay.
Speaker 2: So. So my proposal would be to amend the amended motion to approve the the emergency declaration as written, allowing the current curfew to extend through 5 a.m. tomorrow. And then we will take a second to talk about whether or not we give additional to amend to amend the ordinance, to give additional authority for future curfews.
Speaker 0: If that.
Speaker 2: Information.
Speaker 0: Mr. Councilor BRODY.
Speaker 2: So then Section four, we'll just have a period at the end of city council. Right. No and extends the curfew order until June 3rd, 5 a.m.. So it extends it through tonight? Well, I think it's Section four is ratified with the saying the city manager's June 1st order is ratified. Okay. Put a period there that would that would suffice. Great. Perfect. Brilliant. Even better then. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Was that a second, Mr. Rudy?
Speaker 2: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 0: Okay. Maybe we have a roll call vote, please. Madam Clerk.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Desai. Okay. Not quite. I. I. I may or as the Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 2: Okay next I move that we that the city council amend the order. The ordinance we just passed to provide the city manager with the authority to institute two curfews. No more than two nights of curfew from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m.. During the extent of the of the current state of emergency. All second.
Speaker 0: And is that consecutive or any two days?
Speaker 2: Any two days.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 2: Executive or.
Speaker 0: All right. So we've had a motion by the vice mayor who seconded that councilmember. They say, in fact, make us one riverside discussion. Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 2: Quickly can we add on there without. Unless there's further authorization from the council. Sure. Okay.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Uh. Uh. Okay. Yes, exactly. Yep. Okay.
Speaker 2: As the make of the motion, I accept.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: So. Okay. Okay. So the modified motion has been remade or remade as modified. Seconded a motion by the vice mayor, seconded by councilmember. Suddenly we have a roll call vote with.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de sag.
Speaker 2: Night.
Speaker 1: Not quite.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Hi, Vella. No merit craft.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: That carries 41.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then was there one more mission? Or have we taking care of it all? I believe we want to do it. Yeah. Okay. So who wants to make that motion? Castmember Vela. So my motion would be that where there is no city of Alameda curfew in place that our police enforce spend their resources prioritizing and enforcing non curfew related incidences and reports. Is that. I'm trying to get here second that motion. So I. I have a I have a technical question maybe for the city attorney. Is is that within the authority of the council to direct police enforcement activities? I just, you know, love tossing hard balls.
Speaker 2: So, yeah, I think so. Yeah. I think I.
Speaker 0: Can reword it. Um, well, let's hear from the city attorney. And what, you know, how this might work or not is. You know.
Speaker 2: I think if the council provides overall policy direction, then the police chief undertakes its enforcement duties consistent with its obligations under state and local law. So I think they have stated policy preference.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any. Any language modifications you want to make? Councilmember fellas. Okay. Could we. Could we hear that motion restated, please, madam, quick.
Speaker 1: So I have that. There. The police would not be involved in any curfew related incidents when the city is not under a curfew. That they said.
Speaker 2: I don't think that's you know, I don't think.
Speaker 0: Okay, wait, wait. Let's let's wait. Let's wait in here. Speak one at a time. I'll call on you if you want to raise your hand that you want to speak. And then I think let's hear from the city attorney first.
Speaker 2: So so I think the motion with it, the council's policy preference would be that the city prioritize its use of resources to enforce laws other than the county's curfew order, to the extent reasonable use of resources would allow for that, consistent with the police chief law enforcement discretion.
Speaker 0: Councilman Avila, as maker of the motion, sends out. Okay. All right. Do and and that a matter of ice monoxide would be a second, correct?
Speaker 2: Yes, that would be confirmation of my second.
Speaker 0: Great. Oh, you've signaled already. Okay. So I wasn't sure what we were voting on, but I'm glad you were. So let's have a roll call. This. Oh, this guy. Sorry, sorry, sorry. So, Councilmember Dave.
Speaker 2: I think the one change that I would suggest is unless there was a call for mutual aid where our our police are going to go outside of Alameda, because I think the literal interpretation of this is they can't join in mutual aid activity if we don't have I mean, that's my that's my literal interpretation of what what's before us. And that's get back to what I was getting at earlier when I mentioned that there might be some wrinkles to this that we're not really.
Speaker 0: Go ahead. Let's go back to the Make or the Motion Council regardless. In my opinion, if there was a call for mutual aid, they could still respond to a call for mutual aid. It's just that I would want them to prioritize non curfew related calls that we're getting here in Alameda. What I heard was that the reason for the curfew in the city of Alameda is that we have a concern about overstretching our resources. And to that end, I would want to make sure that our resources are spent on responding to other reports. So if there's a report of a 459 or something like that, I would want us to be responding to that, not just pulling people over for curfew related things in town. So just to clearly you wouldn't be referring to a request for mutual aid? No. Okay. Does that satisfy your inquiry? Councilmember Garza. Actually, whether it does or not. We need to vote people. Okay. And this one also takes a does it take for affirmative votes? It's a 3 to 4 policy.
Speaker 2: It's direction.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 2: It is the council expressing its policy preference.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. And Madam Mayor, you are not a man. I am the mayor. Madam City Clerk. You got the the the clarification from the maker of the motion. Yes. Correct. Yes. All right, then. May we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I'm satisfied to be delayed. Yes.
Speaker 1: Next time.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: O.D..
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Bella. I may or has as Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: That carries by five vice.
Speaker 0: All right, I want to motion.
Speaker 2: Sorry.
Speaker 0: Oh, one motion. Yes.
Speaker 2: To schedule a special closed session to discuss legal issues regarding the sheriff's order.
Speaker 0: A second. Okay. A motion to schedule a special meeting. Okay. Okay. Closed session.
Speaker 2: The potential litigation.
Speaker 0: All right. Um, okay. And city attorney, I'm trying to read your expression. Do you want to? I'm not a mind reader. All right. Let's hear from the city attorney, then the vice mayor. City attorney.
Speaker 2: If the council wants to schedule a initiation of litigation, the council can certainly direct us to do so, though, given that as soon as we would be able to do it, it's probably tomorrow and the order expires on Friday. Timing wise, it's not clear to me when you'd like to have it. We certainly could do it as soon as tomorrow. If you would like. And so I think, you know, obviously, we want to understand when you're what your timing looks like and whether or not it's tomorrow or your next regular meeting or a special meeting next week. And I'm happy to you know, we're obviously happy to take your direction however you like to proceed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Ody.
Speaker 2: I hope it's moot by next week, but. I don't know. I don't know what he's going to do. I don't know if we would be interested in joining or some other city challenges. Maybe we're not. I don't know. That's why we would have the meeting.
Speaker 0: If I might comment, I. These are certainly important, serious issues. I'm also trying to be mindful of the amount of work our city staff is juggling right now with all the things that are before us. And so this is not to diminish the significance of what you're suggesting. I just wonder if if it has to be as soon as tomorrow, that makes people jump through a lot of hoops to get to pull together some sort of preparation. But I'm wondering if you had a, you know, some sort of.
Speaker 2: A how about we do it on Thursday? Because I think. I think we could give a different direction based on different possible outcomes. On Thursday or not, I mean, I don't know. And now pre-judging what decision we're going to make.
Speaker 0: All right. We do need to keep moving, people. That's past 9:00. So I guess if you want to make a motion, I not I guess you have every right to make a motion. So let me.
Speaker 2: Get a motion in a second on this.
Speaker 0: I think I think it was modified, actually. Because yesterday. It's Thursday. It's not tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 0: Okay, second, I second the modification.
Speaker 2: I mean.
Speaker 0: A comment. Can somebody say.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you. I do have 2 minutes, though. Um, I will say this much, you know, with the looting and mayhem that are going on in places like, uh, San Leandro and Fremont, I think now is not the time to go after the sheriff's department. We need to work with them. Um, through the mutual aid approach. Um, and I think this goes counter to that. In fact, we might need the help through that process. So you pursuing litigation now, I think is, is not the right time. If there are concerns about the way in which the sheriff's departments operate. I think there are better times than that now to deal with those policy issues in as clean a manner as possible. But right now, we're in a whirlwind of sorts. And so we're just trying to hang on on behalf of our residents, in terms of keeping them safe and our small businesses and keeping them safe as well. So I don't support litigation against the sheriff's department.
Speaker 0: Um, and my, my preference would be to wait and see what happens in the, in the days that you've noted that some very significant events are going to take place. And then, you know, I have I have concern, too, with with blanket orders. But I was also very alarmed over the weekend, not quite knowing where this was all going to end. But I, I think this week might be a little too soon, especially given the fact that Thursday is a day that was out, is, I believe, said the memorial service. But we. Did anyone want to comment? Anyone else? One comment. Okay. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: I. Struggling. Sorry, I am unmuted. I am struggling on this. I am Thursdays. I mean, the problem is, is that right now the thing ends on Friday, 5 a.m. at 5 a.m. If we wanted to schedule something for Thursday because it got extended beyond Friday, I would be able be willing to do that with the idea that we would cancel it if it had not been if it had not been extended. I just I it feels a little odd. I agree with councilmember deciding if things are really going crazy on Thursday. I don't really want to be pulling our staff resources into a into a conversation at that time to talk about something that's going to end before we could do anything about it. And so I would be willing to support them if we could have that kind of qualifier that will move forward. If not. If so, if not, we can I would say let's see if there's a way for us to figure out how to schedule this conversation in closed session for potential litigation moving forward at our next session meeting, I would be supportive of having it in two weeks.
Speaker 0: Make sure of the motion, Mr. Cody.
Speaker 2: Real briefly. I mean, I think I hope it will be moot by then, but I'm willing to agree to scheduling it Thursday if the sheriffs order is extended. Because if it ever dies, then it's going to be moot, in my opinion.
Speaker 0: Okay. And if it's extended for any length of time, even 24 hours.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, because that's what gives us an opportunity to do something on Friday. But personally, I think this is a constitutional issue and I feel like our our sovereignty is being infringed on. I could be wrong. But as a discussion, it would be good to have. So I'll call the question.
Speaker 0: Now you've got a motion on the floor. You need to call the question. And I. I believe it's been modified.
Speaker 2: So anything more?
Speaker 0: I mean. Okay. I mean, let's have a let's have a roll call. The Madam.
Speaker 2: Quick.
Speaker 1: Council member said. No, not quite.
Speaker 2: I just want to ask to clarify. It has to take the soccer ball. It has the modifier that if it is extended, is a part of the motion. Okay. And I.
Speaker 1: Odie.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Vella. I may or as the Ashcroft.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 0: Well. Hi. Or we can just. Yeah, I, we can discuss it, but, um.
Speaker 1: This like Kerry scored to one.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Um. Thank you, everyone. So with that, we adjourn this special meeting of the city council, and we move into our regular meeting. Anybody want a quick break? Okay. Okay. We are. And apologies to the audience, but we are going to take a what time is it? It is 911. Okay, everyone, can we be back in our seats by nine 2020? Yeah. Okay. See you. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you to for Larry. We are now starting the regular city council meeting. And could we please have the roll call? Madam, quick.
Speaker 1: Roll call has been noted. Five present.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Do we have any agenda changes? Hearing. And then we're going to move to proclamations and special orders of the day. Well, there are two proclamations that are entered into the record. They won't be presented today because when we do our remote meetings, we try to condense things a little bit. And that is a proclamation declaring the month of June 2020 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Pride Month, and also a proclamation declaring the month of June 2020 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month. And there is, however, one exception I'm making, and we are presenting a proclamation on behalf of someone that I think everyone on this council
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Adoption of an Urgency Uncodified Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Alameda (A) Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency in Response to Civil Unrest; (B) Ratifying the City Manager’s Decision to Order a Curfew on June 1 and 2, 2020 (Ending at 5 a.m. on June 3); (C) Provide Direction Extending, Modifying, or Discontinuing the Curfew; and (D) Authorize Staff to Take Further Action to Implement This Declaration. (City Manager 2110)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_06022020_2020-7975
|
Speaker 0: All right. And this item is. Being presented by, I think. Is it misfits, Miss Potter together? Yes. So this is going to be and if Mr. Potter is going to start off at the presentation this evening. Thank you. Hands over to her. And and as she's coming up on camera, I hope I want to say that earlier this week. Now, maybe it was last week, man. I can't remember. It's only Tuesday. I sat in on the meeting, a monthly meeting of our Social Service Human Relations Board and got to hear Misfit's awesome presentation. So this is sort of like déja vu all over, over again to me, but it was I commend our Social Service, Human Relations Board and and misfits for Alda and Miss Potter for the awesome work they're doing as a very important topic of our day. So. Ladies, please. The floor is yours. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of the city council and staff families are fed up with the Housing Authority. And tonight I'm going to talk about the three programs that are proposed to help provide food and shelter to our needs most impacted by COVID 19. As you know, the city of Alameda receives community development block grant or CDBG funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, also known as HUD, and on April 2nd had announced that the city of Alameda would receive an allocation of $683,116 of CDBG funds from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act. South proposes to amend the current action plan to accept and allocate 100% of the CARES Act funds to public services that provide food and shelter to individuals and families who are vulnerable and in crisis as a result of the coronavirus. Specifically, we are proposing three programs. Emergency food distribution administered by the Army Food Bank in the amount of $50,000 COVID 19 emergency rent relief administered by building futures in the amount of $583,116 and emergency shelter administered by the Family Violence Law Center in the amount of $50,000. Please note that in two weeks I will be back to present the five year consolidated plan to you. At that time, we will recommend an additional $130,000 of CDBG funds from the upcoming fiscal year to be allocated to emergency rent relief as well. So at this time, staff has begun coordinating with city staff to ensure that the CDBG and we need a strong emergency rent relief program. Descriptions, messaging and advertising are consistent and that applicants will be directed to a single website to apply. While the proposed program administrator was evaluated for qualifications and capacity, staff recommends that Council authorize the city manager to enter into a second agreement in the event that demand is overwhelming and with the explicit purpose of getting funds to those who need them expeditiously after complying with CDC requirements. Pending council approval tonight, we will begin the work of engaging the service providers so that the programs can be launched as soon as possible. In summary, the recommendation before you this evening is to amend the current fiscal year 1920 action plan by adding the three proposed programs and authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute related documents . In addition and in the interest of deploying resources as expeditiously as possible. Staff would also like to ask Council to authorize staff to appropriate funds in the current fiscal current 1920 fiscal year so that we can incur costs in the month of June and before the start of the next fiscal year. And that concludes that presentation. Thank you. I would like to just have money. Yes, please. We have our three proposed providers here this evening and they are all here. And the clerk method man, if there are questions of council members or the for our proposed providers. Okay. Thank you. And those would be the Building Futures and the Family Violence Law Center current. And the food bank. And the food bank. Yes. Okay. Okay. Any questions? That's our assistant city attorney, Lisa maxwell. Okay. Councilmember, I mean, Vice Mayor Knox has his hand up.
Speaker 2: I answer to both. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Good.
Speaker 2: Just just a quick question. In the in the determining if somebody meets the average minimum income for the housing grants. Is the what what is it? One assumes that in applying for this, they've already had an impact to their salary. But it's not clear whether the salary that's being used to determine whether they are above or under the hammer is from pre-COVID or after the impacts of COVID. Can we clarify what our intent is there? I just we're that we're clear. We're clear that you have to be up to date on your rent before March 1st. The question is, is your salary before March 1st also the I am I determined nurse post. You know that the. Sorry. You understand what I'm asking?
Speaker 0: Hopefully. Yes. For CDBG purposes. The income would be at the time of receiving the benefit. So it would be post-COVID. We would be looking at there pre-COVID to verify that there is a significant change or a substantial loss of income.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: And I had a question, see if I can find it. So explain or maybe Miss Potter. So I, I heard you mentioned the community fund that we're starting, as is Alameda Strong. So how does how do these city city TB funds work with the funds that are being raised and allocated to the Alameda Strong Community Fund for Rent Relief. It is for anyone listening. We have a certain amount of monthly rent, one month's rent up to, I want to say 30 $500 that a person could be eligible for that rent money if they're shown to qualify as paid directly to the landlord. So this is also helping landlords, especially some of our smaller mom and pop landlords. But how does people just explain how are these parallel programs are all one or how does it work? Sure. I had a good conversation with both Louis Butler and Eric Thompson today, and the thinking is that rather than advertising two separate programs, let's have consistent messaging for a single program, have a single portal, have a single application, and then on the back end the processing. So for applicants who wouldn't necessarily qualify under the CDBG program, because the guidelines are a little bit stricter because they'd basically be referred to or paid by the Alameda Strong program, that ultimately for the applicant , it's hopefully going to be seamless. So because the end goal is to make sure that the tenant gets arrested. Right. And but there wouldn't be there wouldn't be duplication. So you would get your one month of rent relief from either of the two sources. Exactly. And that was another motivation. Okay. That's good to know. And then if I think people probably saw this in the in the they sent the staff report, but this is something that came up at the Shrub, the Social Service Human Relations Board meeting last week. That and I think it might have been reported here in this forum before, but in the month of April, because I don't think we've seen the police department's statistics for the month of May yet, but for the month of April 2020, the number of domestic violence calls that the police department received had increased 41.5% over April of 2019. So April a year ago. And it is upsetting when you read in the in the the staff report that due to the shelter in place order and Judicial Council's order to release offenders from jail, sometimes someone who has been arrested for domestic violence is taken, booked and sent back to the same residence in the same night . So that's where this emergency shelter program is so important because it provides funding for that battered spouse or partner or whomever to find a safe place to stay. So it's important program. Any said thank you very much great staff report and thank you for the input to Ms.. Potter. Any further questions I should ask? Sorry. Ms.. Quick. Do we have any public speakers?
Speaker 1: So we just need to ask anybody participating on the zoom if they would like to speak on this community development block grant hearing to please raise their hand right now. And we have nobody raising their hand. So we're good and we don't have any other comment to read into the record.
Speaker 0: Okay. So with that, do I have a motion to approve this proposed amendment to fiscal year 2019 2020 CDBG Action Plan and authorize city manager to negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and modifications to implement the program described above. And I would also like to make sure the in the motion includes our request that the Council also appropriate these funds for the fiscal 1922 years so we can start spending money this month. Okay. All right. So do I have a motion to cover that? Is that you, Councilmember Odie?
Speaker 2: Yes, Madam Mayor. I will make that motion and just quickly comment. I appreciate your your words about the family violence center. I know you've been outspoken on this issue. And Councilmember Bell and I had a town hall on this issue. And I think it's one of the silent issues that people are facing in this crisis. So I'm glad that we're doing something about it. So I'll move approval of the item with the appropriation of the money in fiscal year 1920. I get that right, Miss Potter.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: 19 Dash 2019 Dash 20.
Speaker 0: Yet we're not retroactive. Sorry, it's getting late here. Vice Mayor Knox. Right.
Speaker 2: Seconds.
Speaker 0: Right. Any discussion? Hearing, then may we have a roll call vote with council members?
Speaker 1: Decide this next fight.
Speaker 2: With great appreciation for misfits in our Social Service Human Relations Board.
Speaker 1: I Odie.
Speaker 2: I of course.
Speaker 1: And I believe council members Vella is having a problem with her iPad, so she I think, is not able to vote at the present moment. So we. Well, I guess she's absent so. And then Mayor, as the Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: Say again, if I could cast her vote, I know she'd be right on board with me. But yes, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. So that motion passes with four, four councilmembers present and one missing. Okay. All right. I'm sorry about that. Do we see anything we can do to assist? Anyway, thank you very much. Misfits and Miss Potter and Miss Maxwell. Thank you. Good work. There she is. Uh, Councilmember Vela, do you want to. You want to hear it's not too late for a roll call? You want to be on record? Yes. Yes, I was listening. I just was on a different device. Sorry. And we were doing a roll call vote. Would you like to vote? I yes. It's unanimous. Right. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. I love I love a happy ending. Okay. With that, we move on to item six B.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements and Modifications. (Community Development 236)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_06022020_2020-8003
|
Speaker 0: Sorry. And we were doing a roll call vote. Would you like to vote? I yes. It's unanimous. Right. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. I love I love a happy ending. Okay. With that, we move on to item six B.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to consider providing direction to city staff to draft charter amendment related to Article 26. Measure A.
Speaker 0: So on this one council, I would like you to consider a vote. So Councilmember Odie and I are authored with able assistance from Andrew Thomas, who's just joined us there on the screen. We authored this staff report, which I would like to present with Councilmember Otis assistance and input from Mr. Thomas. But as currently configured, the Council rules, which Council member Goldie and I drafted. But we're going to amend because we didn't anticipate this situation when we're actually presenting a staff report. It still counts against our allocated 9 minutes. Vice-Chair Next, may.
Speaker 2: I move that we do not count the minutes of the presentation as a part of the 9 minutes to the council.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have a motion to have a second. Looks like Councilmember Desai seconded me. We have a role covered. Any discussions? Keep this moving on. Okay. Um. Any discussion? Okay, maybe we have a real cover, please.
Speaker 1: Council members de sang.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Not quite.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 0: Hi, Bella.
Speaker 1: I mayor as the Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you. And I'm I'm still going to try to keep this moving along, because I do I am aware of the hour because we've had a lot of important items to discuss. And this item is no less crucial than everything we've discussed tonight. But I'll I'll try to just be my, you know, put my neutral hat on to discuss this. But first of all, I want to thank Councilmember Odie. Um, we always enjoy working together and I think we came up with a pretty good end product and. I also want to thank the others in the community who gave us their input to help us come to the conclusion that you see in the staff report before you. And one of the things I said on a call, I think, with the representatives of the Citizens Task Force, Mr. Paul Foreman and Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, Mr. Chris Buckley, we had a nice zoom call with Andrew Thomas and Councilman Brody and myself. The two gentlemen is that I find that it is more beneficial to talk with people who don't think like me, and we can all sit around and have a great conversation and reinforce the beliefs that we already hold. And there's there's a there's a place for that. But when it comes to items that can be controversial, that can be viewed a lot of different ways, it really makes a lot of sense to reach out and hear from people on the other side. Andrew Thomas Our planning building and transportation director has a longstanding history, probably as long as he's worked in the city working on Measure A or housing related issues, housing and zoning related issues. I first work with them on the planning board many years ago and but we also reached out to a longstanding housing champion and and one of her colleagues for a Thomas and Mr. Doyle Saylor to get their perspective and it just think it informed it informed this this staff report. So as you know there is in our city charter a measure that came to be known as Measure eight, because that was its title back in 1973 as a ballot measure. And there's two parts to item two, to measure A in the in the charter, there's Article 26 and specifically Article 26, one says. And almost precisely that there should be no multi-family housing anywhere in the city of Alameda. And then there is 20 6-3 that goes into a little more detail about what density level would be would be allowed the amount of square feet per unit. And this this is another consideration. So the these are among the charter amendments that a subcommittee came forward and said perhaps the council should take a look at this. So at a recent council meeting, Councilmember Odie and I were tasked with with being this subcommittee. And after many hours of discussion, deliberation, talking with Andrew Thomas, with our city attorney, Mr. Shen, and some drafts and re drafts, we came up with the staff report before you and the recommendation that you see. But I want to pause here and ask my colleague and coauthor Councilmember Odie to to share your thoughts or share your presentation about.
Speaker 2: The housing crisis. Because I was going to talk about something complimentary if you wanted to talk about the housing crisis.
Speaker 0: So I will be happy to talk briefly about the housing crisis. Do you want to go first with your issue or.
Speaker 2: I can let you.
Speaker 0: Tend to get tired of hearing my voice. Okay. So, um. Housing is a crisis. We have a housing crisis throughout our state. In the Bay Area Council, Vella and I sit on a statewide policy task force for the League of California Cities. In fact, we have a meeting this, this Friday and man, you should see the agenda. Councilmember Vella Well, I think you got it today. Lots of even though the legislature is streamlining the legislation, it's going to consider this term because of the COVID crisis. Housing is considered such a priority and such a crisis that we have a number of housing related bills that are being considered by the legislature this term. So we know that the reason we have a housing crisis that extends from people having to commute long distances to go to work to on the other end of the spectrum , being homeless, unsheltered, living under a freeway overpass in the bushes, even in California, the fifth largest economy in the world. It's it is a matter of supply and demand. And so this is now 20, 20, 47 years after Measure A was enacted by the voters in 1973, where there was a very different landscape and and different considerations and perhaps different values than we have today. So not only do this housing touch on so many different aspects, it it also has to do with our climate action plan. If people are having to commute from farther distances to and, you know, just generating more more fossil using more fossil fuel fuels and generating more greenhouse gases. But so there is there is definitely a housing crisis in our state. We say that the most effective way to address homelessness is not to let it begin in the first place. This council, I'm proud to say, has been very progressive in legislation we've enacted to protect renters, to keep people in their homes. We've I think we've done a fine job, but all of that is a drop in the bucket compared to the root cause of the problem, which is an imbalance in supply and demand. And so this is something that Measure A is attempting to address that, that the modifications that we're proposing are attempting to address. And now, Councilmember Ody, I'm going to turn the floor over to you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And I appreciate you sharing that lens on on this. And I just want to say that a lot of the legwork was done well by Andrew Thomas, but also our colleagues, the vice mayor and Mr. Nieto, as they had put this on the list of potential items and basically quickly to the genesis and I'll talk on the other lens, but I quickly honed in on the the bifurcation because one of the concerns I had was that modifying. 26, dash three or reappearing 26, dash three without people being able to weigh in on what the replacement would look like. I don't think people had enough time to do that. And this bifurcated process, I think, gives us that time. I we did kind of mull around some amendments, but in order to make everybody happy and keep things simple and then not have it weighed down, I think we came to the conclusion to defer that discussion until the community planning session. So we we honed in on the repeal of 2631 and I believe 2632 is kind of kind of with that. But I want to just, you know, share a different lens. And I'm going to tell a couple of stories real briefly on this book that I was made aware of, the color of law, Richard Rothstein, her story, it talks about a builder in 1955 that wanted to build a affordable housing development for Ford workers down in the South Bay. And then when his intent to sell to both black and white people became known, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors rezone the site from residential to industrial. So then he went to Mountain View and found a second plot. Well, those officials said they would never grant him the necessary approvals. Then he found another a third spot near the Ford plant. And then when that is where local officials found that the the development would not be segregated, they adopted a new zoning law, increasing the minimum lot size from 6000 to 8000 square feet, making the project basically unfeasible for working class buyers. And then when he found a fourth site, the seller canceled the option upon learning that the project would be integrated. And then at that point, he gave up. So continuing on, there's another story similar in the South Bay. You know, I didn't know this. Apparently there was a trader mobile factory that relocated from Berkeley down to Milpitas. And then right after they did that, the plant manager announced a change in hiring policy that the company would accept only new workers who live in the vicinity . And they were, because of reasons like I just went through, were almost exclusively white. And his rationale was black workers attempting to commute from the Oakland area were too likely to have car accidents from their long drives, leading to excessive absenteeism. So when that policy was put into place, the African-American workforce dropped from 6% to 6%. So the moral of the story and I'll just quote this because somebody else said something I can I'd rather just read what they say and then try to make it up. The Makita story illustrates the extraordinary creativity that government officials at all levels displayed when they were motivated to prevent the movement of African-Americans into white neighborhoods. It wasn't only the large scale federal programs of public housing and mortgage finance that created de jure segregation. Hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller acts of government contributed. Taken in isolation, we can easily dismiss such devices as aberrations. But when we consider them as a whole, we can see that they were part of a national system by which state and local government supplanted federal efforts to maintain the status of African-Americans as a lower caste with housing segregation, preserving the badges and incidents of slavery. So I think the lens I want to look at this through is we're all talking about institutional racism now. I was not here in 1973. I cannot judge the folks that put this on the ballot that voted for it. And I won't I can't say that they were racist. I can't even say they have racist intent and I never would. I know for a fact that those that support continuing measure A and don't want any changes in my mind in my conversation with them. I don't think they're racist either. But we can't ignore the result of this policy and hundreds of other policies like this that basically created this system of structural racism. And if we're going to start chipping away at it, which I think we need to do more than chip away at it, we need to just blow it up . I think this is this is one of the things we can do. This is a start. So I hope that we can look at these potential changes to measure a from the lens of what we can do as a city council, what we can do as a community to start dismantling the systematic, the systemic racism that has been built into, whether it be our zoning codes or any other codes or our housing policy. And so that that was the lens I wanted to add. So I think between the mayor's lens and this lens and the hard work of Andrew Thomas, those in the community and Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember de Saag, I think we are ready to take the next step in in doing so. And I think the mayor, we're working with her and I always enjoyed doing some thank you.
Speaker 0: And as Councilmember O'Day and I said today, we had a quick phone call this afternoon that, you know, we could never have and. Dissipated. And I wish this weren't the backdrop, but the tragic events that unfolded in Minneapolis. But I am always inspired by the words of our former president Barack Obama. And I know I quoted from his his statement after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, when he said that it falls on all of us, regardless of our race or station, to work together to create a new normal in which the legacy of bigotry and unequal treatment no longer affects, no longer infects our institutions or our hearts. And so I concur with my colleague, Councilmember Ody, that we're not attempting to assign bigoted motives to a previous electorate. But the the impact and outcome of that vote meant that nowhere in the city of Alameda could you build multi-family housing. And it still is a law on the books today. We will hear discussion, I'm sure, about the different work arounds, like the density bonus ordinance, but that also means that at the end of the day, the percentage of affordable housing that we require, a minimum of 15%, up to 25% at Alameda Point is reduced by by market rate housing because that's the bonus state law requires us to give to developers who build at a higher level of density because they can choose to follow the state law. So this, I think, is a time when each one of us needs to say, does this law have a place in 2020 in Alameda, California, that that is just as simple and basic a question that we are asking and saying needs to be answered. And as Councilmember Odie also alluded to, we do feel that there is a time and a place coming up in the next 18 months or so for a full and robust community process to look at what that looks like going forward with density greater than a duplex, which is currently all that's allowed. But now I think I would like to just ask Andrew Thomas, because he has been he is such an encyclopedia of knowledge, but also this conviction he has he has viewed this landscape through his very professional planning lens for decades. And Mr. Thomas, can you just give us your your view of of this item before us tonight? And thank you again for your help.
Speaker 2: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: We sure can.
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Ashcraft and Councilman Brody and members of the council. I obviously staff fully supports this committee's recommendation. We think it is time for the voters of Alameda to to really be given the opportunity to answer this question. I mean, do you want your city charter to essentially say, we do not want to build any multi-family housing for people who might who cannot afford to live in single family housing? I mean, it is essentially saying if you can't afford multifamily housing, we don't want you in our community. And like you said, Mayor, we've found many ways to sort of skirt around it. Big projects through state density bonus can find ways around it. It's really the the Alameda property owner, the smaller property owners in Alameda who just because of the way the state law is structured, don't get that benefit. So from just given your the council's affordable housing goals, given your climate action goals, given your transportation goals, our analysis found that this statement in your charter saying there shall be no multi-family housing runs completely contrary to everything that you and the community is trying to accomplish. As you look forward and as you said, this is not about was a good idea in 1973. It's about is it a good idea in 2020, given the challenges that we're facing in 2020 and the challenges that Alameda is going to need to address going forward? So I'm available to answer any questions. I think this is a issue that has been discussed during my eight years here in Alameda. This issue gets discussed by at the planning board and with every single housing project that comes through the system. So I think there's been quite a lot of conversation on the planning boards over the years. Even the planning board that you were on Maryland years ago spent a lot of time and effort talking about this issue and debating what this community should do to try to address it. So I think from staff perspective, we think it's not too soon. We think, you know, we wish we had been doing this ten years ago, but, you know, it's never too late to try to fix a problem. So better now than ever. So we fully support this. The the subcommittee's recommendation. We're here to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Thomas and Councilor Brody. Yeah. Good.
Speaker 2: Mr. Thomas? Yes. Could you please describe what, at least for all of us, because, you know, we all don't know this stuff like you do. As the mayor said, the practical impacts for A, affordable housing and B, other other neighborhoods of repealing 26, that's one. Yes. And 20 6-1 is in your city charter. So that's the issue tonight. 20 6-1 the multifamily prohibition is also now embedded throughout the city zoning ordinance. So if you put this on the ballot to repeal this from your charter and if the Alameda voters agree to remove it from the city charter, then nothing, nothing changes from a practical perspective until this planning board and the city council start taking actions to amend the zoning code where necessary and in the locations appropriate to allow multifamily housing. From a practical perspective, what is happening today because of state density bonus? If you have a large piece of property in Alameda, you can use state law to get around, measure a through a waiver, and then you get a density bonus. And those are all the issues. And that's the way that big developers in Alameda are able to build multi-family housing, where if you have a parcel of 10,000 square feet or less in Alameda and you might be in a multifamily zoning district, you might be an Alameda property owner with a parcel that's 6000 square feet, 7000 square feet, fairly large. You could be a 5000 square foot lot. And if you want to do anything larger than a duplex, you can't do that in Alameda today. You and there's no way around it. The only way around it is to go to the voters for your project. So I think in a practical sense, the kinds of things that we would want to start looking at as a community if the voters choose to remove this from the from the charter, this statement about multi-family housing being prohibited, well, we would start doing is looking in our looking in our multifamily zoning districts, looking in those areas and allowing people who might have, let's say, a large Victorian as a senior citizen who's whose family has moved on . We see this a lot, elderly Alameda who don't want to leave Alameda. They want to stay in their home and they would like to be able to create a second or third unit within their building so that they can create a unit that they can rent out. And those would be the kinds of zoning amendments that I could see us recommending to the Planning Board for consideration by the City Council. I think the other thing that we're going to see is we're going to see fewer density bonus projects going forward today in Alameda. If you if you are a buyer of a of a relatively large piece of property, over 10,000 square feet, and you want to develop housing on it. And it's on a site that we want housing developed wherever the city has said we want residential housing in these areas like the northern waterfront. Now, I made a point. You you are required. The only way to do multifamily housing today is to use the state density bonus process. So essentially every major project in Alameda up to this date has used the density bonus process as a way to get around the multifamily prohibition. So as a result, we've seen every single project get additional market rate units and the actual percentage of affordable units in the project go down as a result. So I think Measure eight has had this strange effect in Alameda over the last ten years where in an effort to get around the multifamily prohibition, developers are invoking state density bonus so that they can get the waiver from the multifamily prohibition. And then just by default, their projects are getting 20% larger because that comes with the density bonus process. So I think two things will happen. In summary, I think we'll start discussing zoning amendments for areas of Alameda where in the multifamily zoning districts and the mixed use districts, Park Street, Webster Street, where we might want to allow multi-family housing, where we currently prohibit it within the current density standards. And I think we will see a net just without doing anything. We'll start seeing fewer waiver density, bonus waiver requests.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: It's also finally in the last thing I'll say is it's going to make a big difference in terms of our every eight years we have to work with the state of California to certify our housing element. For 20 years, we were unable to get a housing element certified because of Missouri in 2012, after a rather Herculean effort by the Planning Board and City Council, we got our first housing element certified in 2012 and it was really trying to get the state to understand that we had ways to get around. Measure Hey, this is going to put sort of get Alameda out of the state doghouse in terms of housing policy and then the state legislature is moving further and further in that direction. Now they've just a new set of guidelines. If you are asking for state grant money, you get extra points if you are a pro housing city. And what that means is you don't have discriminatory or restrictive housing policies. You know, it's that's hard for us to do with Measure eight on the books to explain that. So I think it's I think it's going to help the city in the long run, not only meet our local requirements and our local goals, but also compete effectively for state funds, for affordable housing, for open space, for transportation money
Speaker 0: . Thank you, Mr. Thomson. I was smiling when you were talking about getting extra grant money or the ability to get extra grant money, because it's one of the propositions that this committee that Councilmember Vela and I sit on, I'm actually the vice chair. We have long said to housing, to the legislators, don't give us some of these sticks. Give us some carrots if we're those communities trying to do the the right thing. I mean, I get that you're going to penalize those who don't. But anyway, we're getting a little far afield. So what we want to do right now is take any clarifying questions council has for Mr. Thomas or Mr. Odie and myself. And then I think we have some public speakers. So before we get to our public speakers, any clarifying questions? Council to move to our Councilmember Vela. How much time is needed for the Environmental Impact Review? Mr. Thomas.
Speaker 2: Do you know where the Environmental Impact Review would be required when you do your zoning amendments? That's the zoning amendments that change what you can do on individual pieces of property. So. And because the zoning is already in place that enforces measure A, the removal of Measure A from the charter does not change the environmental conditions. So as I said earlier, if the voters remove measure from the charter, it doesn't change anything in terms of what anybody can do on the property. The action that changes things that people can do will be the subsequent zoning amendments. And it's not like we're going to all of a sudden say multi-family housing is going to be allowed everywhere in the entire city. We will pick and choose the appropriate places. And it will be that those places and the proposal to allow multifamily in those zones such as Park Street and Webster Street and Alameda Point, that's what will be studied in the environmental review. A typical environmental review for something like that is 6 to 9 months.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further clarifying questions? So let's see. And then, um, uh. Let's see. Anybody any other councilmembers wanted to have any? I think they wanted to ask. Okay. Um. Madam Clerk, do we have some public speakers?
Speaker 1: I. Yes, we do. I have 15 comments to read into the record. And then if anybody who is on the zoom would like to make a public comment, if they could raise their hand now. It looks like we only have three on the zoom who would like to comment. So we will call those first and everybody. Since there's a total of 18, they'll get 2 minutes each. So it's over seven.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: So public speakers.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay. So the first public speaker I'm sorry, I've got the name here. Um, is Grover Wyman Brown.
Speaker 0: Right. Hello, Mr. Women. Hi, women. Hi. Hi. Thanks for having me. Um, I'm a resident of Alameda and also the communications manager at East Bay Housing Organizations. And we're asking you to place of full repeal of Article 26 on the November ballot. Um, Councilmember Ody, you referenced talking to residents and not, and not believing that people who are opposed to this amendment have a racist bone in their body. But I just want to highlight Ibrahim Kendi's book and point that how you measure something as racist as if the policies or process has a racist impact. And we believe that Article 26 and the ban on multifamily housing does. I submitted an email to each of you going into greater detail about the history of that and the way in which anti-black racism was part of what was happening all across the nation to pull out our social safety.
Speaker 2: Nets from our.
Speaker 0: Communities. But in particular, we just want to look that up that this policy is important in creating racial equity and economic equity in our community. And also.
Speaker 2: That, as.
Speaker 0: Andrew was referencing, al-Qaeda is very behind in building very low and low income housing relative to its own rent allocation. And so we ask that you put this on the ballot so the voters can do the right thing. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker, David Burton. Okay. Various. Welcome back, Mr. Burton.
Speaker 2: Thank you, sir. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Ashcraft and members of the Council. My name is David Burt, now meter resident, 60,001. For seven years I served on the Alameda Planning Board through my planning board experience and being an architect involved in numerous projects in the city. I'm very familiar with Article 26 and its impact on residential development. I'm here to urge you to place on the file ballot amendments striking 20 6-1 and 20 6-3 from the charter. Be bold, simple and clear. There are three least three reasons for taking these actions. Number one, it's inappropriate to codify in a city charter something most appropriately placed in the zoning ordinance. Issues around residential densities grow and change as the city does. Cementing zoning in this charter was wrongheaded. Number two, Alameda in the state of california in the midst of a housing crisis that was decades in the making. Alameda must be part of the solution to this crisis. One of the most effective ways for our community to do this is to strike both articles from the charter and restore the city to the city and ability to adapt to changing times and circumstances with innovative and responsive zoning. Number three, our nation is in the midst of a tremendous turmoil, specifically around the issues of state violence against black citizens. This is part and parcel of a centuries long campaign of enslavement, intimidation and violence by the white community. Alameda has its own shameful history around this subject, including excluding black citizens from living in and owning property in our city through redlining covenants and city laws such as Article 26. Many of the present day supporters of Article 26 don't want to talk about how it is in part, an attempt to keep blacks and other nonwhite citizens from moving to Alameda. This is a terrible stain on our city's history. We must take this chance to strike out from the charter. These articles and ensure that we are a community where everyone belongs. Those opposing any change will claim that we can't proceed without extensive public engagement. I have been engaged in public discussions about this since 2007 13 years, and the discussion has been going on for many more years than that. Enough is enough. Amending the charter.
Speaker 1: That's your time. Your time has expired.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Burton. And our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Chris Buckley.
Speaker 0: Mr. Beckley, welcome.
Speaker 2: Christopher Buckley with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. I'm going to go over a couple of points in the in the letter that we sent you. We agree with the subcommittee recommendation that, quote, the council discussed delaying asking voters to consider Article 26, Dash three until 2022, unquote. We urge the council to support this delay. The subcommittee's deferral strategy is similar to what APS has been recommending, which is that any revision of Article 26 should be part of a larger, well analyzed planning process to determine what changes, if any, are needed to the city's development rules to meet our overall goals. The current General Plan, Revision and upcoming housing element update appear to be good vehicles for this process. As we previously stated, we would be open to possible modification of Article 20 6-3 as part of this larger planning process. We would also be inclined to not oppose a repeal of Article 20 6-1 as recommended by the subcommittee as part of this planning process. Finally, it's been suggested that the general plan review process will be well along and possibly complete by the November 2020 election. But this observation has the process backwards. A general plan revision and housing element update needs to occur before any ballot measure in order to help define the ballot measure content. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Brickley. And so do we have more in-person speakers, so to speak, or are we going now to a written statement?
Speaker 1: We are moving on to written. All of the zoom have commented and so I'll be reading for a while here. The first one is Delores Keeler and Floyd Brown, who are Alameda residents in regard to Article 26 six of the City Council's June 2nd meeting agenda, we are once again requesting that the Council defer any further consideration of repeal or modification of Article 26 until after the restrictions related to COVID 19 are reduced sufficiently to allow for in-person attendance at City Council meeting, so to ensure full public participation as concerned homeowners and long standing members of the Alameda Preservation Society. We also continue to request that any consideration of changes to measure a be deferred until it can be part of the city's comprehensive planning process referred to in the subcommittee's report. Next we have. You got it. Elizabeth Tuckwell, Alameda resident Please reschedule discussion of changes to measure a so that concerned citizens can address council in person. Measure. Measure is among the important elements that create the homey atmosphere of Alameda. The pandemic has actually heightened the importance of Measure eight and possible revisions to it. The overall concept of population density is being reconsidered at all levels nationwide, with the emphasis on social distancing. With the announcement of two options by the newly formed subcommittee, including the mayor and councilman. Each option deserves the full consideration that requires imperfect sharing of ideas. Since Governor Newsom has already started to ease the shelter in place, it seems likely that city council meetings might soon again be held at City Hall with social distancing in place . As I'm sure you know, there has been a curfew imposed in the city of Alameda from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m., June 1st and second. There has also been a curfew imposed in Alameda County for the same hours, but not ending until June 5th. The city of Alameda is, of course, subject to a countywide curfew. Such major disruptions as coronavirus and curfews will undoubtedly limit the breadth and depth of discussion regarding the future of measure. M The robust discussion and broad based community input that should proceed any policy action by City Council regarding Measure A will not be possible under present circumstances. Thank you for your consideration. Next we have Karen Lithgow from Alameda. Our Architectural Preservation Society Apse agrees with the City Council's subcommittee recommendation that the Council discuss delaying asking voters to consider Article 2063 until 2022 and urges the Council to support this delay. As noted in the subcommittee report, such deferral will allow the council and the community to have the benefits of having complete community citywide planning and environmental review process to inform their decisions before crafting a ballot measure to amend or repeal Article 26 statutory. The report also notes that the question of Article 20 6-3 is complex. The report's community wide planning and environmental review process appears to refer to the general plan revision that is currently underway and the upcoming housing element update. The subcommittee's deferral strategy is similar to what AARP, the U.S. has been recommending. We continue to believe that any revision of Article 26 should be part of a larger, well analyzed planning process with ample opportunities for public participation of what changes, if any, are needed to the city's development rules to meet Almeida's overall goals and objectives. Therefore, we would open be open to considering modification of Article 26 three as part of this larger planning process. We would also be inclined to not oppose repeal of Article 20 6-1 if a recommendation for repeal as a result of the same planning process. Although the Subcommittee recommends that the repeal of Article 20 6-1 be placed on the November 2020 ballot, we continue to believe that asking the voters to consider repealing Article 20 6-1 this coming November is premature pending completion of the planning process. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Next we have Elizabeth Green, alameda, resident madam mayor and council members. I urge you to delay an election on a charter amendment to eliminate article 26 of the city charter. Since we are in the midst of a pandemic, the likes of which we have not seen in 100 years, civil unrest and the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression. Now is not the time to tinker with the city charter. Article 26 formally measures to move forward with this effort. Oops. Sorry. Lastly, please do move forward with whoever will be seen as cold blooded attempt to sneak legislation through while the public's attention is understandably distracted as this proposed charter amendment could affect Almeida's housing stock for a generation or more. This is too significant an issue to move forward with out considered public attention and open public discussion at city council meeting, which citizens can attend to voice their opinions. Next, we have Maria Perales from Alameda. All of us in Alameda are very concerned about Mayor Ashcraft and councilman, a relentless effort in removing Measure eight Articles 26 one and 2663 from the City Charter. Measure eight stands as the only control we have to control Alameda Density and congestion problems. But Mayor Ashcraft, who served for six years in the planning department, along with current planning director Andrew Thomas, seemed to be addicted to development tax dollars and insists on adding more housing, more completely disregarding population density and its effect on our quality of life. And they do absolutely nothing for infrastructure in their lofty plans to remove the constraints they feel feel by measure a they continue to ignore the old bridges and tunnel with the City Council's 2012 new housing element that approved the construction of over 4500 new units, including multiple and affordable. They're effectively adding close to 15,000 new people to the island without addressing the obvious. Access and egress. It is not about public transit. It is about our safety. Is about traffic congestion and density. It's not about standard state mandates. It's the fact that out of the 36,000 zip codes in the United States, Alameda is 944501 is ranked in the top 1000. In regards to population density, what is the limit? Mayor Alameda is an island and we don't need more people. We need a council that cares about our safety, about our history, about our quality of life. Preserve alameda keep measure m. Next we have pat lamborn, alameda resident Dear Mayor Ashcroft, Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmembers Odie Vela and De Saag. I am writing to ask that you not take action on revising Article 26 tomorrow night, June 2nd, 2020. The issues are complex and it is just not possible to have a truly dynamic meeting at this time due to both the shelter in place orders and other issues impacting participation. There is multi-family development underway in Alameda and our city has a housing element certified by the state as appropriate to meet our housing needs until 2023. That's the revision of Article 26 is not time sensitive. Article 26 is a complex issue which should be submitted to a comprehensive and transparent general plan revision process with robust public participation rather than rushed on the ballot in November 2020. We should also consider the impact of changes to the economy. I am disturbed by the thousands of square feet of empty office space not temporarily vacant, but permanently vacant in Alameda. We have to find balance once again, once we can evaluate the impact of this epidemic and the economic depression. If eliminating Article 26 contribute contributed to the destruction of older multi-family housing stock. The new developments would not be subject to rent control. You could be making matters worse. Certainly not welcome at a time like this in our country or community. Next we have Gretchen Labonte Alameda resident Tamara as mayor ashcroft and members of the alameda city council. I wish to weigh in on the issue concerning measure eight. If there ever was a time to pause and exercise patience, it is now. Don't we want the public citizens to be part of the discussion we see as part of our public duty to involve the members of our community? Let us be prudent, thoughtful and democratic. Let us wait until the virus and the rebellion outside our door has calmed down so we can engage in civic civil discussions. This matter is too important to rush it to conclusion. Next we have Steve ASID East members of the City Council. It is inappropriate to ask the citizens of Alameda to consider changes to the current development guidelines without presenting them with a thorough review and public discussion of the impact and consequences these changes will have on the existing character of our town, its traffic and the city's ability to provide its current level of public services, emergency response, city staffing, etc.. Consideration of these changes does not have to be completed immediately. Please postpone any decisions on these matters to a time when in-person attendance at council meetings is appropriate. Thank you. Next, we have Laura Thomas from Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. Dear Madame Mayor and esteemed Council members, the removal of Article 26 in its entirety from our city charter is long overdue. It may have protected the city's Victorian architecture heritage, architectural heritage, but it also blocked the city from allowing a sensible, flexible and diverse housing stock to be built to house the many different types of people who should have been able to call Alameda home all these years for the last 20 years. Renewed hope housing advocates have spoken against this restriction and its discriminatory effect. Both state and federal housing agencies have agreed with us. It's another one of those seemingly colorblind local laws that instead contributes to the work of institutionalized racism in housing in our community. We believe it is time to be done with it once and for all. Otherwise, calling Alameda a welcoming community or a place where Black Lives Matter is a rank hypocrisy. We believe Alameda INS are ready to acknowledge this reality. Condemn the historical injustice proposed by Article 26 and will support its removal. Please consider putting both Article 20 6-1 and 26 statutory before the voters this November. Next we have Anna Quintal regarding measure a our fear in this rushing to do this now is to stop the citizens of Alameda to properly voice their opinions on this landmark decision. We don't need to rush this, but it seems that you people of the staff and city council are doing this now because of COVID 19 and now all the rioting of cities being torn apart. So no one is paying attention to staff and city council. Well, we are and do not want changes to this measure. It seems you all want as many tricky, tacky box buildings in Alameda as you can. This is charming town and you are all making it ugly. Have you looked at the entrance to the base? I guess not. How much money from developers are you all getting to create this mess with many more houses that we don't need? You seem to forget we are an island and the water table is rising, as you tell us all. Then why, for God's sake? Well, why do you keep building? We have enough traffic for two cities and can't get out of town in a hurry if we had to. Why is it that Andrew Thomas's wife, who works? I don't think we read those type of comments. I am sorry. And then how much money from developers are you all getting anyway? Also, Vela and Oti should have been gone over the city manager fiasco. Why are they still on the council? And I guess since you live in a Victorian you don't really care what anybody builds. Maybe could have a vision. You should all go to Mira Island and see how beautiful it is there because someone took their time to have a plan preserving the history there. Unlike Alameda, please do not let any changes happen to measure it and also do not allow this to be on the ballot in November 2020. Too much rush. Next, we have Patsy Becker. Good evening, Mayor and council members. I am asking you to delay discussion and decision on Article 26 until the election of 2022. During this time of pandemic, the voters can't engage with others in public discourse, and this is too important an issue to exclude the public input. The city has met our state housing element quota until 2023, so there shouldn't be a rush to make such a permanent decision now in our city charter. Thank you. Next is Bridget Evans, Alameda Resident Mayor Ashcraft and City Council. Please postpone an election on a charter amendment to eliminate Article 26 of the City Charter until such time as a full and robust discussion about not only the future of Measure A, but about the future of our island can be openly conducted and a complete course of action can be agreed upon by a majority of residents and voters. This is the wrong time to be addressing this fragment of this issue. Due to the events of the past three months, we are all riding a roller coaster, sitting here, poised at the top of the hill, holding our breaths about to plunge downward. While much of the future is still murky. It is clear that both housing prices and rents are about to take a drastic tumble. Many people will have mortgages that are underwater. Others will not be able to repay back rent, even with the generous six months negotiating period passed by this council. Jobs will not be coming back sooner fully. Many people will be forced to leave the Bay Area, and the fate of the tens of thousands of new units under construction in East Bay is uncertain. Will they be completed? Will they sit empty? Many of the assumptions in January's an evaluation of city charter article measure by city staff either are not or will no longer be valid. The assumption that building large multi-unit buildings such as the beautiful stark properties shown in the evaluation with the per acre equivalents San Antonio Avenue, 68 units per acre will bring . The public transportation that we need is wishful thinking at best. How many historic houses would have to be purchased and demolish their clear heart? Redwood beams consigned to landfills in order to construct a 68 unit apartment building. How high would it be? 50 feet. 80 feet looming over the surrounding neighborhood. How long would the neighbors have to live in the construction zone? Two years after all of that. Would the units be affordable? The evaluation states that the average price of a multifamily unit in Alameda in August 2019 was 742,000 or 30% less than that. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The next comment. Yes.
Speaker 1: Let me get to it here. Okay. And the next one is Zack BOLLING. I'm strongly in favor of putting on the ballot a measure to remove Article 26 from the charter on the November ballot. Article 26 of the charter is in conflict with state law and regional housing objectives. It creates a mess for city staff to improve our general plan and how do we zone to meet our housing and density requirements? Given that conflict, almost none of the additional protections we have currently in place to protect historic homes existed when this amendment was added in 1970 273. But now historic homes are protected. So I believe this charter amendment has far outlasted its usefulness in 2020. We should stop binding city staff in the planning boards so that they can adapt within reasonable limits to come up with real solutions to this housing crisis. All housing policy, as a rule, should only exist in the Alameda Municipal Code and never in the charter. Next, Jonas Coughlin, an Alameda resident. Madam Mayor and council members. I'm a 20 year resident of Alameda and I am a homeowner. I support the council moving forward with asking staff to draft ballot measures to repeal Articles 2061 and 2063. Now is the time. Now is the time because so many of our neighbors have been hit hard with economic uncertainty, and this comes on top of an unprecedented housing crisis. Now is the time. Because we must eliminate racial injustice, and racial injustice cannot be remedied without creating more affordable housing. Now is the time, because there has been plenty of process and we can have plenty more public participation in the coming five months. Now is the time because the Council is not changing the charter tonight. The Council is merely moving the conversation along and opening the door to more public participation. There is nothing more democratic than finally bringing the issue to the voters. And now is the time. Because in November, progressive voters will come to the polls in unprecedented numbers, ready for change and ready to seek justice. So please do the compassionate, forward thinking and just think and move us closer to eliminating the blunt instrument of Article 26. Our architecture and the character of our community will be preserved and enhanced by our zoning laws, our boards and commissions, and our elected officials being held accountable by voters. Finally, COVID 19 is not a reason to postpone. COVID 19 is the reason to act now. Thank you. And then our final speaker is Jim Strelow, Alameda resident. What if you build it and no one comes? The city's policies tend to not be business friendly removing parking, taxing businesses for public transportation, narrowing lanes that can lead to more accidents and injuries. Getting rid of traffic. By the magic year 2035, etc. If the jobs are in Fremont, San Jose, Mountain View, etc., the businesses are not going to move to Alameda. Move the Tesla plan to Alameda. Not going to happen. Move Bank of America headquarters to Alameda. Not going to happen unless you make alameda business friendly when it comes to having housing closer to where businesses are locating treasure. Measure changing measure A in the long run is not going to achieve your desired end goal. And that is the final one. And at this time it is also 1052. So. Oh, okay. Council wants to before moving on, get into a quick vote about whether they want to consider six B, C, D and 9aa were on six. I mean, so CD nine.
Speaker 0: Okay. So council it is it's almost 11:00. I have a very strong feeling about ending a meeting the same night we began it, but I would entertain a motion to continue this meeting until and I think it also gives this incentive to move things along. And who wants to make a motion to hear the remaining items in council? Really, whether you guys.
Speaker 2: Like to make that motion, to hear the remaining items 60, 60 and 98.
Speaker 0: And finish before midnight this evening.
Speaker 2: Let's hope so.
Speaker 0: Well, you'd get my support if that were the case.
Speaker 2: I. I will talk as little as I can. Yes. Yes. I will second that with a commitment to get us out of here by midnight.
Speaker 0: Okay, so we will stop at 1155. Can we do that?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Let's.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So we have a motion, if I'm understanding correctly, to hear the remaining items until and get that all done by 1155. Okay. It's been moved. It's been seconded. Maybe we have a real colloquy.
Speaker 1: Council member doesn't know next by. I Bodi?
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Vella. I may or as the Ashcroft. I that carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. And there are no no one else is waiting in the wings to speak. And we have no further public comment. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right, then I am going to close public comment and we will move to council deliberation. I just want to clarify for the audience that may have gotten confused by some of the comments. What was in this the staff report and what Councilmember Odie and I are proposing is not that we change the charter to remove anything but that it simply be put to the voters. And so I that's that's all we're saying. That's it's not it's not even within our power as a council. This would have to go to the voters. Okay. So, um, who wants to start?
Speaker 2: Well, I guess I can start.
Speaker 0: All right. Council member Desiree.
Speaker 2: Well, great. Well, thank you very much. Let me begin by saying to the residents, as well as to the and to my colleagues and and city staff, that above all, let's not kid each other, measure a especially 20 6-1 and 20 6-3. Measure A is urban planning by sledgehammer. It's not pretty. It's not city planning by the surgeon's scalpel. But when we look into the history of things, we see why Measure A came about. And we continue to see why the necessity of something like Measure A, as ugly as it might seem, uh, is still needed. We all know that Measure A came about because of an explosion in housing that was planned for what ultimately turned out to be horribly ill. That was one of the key impetuses for a measure for all the residents gathering together. Measure also came about because of a loss of a lot of charming Victorians to, quite frankly, very ugly, ticky tack apartments. It wasn't just a loss of charming Victorians, but it was the utter destruction of those Victorians. So Measure A was that urban planning tool that was basically a sledgehammer that the residents had put together in an effort to take control of their own built environment. And as we think about Measure A and why it's even needed today. Let's let let's let's talk about some things. Let's talk about, for example, diversity. Even with Measure A, the city of Alameda has become an incredible, diverse place, even more so than before Measure A was put into place. I came here to Alameda in 1974 and it's just not a Western phenomenon. But I just know that throughout all of Alameda, we are a heck of a lot more culturally diverse, racially diverse than ever before. And I think some data really we need to talk about. For example, in 1970, African-Americans were 2.6% of the city of Alameda. And then Measure eight came about in 1973. Right. In 1980, African-Americans were 4.2% of Alameda. In 1990, African-Americans were 6.7% of Alameda. In 2000. African-Americans were 6.2% of Alameda. There was a slight drop because of the closure of the base. In 2010, African-Americans were 6.4% of the city of Alameda. And in 2020, African-Americans are estimated to be 7.1% of Alameda. So the amount of African-Americans in all this time with measures that have been in place has increased by 200% over the past 50 years. While the city of Alameda over that same time has grown by 10.6%. Could we have more Latino Americans? Could we have more Asian-Americans? Could we have more African-Americans in Alameda? Sure. But let's put to rest the argument that Measure A somehow has stopped the increase of racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African-Americans. Truth be told, we have more African-Americans in the city of Alameda as a percentage of our population. Then our neighbor across the bay is city of San Francisco, where 6% of the population is African-American. So think about that. Even with Measure A, we have continued to become that great diversity that we are. And I will say that even with Measure A. Remember that we're still building apartments, even with Missouri. Granted, I will be the first one to agree that in building apartments in the measure, we have to do it in a manner that reminds us of a pretzel. But maybe that's the trade off to building an island like Alameda. And even with misery. After 20 years as our planning director had said, the state of California finally certified our housing element. So I would argue that. We should focus on keeping measure a both 20 6-1 and 20 6-3. In an effort to preserve our history. And to build wisely for the future. And I want to end by saying this. It's not a simple thing of just city council tonight putting 20 6-1 or two success story to the ballot this coming November. It's not as simple as that because especially 420 6-1. That was an effort by the people of Alameda. They went about and took the time and made the effort and did the fight to gather the signatures to put 20 6-1 onto the ballot at the people who had subsequently voted for. So I would say if you want to change 26 one or if you want to change 26, that's three. Then by all means, go out and gather the signatures. But I would say it is an abuse of power. For the city council. To then say, well, you know what, we're not going to require the residents to go out and gather signatures to make the to do the same level of effort that that residents did back in back in the days. We're just going to put it on. We know we're going to undo 2061 by putting it onto the onto the ballot. Now, I would say if you want a change, 26, dash one, go gather the signatures. So let me end by saying this. Even with Measure eight, the city of Alameda has become a stronger, more diverse place than ever before. And the data bears that out. Even with measuring, we are right now building apartments. So there's no reason to have to undo measure a and I will grant you that Measure A is is a sledgehammer when it comes to controlling our built environment. I think when you're on an island like Alameda with limited ingress and egress and inadequate street infrastructure, maybe you need a sledgehammer like something like Measure eight. I appreciate all the effort that, you know, we all did. And I think this is a very valuable discussion that the city of Alameda has to engage in. And I know that we have and we will continue to do so in a deliberate, thoughtful manner, representing various perspectives on the measure. So I just want to say thank you for letting me give you my perspective. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember De said Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 2: I'll be quick, as I said a lot earlier. I mean, it's important to not impugn anyone's motives, you know, and try to keep a cool discourse. But there's two things that kind of disturb me about the last comment. One, it's pretty much impossible to circulate petitions now. I mean, we've heard that from people that want to circulate them on things we agree with or don't agree with. And, you know, preserving heritage is the battle cry of the Confederate flag people. So let's just be careful with their rhetoric. I mean, with COVID, you remember when we had this meeting as a concern the first time because of the short notice, because of the COVID and because of the special meeting. So we we made an endeavor to get this on a regular agenda with a regular notice and a full staff report. And I think we've done that. One other things that I've tried to do during this crisis is try to empathize with others. And I think it's helped. And I appreciate the meetings with Mr. Foreman and Mr. Buckley, and I hope to continue that. And the one thing I got from them is that there's not a lot of trust. So what this proposal does is it allows this council to build that trust. So if we could repeal 2063 tomorrow, we still have to go through a long planning process. So why don't we go through that planning process, establish the trust, come up with something we all agree with, and then we put that to the ballot. And in my ideal world, everyone loves it and then it passes. I do think, though, there's still time. This is just the the the meeting to ask the staff to bring back ballot language. So we're going to have that agenda item to discuss it and then we're going to also have the election. So if anyone has an issue with the policy of repealing 26 one, I'd like to hear those arguments because you still have time to make those. And I appreciate Mr. Thomas's comments about I think there's a fundamental unfairness where someone lives in a Victorian that maybe they purchased after 73 and someone lives in one next door that before 73 they put multiple units in there and that Alameda homeowner can either live in their unit and age in place or generate more revenue or rent it out to somebody else. And like somebody said, these are new units. So I don't know if they will be subject to rent control. And then I think our affordable housing percentage will actually increase if we don't have 26. That's one more thing I'd like to see before the election too. Also, health and gender trust is that we come up with some guidelines as staff goes forward with the with the planning process. I do want to make one last comment. I mean, when I worked for the assembly and we represented Oakland in Alameda and San Leandro, we were always told by people that, you know, stop linking race and poverty. So while I think this had a disparate racial impact, the the intent, I think, was to reduce economic diversity. And because of institutional racism, you know, that that does kind of correlate to race. But, you know, just to say that, you know, all different people have this race or that race, you know, are all poor . I think I think misses the whole picture. What we're missing a lot of is economic diversity. And I think we lost that with with multifamily. And I think we lost that with with the rent crisis. So I have slowly come around to this this recommendation, and I hope that we can do this in a civil and a open and a fair way where we can engender trust and and we don't have divisions because we have way too many divisions right now in this country. And we don't this is a path this recommendation that our subcommittee come up with is a path to minimize those divisions and work together on a common solution that we all can be proud of. Thank you.
Speaker 1: King. Yeah, I. I don't know if anybody can hear me, but. Can you just dial it in?
Speaker 0: Welcome to Zoom. Enter your meeting ID followed by LB. Good. I have.
Speaker 2: Video.
Speaker 0: Okay. So.
Speaker 1: So put on the zoo. You could hear her. So people who are attending via the zoo can can could hear you. But unfortunately, the broadcast was completely down because I, I my fingers closed when I hit the timer, I hit and Colin's dead. I'm so sorry.
Speaker 0: So can I. Can I? Of course we. Anyway, your timer.
Speaker 1: I hadn't started the timer.
Speaker 0: Yeah, sorry. Oh, I didn't even notice that. Okay. Apologies, counselor. Novella. I was taking notes if you want me to come back. No, no. In many ways, this makes my point. I just. I want to know what the plan is for. For asking a meaningful community engagement where we can have these conversations. We've had a number of difficulties with technology. We have a number of residents for whom the digital divide is real. Information is not getting to them. They don't know. Madam Mayor, they didn't know about your town hall. I know that if you're on social media and you're following the city of Alameda Web page, you probably know about that. But for many of our community members, they have no idea that we're doing these things on Zoom on these other platforms. I don't think that 20 6-1 is controversial. I think that there's many people across the board on both sides of the issue that don't have a problem with 20 6-1. And I think that where a lot of work needs to be done is on 20 6-3. And I feel very strongly that whatever we do needs to be done above board in a manner that is engaging and welcoming and in a manner that we actually can get information out to people to let them know that this conversation is happening. So I've heard a lot of conversation about, you know, communities of color and doing all these things. You know, a lot of the people that are not do not know about our town halls, do not know about our meetings, do not know about our special meetings, our members of our community that are people of color. And we are not hearing their voices, whatever those voices are, however you feel about the substance of the issue. So it's really I think it's really simple to say we're going to have a process where we do this, this and this. I had asked the question about the timeline. You know, I do think that the environmental impact conversation needs to come up. I want to understand what challenges, legal or otherwise, could happen if we put a ballot at either of these, whether it's one or both on. I think those are decisions that we need to look at. If it's a city sponsored ballot initiative and we're getting legal challenges, I'd like to understand what the cost of defending it is, what the what the legal implications are, what the analysis is. And I also want to understand and make sure that whatever we're putting on there is going to stand up to at least superficial challenges. And that, you know, it's something that we at least tried to get coalition support on. And so that's where I'm coming from. I think having any sort of conversation about charter amendments at special meetings, especially when we had an opportunity to give more notice and especially when we had a robust conversation, I thought, and that we had, you know, your own statements out in there about making sure that we had a lot of transparency and that we set aside we would have a conversation on this if I thought that was going to be the conversation about setting aside meetings to have these robust discussions. And so I appreciate the work of two subcommittees, which is the four of you, but I'm the I'm the one council member that really didn't get to take part in the subcommittee or talk to anybody else. So it's nice that you all got to do that. But I also think that there's, you know, the short turnaround from the last four from that council meeting and again, where we had majority people voting. And if there was any lack of clarity about that vote, I would have hoped that somebody would have come back to us and gotten clarity or, you know, if if we were going to schedule a special meeting that we we got advance notice for that. So I think, you know, I'm I'm also not trusting about what this process is going to look like. I'd like to know what the plan is. When are the meetings going to take place? Who's going to be involved? I know that we involved certain groups. We didn't. And there's lots of different groups in Alameda. How are we reaching out to everybody? How are we informing voters about the process and the decisions? The fact that there is a lack of clarity of what council is even deciding tonight, all of that concerns me and I'd like to know what the process is, because I think when we change our charter. It's important. And right now we're in the middle of the pandemic. Everyone keeps talking about unprecedented times. I think most Americans would be set back on their heels if all of a sudden Congress decided to start contemplating DC statehood. In the midst of all this, we'd say, Yeah, we've been talking about this for a long time, but is now really the time and what's the process for actually considering it? That's an extreme example, but we're talking about changing our charter. You know, I'm a process person and I want to talk about what that process looks like in that timeline. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Vela, Vice Mayor Knox White. Are you ready?
Speaker 2: Yeah, sure. Um, thank you. And I would like to thank the subcommittee for their work. Um, the color of light. So I have read the books that I've read. I have. I've seen a lot of excerpts of it and whatever else. Thank you for bringing that. Councilmember Ody. You know, tonight I was very appreciative of the comments we received. I also, like our city planner Andrew Thomas, have been engaged in this conversation for about 18 years now and have formed a lot of relationships on both sides of this issue and heard from many of those people. Now, the same people 18 years later, sending us emails. You know, I know that it's it's it seems we shouldn't talk about things people don't want to talk about because of COVID. But in my day job, I am I have been spending the last two and a half months helping move unsheltered people from the streets into shelter . This pandemic is not just it's a public health thing, a public health epidemic, but it is a public health epidemic that has a housing connection. And, you know, I just I can't I can't buy in to the idea that somehow everything is going to be fine for a while and we can just kick the can down the road. It's quite honestly, reading a number of the the letters that we've received say it does seem to suggest that we should just wait until housing is a problem again. Then we should start working on whether there's a solution. We have many of us on this council have been talking about how this specific issue is an issue that needs to be addressed and fixed for for many, many years. We have an opportunity to put it before what could possibly be one of the largest city voting blocks in Alameda history in November 2020. And I can't see anything that would be less anything more transparent than making sure that as many people as possible get to get to weigh in on this issue. We will be choosing presidents. We will be choosing city council members. We will be making many, many very important decisions in these in this election. I you know, I yes, as I believe it was Councilmember Odie mentioned, you know, the recommendation from the subcommittee is one of the four options that came forward with the original proposal. And, you know, actually listening to to him, you know, read from The Color of law this this evening, it struck me that one of the one of the highlights was about the density and the use of density to really impact housing and who could live in certain places. It should not it should not pass the Senate that if we only repealed 26.1 and not 26.3, we are leaving in place the piece of the law that was actually put in place in order to tighten the screws and make it even harder to build housing in Alameda, I would think that it probably is almost more important for us to repeal 26.3 to impact housing in Alameda than it would be for 26.1. You know, I think that I appreciate and have thought a lot and tried to find a way to get myself to kind of, you know, wait and plan, put a plan. But at the end of the day, I don't think any of us so well, I won't speak for anybody else. I'm not willing to support spot zoning in our in our charter. I don't want to have the voters having to change the zoning for the island every two years and quite honestly, an 18 month planning process that it basically says, well, here's the plan. Now we're just going to go over and remove 26.3 because there's a plan that anybody can change at any time, isn't going to isn't going to have moved the issue forward at all. I think that a better planning would be to join most cities in the Bay Area, most cities in the state, and remove the zoning, these kind of the zoning sledgehammer that Councilmember de SAC highlighted from our charter and then engage in the broad public planning process that cities across the state do. So tonight, I would like to see our council consider putting on the ballot to a full repeal of Article 26 items one, two and three.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Council member Excuse me. Vice Mayor Knox White. Um, I want to just, um. I was looking for something in the charter handbook, but as a council handbook, we're going to consider. But let me just address all of you, and I think all of you have have added value to this discussion. What I would like to see is for, if not five votes to move forward and do something that I think is very important and. My preference is to move forward now with removing 20 6-1 because it's hard to imagine that we cannot have agreement with the premise that an outright ban on multi-family housing anywhere in the city of Alameda does not belong in the charter. I don't disagree with the finer grained arguments the vice mayor is making, but I'm also mindful of the points that Councilmember Vela is making about the need for a robust discussion. I don't know that it needs a robust discussion anymore than has been had for almost two decades. Well, probably longer. I've been working at this for two decades, but, um, you know, ever since 1973, do we really need to have an outright ban on multi-family housing pandemic or no pandemic? And I'm with the vice mayor. This pandemic has only pulled aside the curtain to see just how horrendous this situation is. We were tasked by the governor with thinning out the populations of our homeless shelters, and not homeless shelters are homeless encampments, so they would not become breeding grounds for COVID 19. But I want to address some things that my colleagues have said and in maybe circular fashion, because I have to make notes in my margin as they went along. Councilmember Desai We, um, you know, we perceive things that are said and I swallowed hard when you referenced an abuse of power. I don't believe that that's what anyone on this council is attempting to do by suggesting that a law needs to be taken to the voters to simply decide. Um, but if I thought about that a little longer, I might say it's a matter of perception and one person's abuse of power might be another's dereliction of duty. I take my role as the mayor of this city and as the vice chair of a statewide policy committee on Housing, Community and Economic Development very seriously. And I will do everything I can to let the voters, let the residents who live here, many of whom have been seriously impacted by the housing crisis, by the availability, by the affordability, by slipping through the cracks and slipping into sleeping in their car and even into homelessness. So I didn't run for office to just sit in a chair and pass feel good legislation. I ran for office to make a difference and we are finding ourselves at a very pivotal time in history. We could look at this and seize this moment in a lot of different ways. We could say, let's just wait till this all passes and then, you know, we'll take this up again. But I don't know, is is that the response we wanted to have to the travesty that happened in Minneapolis? Do we not all have the power to do something? The analogy about statehood for D.C. in the midst of a pandemic, I, I don't see it that way. Every time I walk by or see people in tents, living in the shadows and families, school children living with their families out of cars. We we can do better people. We can do so much better. And so what? And and the assertion that was made in some of the comments and of course, everyone is welcome to make their comments. And, you know, the argument that this just isn't the time to have this discussion because people just don't have a chance to come out and really share their views with us. These are pretty much the same comments we've heard year after year after year. But to say that this isn't time sensitive, I beg to differ. I think it is. I believe that housing is a human right. And I believe that what the voters did 47 years ago was misguided, whether intentionally or not it has had an impact on our city. And so what I would ask is not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we want to consider modifications to both 20 6-1 and 20 6-3, I would ask that we bifurcate them and I I'm a that. And of more than a few political campaigns. And I do think that you need to make the message simple and straightforward. But I also think that people I mean, I and I'm out and about in the community, and this is a big deal to people. And but if it's not if everyone feels that this isn't the time, let this just wait. They can tell us that in November. But why would we not give them the opportunity to vote on whether there should be an outright citywide ban on multi-family housing in Alameda? Why would we not give them that opportunity? That the rest of it the you know how it should look, where it should go. I mean, I've talked to Andrew Thomas about I, I we will get to a point where we can have at least socially distanced outside walking tours and what have you. And there there's time in the next 18 months to, to do that discussion of what would it look like to, to take 26 statutory out of the charter altogether? I agree with that. But what would it be replaced with in zoning ordinances? And that is not an overnight process. Those of us who have been on the planning board know I mean, that's that's a process with lots of public input. But right now, I think we have a pivotal issue before us. Does 20 6-1 an outright ban on multi-family housing anywhere in the city that we represent? Does that belong in our city charter? The Constitution of our city? I think the answer is no. With that, I would like to hear a motion to go forward. And again, as I think Councilmember Odie pointed out, what we are presumably doing if we get four votes to do it, is directing staff to come back with us to us with potential ballot language. I would like to hear a proposal for a measure first looking at 20 6-1 and then whatever anyone else wants to wants to propose. Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 2: I will make that motion. But I do want to point out that I appreciated your your comments. And I don't particularly believe what some of the worst comments that were said about you in public comment are true. But if someone does believe them, the fact that you just gave that speech, I think should give them pause and and know that you are thoughtful and you can consider different ideas. And I just want to let you know. I appreciate that.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your kind words. Councilmember Etienne. I'll just repeat my mantra for serving in public office. Thick skinned. Sense of humor. Backbone. You need all three. Vice Mayor Knox White.
Speaker 2: I will. Second Councilmember Otis Motion.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any discussion. All right. We've had emotion. We've had a second. We have a roll call. Vote.
Speaker 1: Councilmember desire. No, not quite.
Speaker 2: Hi. Yes.
Speaker 1: Vela.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Mayor, as the Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: That carries by for one.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Do we have a second motion?
Speaker 2: I will put one out there, but I'm going to just ask don't second it if we're not going to move forward. Okay. I will I will move that. We give staff direction to remove. I'm going to say actually articles 26.2 and Article 20 6s3, because there's no point in having Article 26 to if there is no. 26 three from the city charter.
Speaker 0: So do we want it seconded to have some discussion in a motion to be withdrawn or what. It's you're the maker of the motion.
Speaker 2: I'll remove the motion. That's right. I committed to trying to help get us out of here by 1155.
Speaker 0: All right, then. Well, then, if I'm hearing no further motions, what we have done is directed staff then to come back to us with ballot language on placing Article 20 6-1 before the people in November of 2020 2020. All right. Thank you all. Councilman Brody.
Speaker 2: Do we need 26 days to if we repeal 20 6-1? Because I thought too related to one, not two three but I could be like.
Speaker 0: I'm having brain freeze can remind me what 26 test two is.
Speaker 2: That was the exact replacement.
Speaker 0: Housing. Wait, wait, wait. Tony, I wait. Okay. I'm sorry. No, counselor, is Mr. Thomas. Oh, Mr. Thomas.
Speaker 2: I believe it exempted the housing authority from 20 6-1, but I could have it backwards. In instances of replacement housing.
Speaker 0: So I'll tell you what. We are directing staff. Are you there, Mr. Thomas?
Speaker 2: Yes, sir, I am. I am trying to earn. We could hear you. Sorry about that. Commuting problems. Well, I think you were about to say what I was about to say. When when staff comes back, we will we will advise the council on whether 20 6-2 should stay or not. Sitting here today without having a I think it should stay. If you're going to keep 20 6-3. But we will we will analyze that further. And when we come back to the language, give you better advice on that.
Speaker 0: You've given us plenty of great advice up until now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate the discussion. I appreciate your votes. Okay. Thank you all. Thank you. All right. We got to keep moving with all deliberate speed. So, Madam Clerk, will you please introduce item 26 Dash? Where are we? I mean, 26 might be talking about it. It could be.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Consider Providing Direction to City Staff to Draft Charter Amendment Related to Article 26 (Measure A). (City Council Subcommittee)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_05192020_2020-7967
|
Speaker 2: Yes. To a is a recommendation to authorize the city manager city manager to negotiate and execute a $310,000 agreement with creative building to operate a day center and safe parking program for individuals experiencing homelessness funded through the Emergency Homeless Emergency Aid Program.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I believe this is Miss Potter's idea. I see. I see. And a Baptist from community development. Welcome. And I see Debbie Potter now. Okay, so who's taking the lead on this one?
Speaker 0: I can speak to that item. All right.
Speaker 1: Action, please. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Anything there? And members of the city council, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight about the Alameda Day Center and Safe Working Program for an exciting program that are going to be coming to Alameda. As you all know, the city of Alameda has been allocated 700 of the $6,524 in homeless.
Speaker 1: Emergency aid program late.
Speaker 0: Last year. He a $500 million block grant from the state designed to provide one time funding for projects that have immediate impact to address homelessness in our local jurisdiction. At City Council's January meeting last.
Speaker 1: Year, you directed Community Development Staff to work with the Social.
Speaker 0: Service Human Relations Board to develop a proposal that identifies projects that may be funded through.
Speaker 1: The Social Service.
Speaker 0: Human Relations Board subsequently created an ad hoc committee that works with staff to gather input from community stakeholders and possible projects to fund the review. And two of the key projects that were recommended and approved by the City Council on July 16 of 2019. Whether they center and the Safe Parking Program, the Bay Center and Safe Parking.
Speaker 1: Will be.
Speaker 0: Located at 431 Stardust at Alameda Point. And the building was used by the Alameda Fire Department as a training center a few years ago and which has been unused for.
Speaker 1: A couple of years or.
Speaker 0: So and had some structural problems that would otherwise be a great space for both programs. The building is currently under construction and should be ready in the next couple of weeks, which is exciting. Meanwhile, the city issued an RFP or request for proposal on April 22nd.
Speaker 1: To seek a provider or providers to operate the either.
Speaker 0: The Bay Center, the safe parking are both programs. The city received two applications for the Bay Center and three applications for the Safe Parking Program. Two of the organizations that submitted proposals applied for both Safe Parking and the center. We had an RFP review committee comprised of a community advocate working with the homeless and Alameda resident who coordinates homeless services for the city of San Leandro. A city staff who manages projects like Alameda Point and a city staff coordinated homeless services for the city of Alameda. We independently scored the applications and conducted Zoom interviews with the applicants. There was a clear winner and Creative Build Inc, which is a data driven, results based nonprofit organization that will work with the Village of Love, an organization that has extensive experience working with the Thomas Carl Business Improvement District. Jack London Square, downtown Berkeley in East Oakland, is providing street outreach meals and shower services to the unsheltered population. They will be conducting the.
Speaker 1: Services for.
Speaker 0: Their clients at the Bay Center and the Safe Parking Program. We are here today.
Speaker 1: To seek.
Speaker 0: Your.
Speaker 1: Approval to authorize the.
Speaker 0: City manager to negotiate the contract to execute a 300,000 $310,000 agreement with Creative Build Inc to operate the adult the Bay Center as well as the safe parking. Our goal is to launch the Bay Center and Safe Parking programs on July 1st. So it's coming up soon and we're very, very excited for these programs to be launched. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight and have an answer.
Speaker 1: QUESTION Thank you. He is back to saying, I want to get over the feedback, but I want to just really thank Ms.. Bacchus for all the work that she has done from her position as community development in the Community Development Department. She serves on numerous committees around the county. She has kept up to date on the latest developments, the best practices for how to address our unsheltered population. I know the two of us have made field trips to visit things that other cities are doing because we don't have to reinvent the wheel. But it takes a lot of compassion and understanding and just plain tenacity to keep moving forward on projects like this. And so thank you. I'm very excited to see this come to our council. Um, before and um, Madam Quirk, I didn't ask you, do we have public speakers on this item?
Speaker 2: We need to ask when we're ready to get to the public comment portion, we'll have to ask them. So.
Speaker 1: Okay, so. I was going to ask if council had any clarifying questions about the presentation or Ms.. Potter if there was anything you wanted to add? No, she's shaking her head. No. And if there are no clarifying questions, then why don't we see if there's any public comments we'll hear then? If there are, and if not, we'll launch into council discussion and hopefully a motion.
Speaker 2: So if any attendees that are on the line would like to comment on this agenda item, please indicate so now by raising your hand. Okay. Nobody has raised their hand, so we have no comment on this item.
Speaker 1: Excellent. All right. City Council. Anyone want to take the lead? I have a motion. Vice mayor, not quite.
Speaker 3: Seeing nobody jumping in here. I would be happy to. Second all the comments you made in your thanks to this back tests and the community development and move approval of this item as proposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have a motion to have a second by Councilmember Ody and I also would be remiss not to recognize Debbie Potter, the director of Community Development Department. She she knows this stuff off the top of her head. And she is another very compassionate individual who always sees possibilities out there, even when it's sometimes hard to keep hope. But I am I am feeling hopeful. And I read something recently that one of the things we've seen exposed more in this COVID crisis is there is there are a large number of very wealthy individuals in our country, in the world, and there's an increasing number of very poor people who are just falling through the cracks. And and there's a connection, by the way. As a city council, we can address every wrong. But there are things that are within our powers to to impact. And this decision tonight is one of them. So we've had a motion. We had a second. Any further discussion? Uh, Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you very much. I'm not convinced that the street parking idea is, um, is a good use of the of the limited dollars, but that, you know, I, I'll abstain on this item. I'm just concerned about that.
Speaker 1: And one of the things that I also want to highlight, because I've been working with staff on the safe parking concept for a while, is you and I and I hope you had an opportunity to read that. But the staff report and the code of conduct, because we are modeling what will be done after the successful models of other cities and Union City is one of them. And we so it isn't just a matter of come on down and and and park here people will register. There is not only supervision but also resources are provided because the idea is not just to give you a place to park but help you to move out of your circumstances and into eventually a roof over your head, a permanent roof, not a car roof over your head. But thank you for that comment. If there are no further comments, let's have a roll call vote.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Jason.
Speaker 4: Epstein.
Speaker 2: Not quite.
Speaker 4: I i.
Speaker 2: Sabella. I may or as the Ashcroft high that carries four eyes one abstention.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. All right. With that, we move on to item to be. Like Hamlet her. Okay. And Madam, quick, could you introduce item to be for us, please?
Speaker 2: Sorry. My mute was on recommendation to create a strong community relief fund to provide grants or other types of relief to small businesses, nonprofits and residential renters that have been negatively financially impacted by the COVID 19 pandemic.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a $310,000 Agreement with Creative Build, Inc. to Operate a Day Center and Safe Parking Program for Individuals Experiencing Homelessness Funded through the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (Community Development 267)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_05192020_2020-7964
|
Speaker 2: Sorry. My mute was on recommendation to create a strong community relief fund to provide grants or other types of relief to small businesses, nonprofits and residential renters that have been negatively financially impacted by the COVID 19 pandemic.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And so this is is Lois Butler on or who's Sarah are you presenting? No. Who's presenting tonight? Uh.
Speaker 0: Miss Butler is scheduled to present. She's having the same difficulties as the last meeting, and I know she's on a phone line. And, Laura, it sounds like she's trying to communicate with you about her, her situation. But I am once again happy to wing this. Sarah. Sarah is here to help, too. It's a good thing we are a team. A team effort. Right?
Speaker 1: Right. Dalton suspenders. Yeah. I would send Shawn over to help low as he solves everything, but.
Speaker 0: Okay, I'm.
Speaker 1: Probably a little too far.
Speaker 0: If it's okay. Looks like I know that I could use that here. Yeah, I saved by the music. I love everything you guys were saying.
Speaker 1: So great.
Speaker 0: Hear?
Speaker 1: Do we not get to see your lovely face, Lois?
Speaker 0: You know this way. Okay.
Speaker 1: I saw you earlier today.
Speaker 0: I remember. What you.
Speaker 1: Okay, so here's another hardworking member of our economic development staff. She has been working with our businesses just about since day one of the shelter in place and has really been an invaluable member of the team and a big help to the local business community. So so, Lois, tell us what we need to know about this item, this fellow.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Honorable Mayor and members of city council. This read this report recommends the creation of an Alameda strong community relief fund to provide grants to small businesses, nonprofits, residential renters that all have been negatively impacted by the COVID 19 pandemic. And just I'm giving you some background. On the 21st of April, the city council approved $600,000 for a COVID small business relief grant. And this will provide 81 excuse me, 81 time grants of 70 $500 each and a total of 238 have applied for this grant program. You have a general summary of the applicants that I have applied in in exhibit one. I won't go through those staff is currently reviewing all the applications. We've actually made it through the application review the first round, and we need to go through a second round to make sure that everything is correct. We are expecting a delayed end review point of the end of the month. It was originally anticipated that we would complete this process by the 21st. UM, grants will be awarded thereafter. We're hoping that it'll be in the same amount of time, given that we are going to be asking applicants to submit information electronically so that we can get it out electronically to them. So that'll cut down on some time. On May the fifth, staff provide an update to City Council regarding the grant applications. We also received directions from the City Council to create a community relief fund and that's what we're going to be talking about tonight. The feedback from city council was as follows Given the number of applications, consider additional funding of 2 to 300000 for relief grants. Consider funding for residential rent relief. Explore a public excuse me public private partnership for raising funds. Work with the West Alameda Business Association, Waba and others who have expressed interest to set up a Go Fund Me fund campaign as soon as possible while still developing this Alameda Strong program on a parallel track. And this is to capture as many donations as possible and as quickly as possible and outreach to put potential applicants in the top three languages. As part of this new campaign and also as part of the new program, consider the following criteria perhaps have a greater loss than 20% due to. COVID provide additional consideration to businesses that are open or opened when they were allowed to open. Versus those who remain shuttered. Allow. More than one apple at one location if a business has more than one location, allowed them to have more than 25 employees across several locations. Allow grantees to give back a portion of their 70 $500 grant and then use the same pool of applicants for awarding nutrients from the GoFundMe they can claim. And then, per your direction, the city manager and staff have looked for additional sources to claim additional grant, and on June 2nd, staff will present a recommendation to the City Council for approximately $600,000, just slightly less than that in emergency relief grant funding for low income tenants. And this would come from the Community Development BLOCK Grant Program CARES Act funds. And if that is approved, then City Council would have allocated $1.2 million towards relief grants. So that will be a recommendation of ours at your lot, at your next meeting. And then City Council also directed staff to look at the $2 million allocated from reserves to add to authorized relief. Expenses. And then you asked us to look at reprograming existing budget funds. You also suggested. Thank you. So excuse me. Of the $2 million that you you've allocated and you suggested 200 to $300000, staff is not recommending that to the council. Use any of these funds for this program at this time, given that you will have funded $1.2 million. We. We feel that that. There are still a lot of issues ahead of us in terms of the city budget needs. And so we suggest that we reevaluate this in December and or the Fall City Council also previously approved through the budget process, $200,000 for branding, for economic development. And you asked us to also looked at that. We have looked at that, those fundings. And we're not recommending that either, because we are. We're looking to use that if if approved for recovery efforts related to our long term recovery plan. And this would help to provide for consulting resources and support of a task for which the Council was notified of through through another process within the city, the EDA panel process. So staff recommend that the additional funding be the funding that is coming through the CDBG funds. Regarding the Alameda Strong Community Relief Fund, you asked us to create a public private partnership. And so based on that, we met with the the Business Association to wow the Gabba Gabba and the Alameda Chamber of Commerce downtown. This is downtown Alameda Business Association with Alameda Business Association and the Greater Alameda Business Association and the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. And we talked with them about the Alameda Strong campaign and they had some suggestions. Their three primary concerns were that the goals of the program be clearly defined, that there be a separate fund for both residential and business, and that there would be some urgency and establishing the fund, even if it means setting up a go fund me fund prior to setting up the fund that we're recommending. I will talk about that a little bit later. The Gulf and the U.S.. They also discussed the eligibility and structure of the community fund. And there was general consensus among the following points the number of employees, they agreed that that could remain the same at 25, that the grant size could remain the same or should remain the same. They did also say that recipients, they could apply for a lesser amount and the remaining funds could be used to support other businesses within the fund. And they they wanted to have an inclusive public support marketing component to it, which would include T-shirts and Windows signs and a message of unity. And they also and and people would pay for some of this, like the t shirt if they put so much money in. But they also wanted it to be inclusive in that if people can't afford to pay for anything, that there be a component developed. Even if you didn't make a donation that showed that we're we're absolutely too strong, we're one. We were supporting each other. And one example was to have a poster that people could print on a printer and then a child perhaps could color it and stick it up in a window. And they also thought that kicking it off with a community fund and having a virtual town hall meeting would be great. We're proposing that this community fund is set up through the East Bay Community Foundation and that they be the fiscal agent and all of that people who are donating could get a tax deduction. A tax deduction. And East Bay Community Foundation, they worked with Berkeley on on a fund similar to the one that we are are asking you to approve. And one of the things that they believe in is that government partners that are working with them should be bold, courageous and innovative in their actions. And I think that this is an apt description of what the city council is doing through this whole process. Poor grant administration. This has been a lot of work. Staff is working all hours of the day and night through the morning, in some cases trying trying to process the applications. And so we're recommending. That that we work with working solutions. They work directly with the community foundation. I mean, they would be associated with them, but we would also work with them. The legal arrangement will be through the foundation, but we would have to approve them. They are a U.S. Treasury Certified Community Development Financial institution, and they they recently worked with Oakland, with their with their grants, and they established the grant program and implement it within a two year time frame. And we think that they would be good for us to to get their money out quickly as well. The cost of working with those there is their community foundation and the working solutions is between 14 and 16% of the funding. 1% to East Bay Community Foundation and then 13 to 15% to Working Solutions.
Speaker 1: The Butler. I I'm sorry to interrupt your presentation, but I have a question now. I was kind of hoping when I read that in the staff report there was a typo. Is 13%.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's that would be the time that it would take to administer the program. If you don't want to do that, we could do what we've been doing and process everything internally.
Speaker 1: Well, we'll have a, we'll have a, uh, council discussion about it. Um, the, in the staff report, it says they would take 13 to 15% and, um. Okay. Uh, my clarifying question was, please tell me that was a typo and maybe it was 1.3 to 1.5. But saying that it's not a typo, let's well, we'll hold that from when the council is having its discussion. At least one of the members of the council wants to probe that some alternatives. Okay. I'm sorry. So you were saying you're getting, I think, toward the end, right?
Speaker 0: Yes, I'm getting towards the end. I know it's a long report that I know it makes sense that I considering very important.
Speaker 1: I'm really excited about this.
Speaker 0: And and then there's the community relief fund itself which it staff recommendation staff recommends that the the grants being split 60% to the small businesses 20% to nonprofits since they can participate last time have that designated amount to nonprofits, 20% to renters. And this would be renters that showed needs not just low income renters, as will be reported. And that's next at the next meeting that the amount of the grants remain the same for small businesses and then for nonprofits as well at 7500 2500 max for renters. And that we we still have the following requirement applicant must show a 50% up from 20% loss as recommended by several community members and one member of the um, the business association. And this is as of the application date and that additional consideration be given to those that opened and this is a council recommendation versus those that remain closed when allowed to open that the small businesses have up to 25 employees. No, no limit to the number of employees. Um, if they are a restaurant and that 50 employees be allowed if the business has more than one location, this would mean including sole proprietors without employees as well. And also we're recommending also proprietors, even those who are in residential units that. The grantee could apply for 70 $500 or less. It would be up to them. The applicant must have a physical establishment in Alameda and physical meaning any any type home based or one that is in brick and mortar or office building, etc. and then the business must have a current business license and have paid their business improvement assessment. If in fact they're in a business improvement area by the application date and then the applicant must have a W-9 and apply online. And so staff is. Require requesting that the following be were renters. They they must have a residential lease. They must have had suffered a 20% loss. The applicant must verify that the that the tenant's rent was current to proceed into the date of March 4th. And that's consistent with the staff report that we're going to bring forward. The applicant cannot have received a CDBG grant, so we would coordinate that and provide documentation from the landlord to confirm the amount of unpaid rent and then payments must be made directly to the landlord. So once they qualify for the grant, the check would be cut to the landlord and then applications must be submitted in the online portal there. There has been a a committee set up for the alameda strong campaign in anticipation of it being approved. And it consists of wapa darbar and the chamber and the city's pio sarah henry. And together they have put together and are putting together a program. And if you'd like to hear from Sarah, she's here to talk to to that. Regarding the Go Fund Me campaign, one has not yet been set up. However, the group is saying that if in fact, we can't get the community foundation piece set up quickly, that they're they're willing to pursue setting up a go fund me program alternatives are as follows approve the report as is, modify any aspect of it direct staff to use all or any portion of the $200,000 budgeted for the rebranding campaign. Direct staff to create and implement a loan program in lieu of a grant program decided not to establish the Alameda Strong Community Relief Program. That is my report.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Butler. I appreciate that. Um, Counsel, do we have any clarifying questions on the staff report? Um, I know I do. Who else does? And then we'll go to for that public comment. Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Butler. So quick question. Couple of quick questions on the renter side. So the applicant is the tenant, right?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 4: And then if the landlord gets this, then there's no other obligation for the tenant to pay rent for that particular dollar amount, right?
Speaker 0: Correct. Okay. So if they're there, they could be right now two months in arrears. And so this would only pay up to one month.
Speaker 4: Right. But, you know, up to 25. So, yeah. I didn't say their rent is 3000. They get 2500. They still owe the 500. Right.
Speaker 0: They would still owe at the time. Correct.
Speaker 4: Okay. And then when we did the. The 600,000 we excluded publicly traded companies. Was there a discussion about excluding publicly traded companies for the Strong Community Belief Grant?
Speaker 0: Yes. I assume that that would be in this. This was more to clarify some of the points that that the council made and some of the points that the that Darva and Wahba made regarding amounts. But we would still exclude publicly traded company.
Speaker 4: And then if somebody received one of these these grants, the process that we're currently wrapping up, would they still be eligible for one of these two strong community relief grants or.
Speaker 0: No, they would not be eligible.
Speaker 4: Okay. All those are my questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you for clarification about the publicly traded companies, as I recall. And it came up before the example was made. If someone might be a franchisee holder of, say, I don't know, Burger King or something, which is probably a publicly traded company, but if they weren't getting any form of assistance from their, you know, the franchisee, the franchise, then why would we why would we exclude that small business person or would we go more by the size of the business? I mean, we don't want them to be gay if they've avail themselves of other assistance. And that's not what this is intended for. But I just hold that. That's I guess that's something we'll come back to when we do counsel discussion. Any other clarifying questions? Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 0: I thank you, Miss Butler. And a couple of questions. One was for the sole proprietors. Is it a single? It's the same amount that a sole proprietor would be eligible for as a business with 25 or 50 employees. Yes. Currently, yes. And is there a reasoning for that or. While we do the process, we came across a few sole proprietors. Well, there's two issues. There's the sole proprietor that has employee. So we're not talking about that. The other issue is we have families who have their children and everybody in their business, and there's a lot of them. And they they take a draw from the business instead of paying individually and putting people on the payroll. So there are a lot of instances of that.
Speaker 1: So that sounds like something for council to discuss and decide on because we're going to we're going to refine our suggested criteria so further.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Adobe. Another question I had is the 20 $500. What is that amount based off of for the tenants, residential tenants. So they speak to this one. Whatever what I'm told. Debbie, why don't we go?
Speaker 1: We need to move this along a little bit because we haven't even gotten to public comment or council comment, so we don't need to deliberate. Just, you know, if you've got the answer. So, Miss Potter.
Speaker 0: If she's not answering.
Speaker 1: I'm. She's.
Speaker 4: You're on me.
Speaker 1: You're muted still.
Speaker 0: Laura, let me let me give you the best answer I have so we can move along. It was based on the average grant, to my knowledge, in Academy this year. And and there's a is there again, it's not based off of the number of tenants living at a given property. So it's not based off of like a like a person that lives, for instance, in a studio isn't going to get a low. It's is up to. Up to. So what do we mean by sort of just up to 2500? If your rent was 1300 dollars, you only get 1300 dollars a month. I don't think you. That's what I was getting at. And then finally, are landlords available able to some landlords that landlords also have to pay for business license here in Alameda. Are they able to get qualify for the 70 $500 grant? And then would they also be able to get paid through rent relief? So landlords would not be able to get paid through rent relief, except if a tenant within their building is qualified for it and it's only for residential rent relief. And then secondly, we don't have landlords coming in as a qualifier. So even though they pull business licenses, they're still not part of the recommendation to say yes. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Offer you Councilmember Gill. Yes. Okay. Any other clarifying questions for here next week?
Speaker 3: Thank you. I have two questions and I'll ask them both. Then you can answer them both. Can you speak a little bit to the I understand the need to have a physical establishment, but the home based business is a single, single sole proprietor working out of their out of their house. I'm a little curious how that decision was made and what the thinking was there. And similarly, I'm curious about the conversation that had that was had around showing 50% loss of income versus the last program. 20%. And and obviously, I understand that the. Likely thinking was, Oh, we should help people who have lost more money. But if we thought about whether or not the impact that the money that's being received in terms of bringing people back and then keeping them moving forward is the same.
Speaker 0: Okay. So the physical establishment we do we we found that people who have sole proprietorship proprietors, they are sole proprietors and then working out of their home, a lot of them are not able to work any longer and they have no source of income at all except, you know, the ones that that that businesses that are in established locations have. And so there there really wasn't. If we're going to bring sole proprietors, then there wasn't any difference between them and and the folks working out of their home. Both of them have like mortgages or rent to pay. And so so we didn't find that there was a good reason to exclude them. And then with regards to the 50% versus 20%, it was it was a consideration that council asked us to come back with not the amount, but with a higher amount other than 20%. And in in conversations with with people that have called the city and emailed the city, a number of them asked for higher amounts. And in our webinars, a number of people asked for higher amounts. And so we, we, we went with the 50% amount because it was the amount that was most asked for.
Speaker 1: Thank you to all of you, Vice Mayor. Yes. So asking me a follow up in a couple of the answers you gave Miss Butler. So on the home based business, um, I understand that your home based business might be out of business and you're not making income, but I wrote in my notes. But you don't have the overhead that a commercial business who has to rent their space would have. And then you you mentioned whether they have mortgages to pay. But are we also looking at this program to provide mortgage assistance? Because I. A, I think there are federal programs if you have a federally backed mortgage that you can apply for. So, um, I, this doesn't also include general mortgage assistance, doesn't it's butler.
Speaker 0: Well, it includes operating costs. So somebody with a business, even if they're looking at what this is, if this is similar to the last grant where you can pay employees operating expenses, etc. a little bit.
Speaker 1: So okay, but just a homeowner who's having a trouble paying their mortgage, we're not providing relief under this program for that. Right.
Speaker 0: It's for their business. It's for their business.
Speaker 1: All right. Um, let me get to my other clarifying questions that I have. Thank you. Um, let's see here. Um, I. Uh, um, in the staff report on page three and this is kind of the middle of the page and it's under the section on city funding. And the last paragraph is staff recommends, given the anticipated $1.2 million in direct funding for small businesses and tenant relief. And that's the, you know, putting, I think, CDBG money into it. And our previous 600,000 or maybe it's the additional 600 you were talking about that the city used this use its resources to leverage this commitment with a community wide effort to support local businesses and neighbors through a foundation led drive to raise money from residents. What what are we talking about? How are the how is the city going to leverage its resources?
Speaker 0: So it would be like staff time, for example. Okay. We're we're spending we're spending a ton of time. We're not we're not asking consultants to spend that time to help with the development of this program.
Speaker 1: Okay. I understand. Thank you. And then on the, um, this group Working Solutions. So we ultimately administer the moneys raised. I guess if we approve them, are there are they the only fish in the sea or are there other other entities that do this sort of thing? Do we do comparison shopping only because that 13 to 15% of the money raised takes my breath away. Did did we have the opportunity to.
Speaker 0: Look at it? I, I, I have tried to find others that do similar work, but this report was doing in a short period of time.
Speaker 1: Quick turnaround. Okay.
Speaker 0: So I didn't I didn't find anyone. I'm sure there's others out there.
Speaker 1: Oh, right. That's that's certainly a fair answer. And then a couple other questions. The, um, so I understand that you met with all these representatives of the business associations and consulted with Ms.. Potter about the rent relief. I think, you know, she's certainly knowledgeable from her vantage point. What about nonprofits? How were they represented in the discussion?
Speaker 0: Unfortunately they weren't. They had two days from the time, took the last meeting.
Speaker 1: That's adequate answer. And I just want to say, um, this is just my, um, editorial comment for those who are urging the city to move quickly and don't hesitate, people. We brought this to you. The city council moved really quickly and staff is multitasking like there's no tomorrow. We are moving quickly. If if any business association wants to go out and do their own go fund me campaign. We are stopping you. But thank you. Okay. With that. Those are all my questions. But there's another one. Sorry, Tony. I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Just a quick question on the $600,000 for rent relief that's I guess, funded in part by the CDBG dollars. And I think there's an expectation that this will be for low income tenants. How are we going to do that? Let's say for a particular example, if there are three people who are unrelated and they're sharing a unit, are we going to have because that that by definition, even though they're unrelated, they were a household. Are we going to take all of their their income data or are we just taking the income data of the leaseholder? So how are we going to account for household income? Because I think that's what.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can, Potter. You want to take that?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think I'll take a run at this one. So an interesting question. The staff report that will be published later this week is going to talk about the program, which is CDBG funded. And we're proposing to contract with building futures to run the program. They did a similar they ran a similar program for us back in the days of the Obama administration, the RCN, when we got rapid rehousing money. And we will work with them so that we all have an answer for you at the next meeting about how a household would be defined. You can appreciate.
Speaker 4: It.
Speaker 1: All right. To be continued, Councilman Brody.
Speaker 4: So just a couple of questions that popped up. So the 600,000 CDBG that you're proposing the city put into this fund, is that subject to this 13 to 15% cert or administrative charge?
Speaker 0: So yeah. Just to go back to the leveraging the question about the leveraging. I think what we're saying is that the council has independently approved the small business, the COVID grant relief program, and then we will be bringing a rent relief program to you for low income tenants. And the two programs in combination add up to a $1.2 million funding commitment by the city that we then can go to the community and say the city has stepped up with 1.2 million in programs. Here's an opportunity for you to match that to exceed that. But it'll be its own program.
Speaker 4: Okay. Well, thank you. And then, I mean, if someone maybe a landlord, but they're also have a property management business, I mean, they would be eligible, right. Because, you know, they're not technically I mean, that's not their only line of work.
Speaker 0: I believe rent. Oh, yes. A property management firm would be eligible.
Speaker 4: Okay, good.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Any further clarifying questions? Do we have any public speakers, Madam Clerk?
Speaker 2: We have no one that has submitted anything to be read into the record. But at this time, we can ask any attendees who would like to comment on this agenda item, which is just to remind everybody the Community Relief Fund. Anybody who wants to speak on this. There's two who have raised their hand. And we will meet them in time them.
Speaker 1: And if they're only two, then they would each be eligible for 3 minutes of.
Speaker 4: Am I on?
Speaker 1: Yes. I mean, if you want to call that for a speaker.
Speaker 4: Ron Muni, I appreciate the count, but thank you.
Speaker 3: Madam Mayor. Council I appreciate the council and staff's quick.
Speaker 4: Work to assist our community in this trying time. I support the creation of funds to assist the community to raise needed moneys for residents and businesses. I do believe that the funds should be split though, so potential donors may donate to a residential fund and a separate business nonprofit fund. I would say nonprofits probably can do their own fundraising, but I don't think they should be excluded. I would hate to see someone not donate if they objected to either receiving funds from the percentages described or revised. I also believe that what is normally considered confidential information by those requesting the grant should not be made public. For example, a business's exact income and expense figures should not be released publicly. Likewise, whatever personal income residents should have would not be released if they request the grant. The city needs to protect the residents and private businesses. Confidential information. And finally, I don't understand the mayor's comment. I believe we're all trying to work together quickly to help our community members. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Our next public speaker.
Speaker 4: Felix Diaz.
Speaker 1: Yes. You're on.
Speaker 4: High. Hi.
Speaker 1: Yes, we can hear you, sir.
Speaker 4: Hi. My name is Felicia. I licensed massage therapy and working for the office. So my question is due to the situation with the coronavirus pandemic. So we a has been has been big affect a little bit more and with with our business. So my question is am I going to be how the city of the what and I doing really well no.
Speaker 3: So what my I am wondering if I if I can.
Speaker 4: Come come back to work in the.
Speaker 3: Chiropractor office.
Speaker 1: So I'm just going to make a statement. And Madam Clerk, I shouldn't be timed on this. Mr. Diaz, this is simply public speaking where we hear public comment. But I will tell you that in answer to your question, because I want you to receive assistance as a small business person, you should go to the website of the Alameda County Public Health Department that has updated information about what what businesses are open and that that email address is a c.
Speaker 0: T.
Speaker 1: H d dot org crate. Correct.
Speaker 0: So a.
Speaker 1: C, p, h d or gets the initials for Alameda County Public Health Department.
Speaker 0: Talk. Right.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank.
Speaker 1: Bye bye. Okay. All right. And that was the extent of our public speakers.
Speaker 2: Correct?
Speaker 1: All right. So I will close public comment and I will open counsel discussions. Who wants to to lead us? Councilmember De Foxx.
Speaker 4: I just want to say I just want to say thank you very much. When I in reading the staff report and the reference to looking at CDBG. I really appreciate that you guys turned as much stones as possible in looking for possible source of funds for for these programs. Thank you.
Speaker 1: That was it.
Speaker 4: Now that.
Speaker 1: Certain sweet. Okay friends merry next. Right then Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 3: So I had a quick question. The first half that related to the EDC, uh, the community fund, how quickly can they solve it? Other communities already have these set up. How long do we expect if this is we gave direction four weeks ago. How long do we think this is going to be before we have something set up?
Speaker 0: We're hoping to have it set up by the end of the week. There's there there's a back and forth with community. Is there community foundation? And hopefully we will have terms by the end of the week.
Speaker 3: Excellent. Thank you very much. So I think my my comments did, I think play on some things that the vice vice mayor the other council member Vela still vice mayor in my heart. Uh the is Mr. Mooney mentioned separate funds for residential and, and business. And I think that I would like to hear a little bit more thought on that. I personally, I think most people who want to help our community are going to be happy to help our community. And it might just be easier to have one place to put the money. If this is if this is the proposal that came out of the discussion with Waba and Darva and the folks who who were engaged. I think I'm comfortable with that. But I do think that there's I'm uncomfortable with the sole proprietor in House proposal. I, I want to make sure that we are that that what we move forward here is attacking the the problem or the, you know, providing the solution for what we want to achieve. So whether or not this is to just provide debate, I think at least in the original round, we really wanted to make sure that we were providing support that would continue the viability and the strength of our community, business districts and whatnot. Which isn't just to say that there aren't people that are hurting who could use help as well. But I think we just want to think about whether or not that, you know, we are this this is a big shift. We're going to be, you know, I mean, CPA's could be getting money who are working in their in their office or or whatnot. I'm not confident that. I'd like to I'd like to make sure that we're being mindful that that that is that is what we are aiming to do. I as as I was to you two weeks ago, I am a little concerned about the 50%, the shift towards making a lot of money, a threshold here. I think that there are probably businesses that will receive the 70 $500 and never come back because they have lost too much, too much money and they have had to come back. Whereas I think that there are businesses that may be struggling very greatly who have lost 20% and for whom this could be the lifeline that continues allows them to continue. I don't you know, I don't know what that analysis looks like that would need to be done if we're going to drop this 50%. But I would want to make sure that we're not providing money to businesses that may have been so harmed that they are not going to come back. Because I think really what we're trying to do is, is I see this as this program. The previous program is really about that, like that lifeline that serves to really help people stay afloat while we get to a place where they can reopen and and continue to be strong. Other than that, I do appreciate there's a lot of work that went into this. And I appreciate how knowing that this is going to could be set up and working. And on Friday, I think it's a it's a fine model. I you know, my experience, which is somewhat limited, but I have worked with a number of foundations, 13 to 15%. Administrative costs is not anywhere near unheard of. In fact, I would say it's fairly standard for managing funds. And so I wouldn't want to lose weeks trying to you know, I think we should should see what we can do to negotiate that down. But, you know, my interest is in seeing this getting out there so that we can actually start collecting donations from our community and getting them where it needs to go. So thank you.
Speaker 1: And before I call on Councilmember Odia, I will just in response. I do think we have a fiscal duty to at least explore more than one option for administrative. It might be that 13 to 15% is just standard in the industry. I have no experience with that. But you stop and think about if this is a fund that raises $1,000,000, that's money that if if if it's the going rate, it's the going rate. But that's money that isn't going to help the people we're trying to help. And then I would just question how much administration it's requiring, but we can further discuss that. Councilmember two You had your hand up next.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thanks to Lois, Ms.. Butler and Ms.. Potter for that presentation. And I think the mayor had mentioned it earlier. You know, we have been moving really quickly, and I know you guys are running on fumes, so I appreciate it. Just to pick up on the mayor's point, I mean, that that is a big chunk of money. I mean, everyone is taking, you know, a literal haircut of sorts, you know, in their businesses. I don't have my real one, but that's my first world problem. I mean, maybe some of these people that are managing this, you know, should also take a little bit of a haircut and, you know, lower their rates for us because, you know, this is something that we're doing to help all of our businesses and our tenants and our nonprofits. And, you know, to the mayor's point earlier, also, I mean, we are in this together. So I hope that we can we can work on getting that number lowered a bit. I I'm glad we have the, you know, landlords that are property managers because, you know, they're business people, too. And, you know, I know we've asked a lot of them recently, and so we should allow them to be treated as business people. You know, the one thing I district we did in the staff report, I do think we should consider adding another 300,000 to the grant program. I realize that's a big chunk of money. But, you know, to me, it's not spending as much as it is investing because if it is, the difference is that the vice mayor said and the mayor said between going out of business and surviving, you know, these are the businesses that are actually going to generate tax sales tax revenue in the future. These are the businesses that will be paying workers who will be spending money is money and other stores. So, I mean, to me, it's worth an investment of 300,000. You know, if if, for example, if we don't spend it and we lose another, you know, 2 million in sales tax revenue, you know, then we, you know, we're kind of pennywise pound foolish. So I'd like to see us augment that that fund and the home based businesses. I mean, I know a lot of them have recurring expenses that are just not related to their mortgage. They can have their business insurance, they could have utilities, you know, they could have their licenses. And I thought it was instructive that I assumed the person that came on, Mr. Deeds, was a massage therapist. You know, that's a business that, you know, a lot of people run out of their home and, you know, they're not able to do their job. So, I mean, I I'm glad that we're we're looking at sole proprietorships and and helping out some of these sole proprietors because, you know, they're really struggling. And if you cut hair, you know, in your in your spare in your garage or something, and you can't do that. I mean, that's something that, you know, people need to be able to be, uh, eligible for assistance. You know, I'm, you know, attorneys and accountants and other professionals, you know, they're probably facing a loss of work too, so I don't have any problem adding them to the list. And, you know, I'm the mayor. I mean, I go on the Tuesday afternoon call and there always seems to be a discussion about how sole proprietors have been left out of the programs that we've done so far. So, you know, these people help move our economy and our city as well. So I'd like to see them involved. I think that was all I had. Yeah. I mean, my colleagues are interested in, you know, awarding more grants out of the original 600,000. That's something I think is is money well spent?
Speaker 1: And all for you, Mr. Modi? Yes. Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 0: Thank you. One thought that I had was relative to administering the fund or fund is whether or not we could have an Alameda business actually apply to do that. Maybe this isn't, you know, could could we perhaps that's one way that we help a business out is to give them that business so that the percentage is actually going to them. So it's just the thought that I had. I wouldn't want that process to be too encumbered in terms of causing an unnecessary delay. But I know that staff was trying to turn this around in a in a quick timeframe, but it seems to me that maybe some of these individuals who are looking for work and have some experience administering funds, we could we could get it out to them or a couple of people that could work on it, maybe somebody doing the accounting side of it and something else doing the other administration in terms of the residential, I actually think that we need to increase it. I have a problem saying this is the average. I worry about our families that are perhaps paying a little more in rent to the money is going to go a longer way in keeping a larger group of people housed and also who have a higher held to to climb in terms of coming back from, you know, perhaps having a loss of income and being unable to pay. So I would actually consider increasing the amount to residential to up to 3000 or 3500 based off of whatever a single month's rent is. And then obviously you might have some people who have substantially less. And I think we could make up the difference. But I just to me, if we're only going to be paying a portion of one month's rent and it seems like we're hurting people who might have more bedrooms and that means hurting families. I think in terms of the strategy for all of this, I do I do want to prioritize. DICKERSON Brody's point that, you know, there are some businesses that generate sales tax, that there will be some businesses that don't generate sales tax. And I do think that when we're looking at this and we tried to be kind of mindful, but there are some businesses that are going to be really necessary to and helping other businesses get back to work and things like that. And I think that we need to maybe think about how we can go about prioritizing that. Childcare, for instance, is going to have to completely change how they operate, which could impact their ability to operate if they aren't getting assistance because they can only have 12 children together. There's different requirements now that are in place that might make it harder for them to operate. And that's going to mean it's harder for people to get back to work because they don't have childcare. In terms of the sole proprietors, I would want to reduce the amount. I'm not saying that they are valuable, but part of the intent of establishing the grants was to help as many people as possible and to have that down to helping workers. I'm sorry. Hold on. I am concerned that if we if we have it where we aren't going to cap the amount for sole proprietors, potentially we're giving a lot of money to one individual and one individual's overhead is substantially less than somebody who is employing a number of different people. And I've been on those calls, too, and I know that people support sole proprietors are getting left out. One thing that I will remind my colleagues is that they're now also included in the pandemic unemployment assistance and can can now recoup through that which which hadn't been established when we started these calls. So I'm willing to help them, but I do want to cap that and I do want to cap the number of sole proprietors that we would ultimately help as well. So I'd be interested in saying a sole proprietor could maybe get up to half of what we're offering the other grantees and that only so many sole proprietors. And we would only be giving out so many to so many sole proprietors because I really do want to, you know, hopefully we get to a place where we can help everybody that applies. But I do. And I would be interested in kind of cheering things to say kind of in the first round that we're including them. We're only going to help this money and then we'll expand it after we've helped the first wave of people. And then the other question that I had was, is there a difference of cost or for some time involved in administering two funds versus one fund? So we had a residential rent fund versus a commercial business fund. Does that increase the amount of work that goes into actually administering? And if so, is that worth the cost of having the two separate funds? And that and that's something that I just would need a little more information on before I make that decision. I will also say that the other thing that that happened before was, you know, originally back this is weeks ago, I had had some conversations that they would start a go, fund me, let's help our businesses. And some of the pushback that I actually got from one of our business associations was, well, different businesses have different followings with each business, have their own go fund me. And, you know, some businesses don't necessarily have that fund fund following. And so I'm a little concerned, again, about kind of further separating. I think that. But now now people are saying, let's have this go fund me. I think it's easier, administration wise to just have one fund and then go from there rather than the two. And to the vice mayor's point that I think people who are willing to help are willing to help regardless of who's included. But I happen to think you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So I really go last. And I actually do think that we should follow the model of other cities and make the pots separate. It's kind of like when I'm donating to one of the different educational institutions I've attended. You can donate to the the general fund and that institution, or even like Doctors Without Borders, you could say, Oh, I wanted to go to this country or just put it where you need it. But I do think it respects the donor. And and I and other cities are doing that. They're having the separate parts. And as far as the cost of administration and administration itself, I am I'm concerned. I like the idea of supporting Alameda business by bringing the work to them. But this is very specialized business. And if a firm had not done something similar working with the city fund like this, then I don't think this is the time to try out something new. I think it's and probably staff has even done this. It reached out to Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, seeing who they're using, what percentage are you paying? I liked whoever it was who suggested maybe it's this is the time to negotiate a little. Let's be bold and courageous. But I would say. But the donors decide where they want to put their money. And I think we'll get some pretty generous philanthropy and also just, you know, everyday individuals. I I'm having a real hard time with the sole proprietor, and I just want to make sure we understand there's a difference between being a sole proprietor and being home based sole proprietor. I'm not sure. The gentleman who is the massage therapist told us he was home based. I might have missed it, but. But I just think if we had nothing but money to disperse, I would look at this differently. But I do believe that we're trying to help our business districts and and then the various institutions that help support our community, and that includes nonprofits. And so I just think that we should really give thought. I mean, we saw how many grant applications we got for a limited amount of grant funding, and we weren't even I don't think doing home based, I don't think we were doing home based sole proprietors then. Um, and then I like the suggestion that Councilmember Vela just made about increasing the amount of available rent because again, you can only get one month's rent. It's not like you're going to make a windfall, but this actually has a double impact because it helps that family or individual or what have you stay in their home and it's paying that landlord who would be out of their income. So so let's do that. I also would like council to consider maybe shifting the percentage of these pots just a little, because right now it is 60% to the small businesses and then 20% renters, 20% not nonprofits, I would say maybe 50% of the fund to small businesses, 25 renters, 25 nonprofits. But I'm that's just, you know, my my thinking. And I and I do think we've got a lot of nonprofits out there that are are serving our community in in many different ways. I think that we also go into my notes really quickly. Um, I'm a little concerned with just transferring over all of our applicants from the grant program into this Alameda strong program because it might give the impression that some people are getting a head start when this is a new program where we're introducing. But consider that. And then, um, I, um, I think that that is, oh, should we require a minimum time of business has been established something to consider. Um, and then I do want to just give profuse thanks to not only the amount of work you've done to bring this forward to us, but the short time in which you did it, given the length of time that a staff report has to be submitted ahead of time. So. Yeah. Mr. Potter. Yes.
Speaker 0: Hi. I just wanted to clarify. Vice Mayor Knox White had said I'm okay with these percentages since they've been vetted with the business community. And I just wanted to clarify that. I think the business community, they are primarily interested in seeing all of the funds go to the small business community. However, staff, based on the comments we heard from council at the May 5th meeting, there was interest in making these funds available to renters as well as to nonprofits. So this is staff. Dation. We have input from the business community, but the six 2020 was staff recommendation. But I will say if there's a consensus on the council that the parts be separate and people can select. You don't really need those percentages at that point because then you would just be designating where you would want your funding to go. So it would probably be helpful for us to have some consensus direction from Council on on that issue.
Speaker 1: So I'll put in my $0.02 worth. Ooh, I think I need a motion to have a couple more minutes. It's always tricky when you're running the meeting because some of your time gets there. May I have, uh, Councilmember Vela?
Speaker 0: I'll move to add 2 minutes time. Is that sufficient or. 3 minutes.
Speaker 1: Is good.
Speaker 0: Okay, 2 minutes for the second.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 1: Who is that? Councilmen. Vice mayor. Vice mayor. Okay. A roll call vote, please.
Speaker 2: Councilmember de SAG. Knox Light.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Odie. Hi, Vella. I may or as he Ashcraft.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: That carries my faith.
Speaker 1: Thank you all.
Speaker 0: Last night and raising my hand.
Speaker 1: Hi. Lois and Isabella. Yes.
Speaker 0: I just wanted to clarify one point, and that was with regards to transferring all of the the applications to the new fund, we weren't recommending that. We were only recommending if there was a go fund me set up ahead of time. The business associations had indicated that they would use the same the same applications, but for the new fund that we weren't recommending to do it the same way.
Speaker 1: I see. Thanks. Thank you for that clarification, Mayor.
Speaker 2: As you said, it's the city clerk and we have an attendee who keeps raising and lowering his hand to try and get our attention. But you have closed public comment, so we just need to announce that anyone with a raised hand public comment on this item is closed and therefore will not be heard. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yes. And it goes the same way it does in a regular council meeting. We we hear the folks who have their hand up or have seen their comments and we ask if there are any more. There were. And then I close public comment. So my concern is that we might lose some donors if we said, you donate to this and we'll decide where it goes. But I also want to be able to help our businesses so council come up with a solution. I'm delegating. Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 0: I don't have a problem having the two funds or the would the nonprofits be in the fund with the businesses or would they be in the fund with the residential?
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 0: I think I think we had, at least in the staff report, that the non-profits would be their own fund at 20% residential assistance. So three training and then 63 fund. And I just wanted to clarify, because we've been we've been talking about it as if the two funds that I just wanted to go.
Speaker 1: No, I was going by the percentage breakdown and just suggesting we shifted a little over.
Speaker 0: I'm a little.
Speaker 1: Cautious. I know our businesses have huge needs, but there was no representation from the nonprofit community. And, you know, I'm thinking of we could name a whole list of them in our community. And so and I think I was making the analogy that say you donate to Doctors Without Borders, you could say, I want to donate to the efforts in X country or region. But you can also say, I just donate to you and put it where you need it. And I think it's possible to do this sort of thing. At least the gentleman who approached me about starting this indicated that it was so in that.
Speaker 0: In that instance that a mayor would have been if I gave, let's say, $100, $50 would be given or it would be distributed based off of the percentages of funds. In that case, if I was a general donor.
Speaker 1: These are good questions that were down there. Yes. Ms.. Potter. Ms.. Butler.
Speaker 0: Yes, yes. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 1: Butler And if you didn't wanted to do it that way, I guess you could designate your percentages. Correct. I want to donate $50 to the renters and $50 to nonprofits or. Something.
Speaker 0: And then I did have another.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Someone's going to clarify, Miss Butler.
Speaker 0: I was going to clarify that. I didn't ask them that, but I'm sure that we could work something out.
Speaker 1: Okay. Missoula.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Vela My other question was, if we have a fund that gets substantially funded and we have one or two other funds that is substantially underfunded, and is there an ability then to move the money or is it then stuck in that one fund.
Speaker 1: That's sort of seen as like a legal as well as procedural answer? As a city attorney, do you want to weigh in? I realize why it might be too strong a verb, but would.
Speaker 4: I don't I mean, I don't. I think there are a lot of flexibility in how the council would direct us to set up these funds. And depending upon your direction, we won't do it, given the flexibility possible.
Speaker 0: But I do believe that once you give people the option to pick, I don't think you would want to go back if there was an under-funded fund and move money around, because I think that then that's not the spirit of you you're allowed to select.
Speaker 1: Mhm.
Speaker 4: Right. And so to add to Miss Hunter's point, if, if the council's interested to have funds shipped around, we would have to advertise that early on to say that funds might get moved depending upon a certain threshold. So it will largely depend on where your direction is as to how we do it.
Speaker 1: Well, Mr. Shand, wouldn't it also be possible that the shifted funds would come from the donors who just said put it wherever the need is?
Speaker 4: Sure. Sure.
Speaker 1: Okay. Vice Mayor, you had your hand up. I think.
Speaker 3: I think this conversation is.
Speaker 0: In the weeds.
Speaker 3: Well, no, I was going to say is moving me toward supporting the idea of separate funds. I think I feel like I. I was a little surprised to see when we came back that there was a single fund for three different uses. I think when you're going out and asking people to contribute to things, they are more likely to contribute to things. If they, you know, if it if it's really clear what it what it is, they're they're doing it and I think fund a mix of different things in Alameda is a less successful pitch then help me help renters in need help nonprofits in need help businesses in need. I do think with the businesses and nonprofits, I think we should look at possibly three. I think if we can always have a submittal form that says, would you like to add money for renters or nonprofits as well so that you can ask people to donate to all three at the same time? Um, but I think if, if we are going to do that, I think, you know, I know we had a number of nonprofits that were successful in getting PPE funds and so making sure that we are if we're going to, if we're going to do nonprofits and if we're going to do businesses, maybe we're helping people who are not successful in those other programs.
Speaker 1: And I do believe that's a criteria, isn't it? Yeah. And then I think. Did I see Councilmember? No. No, it's.
Speaker 0: Uh, it's.
Speaker 1: Um, it.
Speaker 3: Was a criteria that they had to have applied for it in the last round of.
Speaker 0: My career. Well, well, wouldn't it.
Speaker 1: Would it not be something you'd consider when you were looking at income? You know, losses and an income.
Speaker 0: Um, it's, it's not something that we consider for the last round, but it is something that we could consider for this round.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right, counselor Brody.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And I neglected when I talked earlier to recognize Sara Henry Arpaio, who's also done a great job on this and many other things. It was nice to have her have a Saturday off. As you can see, she's in the EEOC right now. You know, I worry about whether, you know, I like the allocation of staff here, but I worry that if you know. One of these funds may get nothing. And, you know, in the end, I know it's for rent, but in the end, that rent is going to go to property owners who are basically business people. Nonprofits hire people and get out money in the community. And small businesses are small businesses. So, I mean, it's not like you're you're giving money to a tenant. It's actually going to be used to pay rent. And I worry about it being super complicated by splitting it up. And I also worry about if it's more complicated, is it going to be more costly? Um, you know, I'm not sure. Yeah, I'm just not sure I'm there yet.
Speaker 1: Well, I'll tell you, we need to we need to wrap this up because we've got a number of other items to cover, and we want to move this forward so we can start getting the money out. I, I don't think it's so terribly complicated. As I've said before, um, other, other charities do this sort of thing on a regular basis. And you know what I think? I think at the end of the day, people are generous. I've been very moved by just the stories of people coming forward, businesses, the things they've done to help other people. Right now, even businesses, even restaurants who are operating at a loss are helping provide meals for people who are hungry. So, you know, at some point, I don't know. I think you've you've got to see, um, the, the good in human nature. And I, I feel like I'm seeing more of the positives and the negatives through all these hard times. I would like to really see this move forward so we can start getting we have people lining up, wanting to donate to this fund. So, um, Councilman Brody.
Speaker 4: I may be in the minority on that issue anyway, but was there any other folks that would support the idea of, um, awarding more grant money?
Speaker 1: Oh, could I just address that really quickly? I in my notes, I said, could we wait until the budget hearing to decide on that? Just learn a little bit more about our finances.
Speaker 4: But.
Speaker 1: And do we need to know that to move this element a strong program forward?
Speaker 4: I know, but I guess it's not on the agenda for the budget meeting tomorrow and if the awardees are going to be announced by Friday. Um, you know, I don't know how long would I get if, if there was a sense that folks wanted to do that, how long it would delay getting money into the hands of our businesses?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Does the city manager want to address that again? I use the term loosely. Liberally. Hi.
Speaker 3: So we gave the council some options. You could do a couple items if you wanted to talk about tomorrow. I don't know. Can you continue this this item to following the meeting tomorrow? I don't know. I'm asking even on that. So that would be one option if you want to look at it after the budget to continue this item to, I guess, the council meeting and just this item to after the budget meeting so that you could make that decision. The other thing is we could come back on June 2nd. So if you're talking about adding money to this program, Alameda Strong, you could come back to June 2nd. But what I think Councilmember OTE is talking about is actually adding.
Speaker 4: To the.
Speaker 3: $600,000 grant program itself. Is that.
Speaker 4: Correct?
Speaker 1: Councilman Rudy.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean, is it possible to just continue that discussion on possibly augmenting the grant fund to tomorrow and move forward today on the Alameda strong portion?
Speaker 1: Um. City attorney.
Speaker 4: So, Madam Mayor, I'm my city councilmember. It's my.
Speaker 3: Recommendation.
Speaker 4: Would be that you just simply continue the item so that you have a complete agenda item for discussion. You could certainly give direction on the item today.
Speaker 3: But.
Speaker 4: Nonetheless continue.
Speaker 3: The entire item till.
Speaker 4: Tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I would like to find a way to move forward on the Alameda Strong Program Community Relief Fund now, because I think it's we're really pushing staff to get this pulled together. And I and we've got a lot to talk about tomorrow to Councilmember Odie. Any other way you can seek and let's hear from the vice mayor. We'll hear a different from a different person right now.
Speaker 3: What I heard the city attorney say is that we could get very strong direction tonight to move forward in a very particular way with the community fund and then just delay the action along with the the other funding issue, too, after the budget hearing tomorrow, so that the staff would know exactly what we were directing them to do tonight. And it wouldn't delay it. It would it just wouldn't be the formal vote until tomorrow night. Is that correct, Mr. Chan?
Speaker 4: Yes. All I'm saying is that you don't bifurcate this item into smaller slices and continue the item. But yes, you could even take votes on this item tonight. It just that.
Speaker 3: You give yourself.
Speaker 4: The option to reverse yourself tomorrow night.
Speaker 3: Got it.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Vela, any thoughts? Councilmember de Thug Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 0: I'd like to wait and just take up the the conversation about potentially putting in more grant money, more money into the grant program with the budget. I also would like to focus on just getting this project off and launched. I think that if we if we could give money later, but hopefully we can focus our efforts on getting others to contribute now, which might actually reduce the need for more funds from the general fund, which is, I think, the goal. I am a little wary of kind of making it overly complex in terms of administering. So I defer to staff or whoever is going to administer about the number of funds. We can also just have one fund that people can earmark what they put in. That's another way people do it. Can they get a little less complex of administering multiple funds and you can market it to say, look, this gives to this. I just wonder if there's different nonprofits or grant making places out there who will only give to certain things like they won't give to businesses, but they'll give to a fund to support nonprofits. And that's why I think there would be a value in kind of allowing nonprofits to have their own funding. If that's the case, I'm out of time.
Speaker 1: But I think we voted to give everyone every.
Speaker 0: 20 minute minutes. Okay, so this.
Speaker 1: Is good for the gander. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And then, you know, so I think, you know, I defer to them, but I would like us since we are setting this up, since we really only went to one person. I if there is somebody in Alameda who has experience administering funds and I think there are because the city's office and yeah right but but there might be somebody I would like us to see if there's an Alameda business that has done that or a professional that has done that. And there may be somebody. And then at least where we're giving back to an Alameda an Alameda business.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: And I would want it to be I would want it to be anybody who has experience administering any public fund because their cities, their special districts, their school districts. But if you have that sort of experience, I would want to consider them at least.
Speaker 1: Okay. Ms.. Potter, then Mr. Odey. Did you have your hand at my left?
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you. I was just going to say that I fortunately the budget workshop is tomorrow evening. So I think that staff is fully able to keep moving on, setting up the foundation and can then incorporate any decision that might be provided tomorrow night regarding funding. So I feel that we can absolutely move forward with the direction we proceed tonight.
Speaker 1: If it's at all possible to move this item tonight, I would like to do that. Councilmember Brody, you've got your hand up, sir.
Speaker 4: I would also like to move it forward, but I'd also like to have the option to consider the additional funding tomorrow as part of this.
Speaker 0: Plan and.
Speaker 1: Make a motion.
Speaker 4: Is there a way to do that? I mean, I got like a fuzzy maybe you shouldn't, but I didn't get like, well, you can do this if you do X, Y and Z. And if you can tell me what X, Y, and Z is, I'll make that motion.
Speaker 1: Um, who are you referring that to?
Speaker 4: The city attorney. Yes. And so, Councilmember.
Speaker 3: Odom, my recommendation would be that you.
Speaker 4: Make a motion.
Speaker 1: I got it right there. Go ahead. Mr. Shinn?
Speaker 3: Yes. And Councilmember o.T.
Speaker 4: My recommendation is that you make whatever substantive motions you want to make tonight and then make a motion to continue this item along with the special meeting until the conclusion of the budget hearing tomorrow night for a time, certainly you can set it at, let's say 7 p.m. and you start when you can start. And then this item will.
Speaker 3: Again be called.
Speaker 4: The special meeting. And the I, along with this item will be called after the budget item. And then at that moment you can add whatever.
Speaker 3: Other funding.
Speaker 4: Or anything else you use that makes sense. Well, that is a recommendation. Is there anything preventing us from doing it the other way? Approving because this was multiple parts. You know, it wasn't just one one item. We can sign off on the alameda strong portion and then defer the discussion on the, um, whether or not we agree with staff's recommendation to not provide more money until tomorrow.
Speaker 1: So essentially the bifurcate is.
Speaker 4: What you're saying is, is that not permitted? Or is it just your recommendation? Because can you get us to. Yes.
Speaker 1: Here and as far before we go back to city, no. And then before we go back, the vice mayor has had his hand up. And I want to I want to.
Speaker 3: Well, I guess I believe we've been given that direction. Direction? Why did we not vote on how we would like to move forward with Alameda Strong and take that vote tonight and then continue the item for future discussion at which we can have the discussion about the funding tomorrow night and the vote perhaps for the motion.
Speaker 4: I'll make the motion. Let's just set the vice mayor just said. All right. And well, I'll just it doesn't really matter to me. I will put in a recommendation for multiple funds.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. So you've made the motion. You made the motion, Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 3: I will second that motion. I'm going to ask it if I can just make a couple friendly, just clarifications of things I heard. But I would would that in their motion include restricting grantees who got previously received keep funds which would be a would which would be different than the last one so that we're funding people who were unsuccessful in past grant applications so giving.
Speaker 1: Staff. The leeway. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 3: Well, I don't want to get the leeway I want to give. Okay. Personally?
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilor Brody, that's your motion. What's your thought?
Speaker 4: Um, so they didn't receive the 7500? That that that's what you're suggesting?
Speaker 3: No. P federal grants. There are. There are there are nonprofits that have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in Alameda. But my feeling is they shouldn't be competing with other nonprofits that have not received any funds but.
Speaker 4: Saying, I'm okay with it, I'm okay with that. I just think our staff's not administering this, though, right? Isn't either Ebix and working solutions administering it it.
Speaker 1: Once the payments are made. But as far as the decision of who's getting the money right and the list of applicants and then just the distinction, as I understand about the PGP, is a payroll protection program. It starts out as a loan that needs to be repaid unless you retain 100% of your workforce for a certain period of time. But, you know, if if you're saying you would like receipt of those funds to be a criteria that would wait against you receiving our fans, is that what you're asking?
Speaker 3: No, I would say if you've received them, you cannot apply. You do not qualify for these funds that I would prefer to. I would prefer to expand the number of businesses and nonprofits in Alameda who receive support rather than allow some people to receive double support and others receive zero.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's fair.
Speaker 4: I mean, I would agree to that.
Speaker 3: Okay. Okay. And then my other my other clarification, Jim, is just just because we had a lot of conversation, but I don't know that we ever heard consensus around the sole proprietor in-home issue and what your intent was there. I, I, I'm not overly supportive of that, but, but I wanted to find out.
Speaker 4: It was in the staff recommendation. So I would, I was going to suggest keeping it in there.
Speaker 1: Council has got to hand it.
Speaker 0: Can I. Yes. Okay. So two things. One, with the maker of the motion, be willing to at least limit the sole proprietors to 50% of the the grant amount, because that's a significant amount of money to give to one person who can also qualify for the federal payments, the federal pandemic assistance, which means that they can get unemployment plus $600 a week.
Speaker 1: And again.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry. Inside America, sorry.
Speaker 1: This is a distinction between I heard home based business sole proprietors and sole proprietors. Do you do you see a distinction there, Councilmember Avella?
Speaker 0: To me, I there is.
Speaker 1: But maybe too far in the weeds.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Again, I mean, so I want to get clarification on that. And then I also wanted to find out if that's because if that's not to me, that's a significant thing because then we'll get we could give out more money to more people. If we if we are limiting that and I would hate for, for instance, a bunch of people that are sole proprietors who are working out of their house are the ones that end up getting all of these grants or a substantial portion of them. So I was also interested in perhaps giving some direction to staff to limit the number that we would be giving out.
Speaker 1: So can somebody make.
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 4: That they are lowest? I mean, that sounds reasonable. I have no problem with it. But that just whenever your take.
Speaker 0: So from staff's perspective, if the council wants to say sole proprietors would be eligible up to half of the 7500, which is like 4750 or something like that. I don't have a problem with that. And if we want to cap the number or make it a percentage of what we receive, I think we're fine with that, too . And I would just add back to the p p issue. I would just say that the reason that we are asking that people have applied is because there was discussion previously by the council that we don't want to be the funder of first resort. Right. So I guess policy direction on that is helpful for us. Mm. But we can make the full propriety of one work at a reduced formula.
Speaker 1: Council member Villa.
Speaker 0: And then the other two clarifications that I wanted to see if they were included as if if we could increase the residential rent relief to 30 $500 still at the one month cap.
Speaker 1: Quickly, you just ran out of time. Make your second.
Speaker 0: And then the second point was on the TPP. If that's limited just to the not the larger nonprofits that have qualified for it, I would be fine with limiting it. And if that's part of the motion.
Speaker 4: Okay for me if that works for the vice mayor who made that suggestion.
Speaker 3: I will. I will. I will. If that if that's what gets us to moving this forward.
Speaker 1: Great. Great. Okay. And Madam Clerk and staff, do you have any information on the residential? Everything that's in it.
Speaker 0: Yes. And on the residential, I think we would say one month's rent not to exceed 3500. And that's how we would address that issue.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right. We have a motion by Councilmember Otis, a second by Vice Mayor Knox. Let me we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 2: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Hi. Hi.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Mayor. As the Ashcraft high that carries by five days.
Speaker 1: Good work, everybody.
Speaker 2: The second motion.
Speaker 1: Are in effect. A motion? Yes. Councilor Rody.
Speaker 4: I guess I'll make that second motion to continue the discussion on whether or not to accept the test recommendation to not provide additional funding for the grant program until after the budget meeting tomorrow.
Speaker 1: A motion to have a second.
Speaker 3: If we can amend the motion, just be continue this item to include that conversation to the next, which is the advice we got. I would be happy to.
Speaker 2: Second and I think you need a time specific in there.
Speaker 3: Just 7 p.m..
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Okay. Sure. But I don't really want to rehash this motion. We just passed.
Speaker 3: It. We all get that.
Speaker 1: Come on, guys. We got it. We're going to move this along. So you're okay with that amendment? Yeah. Okay. Move by Odie, seconded by Inox. Right. Draw cover, please.
Speaker 2: Roadside guy. Right. Hi.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: I. Mayor has the Ashcroft.
Speaker 1: Eye.
Speaker 2: Carries by five eyes.
Speaker 1: Very good. All right. We're moving on to item to see. Madam, would you introduce that item, please?
Speaker 2: Recommendation to authorize the city manager to opt for commercial tenants in city owned properties. A loan conversion and forgiveness assistance program in response to the COVID 19 pandemic.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. And this is being presented by his presenting. Hi. And I'm going to ask for brevity. This was not a long staff report, and our council members read their materials and the public is always capable of going to the website and reading too.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Create an Alameda Strong Community Relief Fund to Provide Grants or Other Types of Relief to Small Businesses, Non-profits and Residential Renters that have been Negatively Financially Impacted by the COVID-19 Pandemic. (Community Development 256)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_05192020_2020-7956
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. And this is being presented by his presenting. Hi. And I'm going to ask for brevity. This was not a long staff report, and our council members read their materials and the public is always capable of going to the website and reading too. So, Councilmember Vella, did you have your hand up with that? No. I'm very sensitive to any motions. Okay. So, hi, Ms.. Mercado. Nice to see you.
Speaker 0: Hi. Good evening, Mayor and city council members. Evening. So and in the interest of brevity, I have two things that I'd like to talk to you about. So you guys sent us off several, several weeks ago to address the issue of being a landlord and how to how to help some of our tenants. At your last meeting, you gave us some direction. We had initially done a 60 day deferral of rent and establish a repayment process that began in October. At your last meeting, you extended it.
Speaker 1: For a 30.
Speaker 0: More days, for a 90 day, for a 90 day deferral. What I'm bringing this up because we resolve the deferral issue, but we're through meetings with our tenants. The tenants have asked you guys specifically said April, May, June, and our tenants have said we need it to be 90 days and we can figure out what what three months we would like to defer specifically so that they could be eligible for federal funding. The some of the federal funding requires that they be current on their rent. And so if we defer it, then they're not eligible. So I would just ask that you consider whatever motion you make to make to to change that to a 90 day deferral rather than the April, May, June. So you you resolve the issue of deferral of rent. But there was another portion that you wanted us to consider, which is the rent abatement. And there was lots of conversation about what a rent abatement program would look like. And you guys said staff manager. So I'm saying help us think about that and look at we looked at some white papers that were done by some real estate experts. We talked to property management companies in the Bay Area and down in Southern California. We tried to figure out what everybody was doing. And one of the things that we learned was one of the major pieces of advice and a couple of the white P papers were don't make decisions that for the long term, for a short term problem. And so we kind of were looking at what does that mean? And so one of the things that there were three different kinds of programs that were described in some of our research. One was the application of deposit, which would allow us to use security deposits with the agreement of the tenant to pay their rent . And then when the economy turned around or a tenant was better suited, they would replenish that security deposit fund so that we wouldn't be caught with a destroyed building and not be able to do anything at the end of the lease term. The other option was a program called Subletting Program, which essentially allowed us to well, we as landlords are tenants to sublet portions of their part of their building so that they could make their rent. And then the third program is the program that we're actually recommending tonight, which is a loan conversion program, which is the way we'll describe it as sort of an abatement for them. But you have some options, you have some flexibility. And the loan conversion program is rather than abating paths to rent, we agreed to convert the past to rent into a loan, a loan from the city to the tenant payable over time. And then the loan is evidenced by a promissory note that is cost defaulted with the lease. This we like this because it gives us a lot of flexibility in the promissory notes. There can be individually crafted to meet the needs of each of the tenants as well as we'll be able to say what the financial or the fiscal impact of each of these agreements would be, because they would be precise. The one of the things that we really liked about this program was that, let's say a tenant wanted to defer 24 months of rent. We could give them some benchmarks. And if they met these benchmarks, we could convert the loan into a grant. It's similar to the TPP program that if there were things that we'd like to see, like retention of employees or revise if it was a catalyst tenant or something like that, we could we could we could forgive all or a portion of it, however , we think would be best for the city and based on the individual financials of the tenant. So we like this program because it's flexible. And again, it can be our full abatement or it could be a partial abatement based on whatever benchmarks we would set up or that the council would be looking for. And finally, let me just talk about some of the alternatives to not doing this loan conversion program, and then you guys can have at it. Because what we're really looking for, the council is, if you like, this loan conversion program, what would be some of the benchmarks of some of the metrics that you'd be looking for for us to get from tenant job retention, you know, resiliency by a certain period of time, some things like that. But some of the alternatives would be that, okay, we do this program or we consider a rent reduction program, which was the thing that the broker talked about and you guys were remotely intrigued with last time, which is we we rebate the rent for a, let's say eight months and then the tenant has a period of time to catch up. So that way that there's cash flow to us and cash flow for the tenant. So that's an option. The other thing is we could allow the tenants to sublet. We could just do an active subletting program with our tenants. But that would also require that the sublet that sub tenants would be compatible with our zoning and permitting and it could be time, time consuming for the tenant, but it's something that we could do. And then the other thing is we could do the security deposit program. That may not be enough, because typically our security deposit is one month's rent. And then finally we could just stick with our deferral program and not offer any alternative to that and just do the 90 days and everybody has that. So I think that's all I'm going to talk about, because you guys have read the self-report and and I'm trying to be brief.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I appreciate a good report. Do we have any any questions about the clarifying questions about the staff report before we go to any vice mayor? Next.
Speaker 3: Quick question. So it seems like once you get direction, there's a whole program that's going to be set up with benchmarks and criteria. And if if we were to follow the staff report, there would be the the criteria for the 50% loan grant or whatever the direction was would come back. And what is the timeline on that?
Speaker 0: So I'm we are looking for you guys to tell us what kind of benchmarks you're looking for. We want to set this up as soon as possible because our deferral program ends in June. And I think you guys might be getting as many emails as we're getting from technically anxious about the expiration of that 90 days and and tenants who are who are saying the deferral program isn't good enough. So we would like to be exploring, negotiating with tenants right now to to get into the promissory term sheet, whatever you want to call it, to move this project along. And then at the same time, we would have some real time information. I know you're considering the budget tomorrow, but probably in the Q1 of next fiscal year, we should have a really good picture of what we've negotiated and what it means for our budget.
Speaker 1: Okay. Um, I have a couple of quick questions, actually, maybe just one. Can you explain what cross defaulted means? So the, um, the tenant agrees with the, uh, is that with the. Now it's about the loan conversion.
Speaker 0: So essentially it means that they default on their promissory note, they default on their lease so that both of the Oak Hill rated. Okay.
Speaker 1: So if they if they default on the promissory note, then they then they have to repay the loan.
Speaker 0: Well, I think we have the option of evicting them because.
Speaker 1: Okay. Because they've.
Speaker 0: Defaulted. Yes.
Speaker 1: On their rent. Got it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Do we have any were there any further clarifying questions? Okay. Do we have any public comment, Madam Clerk?
Speaker 2: We we have received one public comment for me to read in the record. And now I will ask any attendees who are interested should raise their hand and. It looks like there's one. And so we'll have that person go first and then I will read the other one.
Speaker 0: Very good.
Speaker 4: Jonathan. al-Khalifa.
Speaker 1: Yes, please. Mr. Barkley, that I don't see your whole name, but you're on. We're ready to hear from you.
Speaker 0: Yes, I'm his wife. Hello. Hi. Hi. I have a question about the sole proprietor we are. We have a business. My husband is the owner and we're working there as a family and for ten years. And I.
Speaker 1: Just want.
Speaker 0: To know if we're, like, included in the farm.
Speaker 1: Okay. So that actually is a question about the fund that we just and please don't take me on this one. That was from the last item. Now we're talking about something else about tenants who are who are tenants of city owned property, however. Starting is it tomorrow. Madam Clerk, the tape of this meeting will be available.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: All right. So you can catch up with that information that you missed. Thank you.
Speaker 2: And I made the next comment into the record. Okay. Jim Strelow, Alameda. I enjoyed the council's earlier discussions about considering a loan forgiveness assistance program because most commercial tenants were denied use of their rentals because of government restrictions. Some council members earlier said that it would show to other landlords that the city was setting the example for others to follow. I encourage you to discuss that program some more. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Are there any further public comments?
Speaker 2: There are none.
Speaker 1: All right. So with that public comment is now closed for this item. All right. Counsel, how would we and I think as as Ms.. Mercado has indicated, she's looking for a direction from us on. Well, a first of all, do we want to go forward with I'm sorry, my temperamental iPad is freezing on me, but do we want to go forward with a loan conversion and forgiveness program? And if so, what are the benchmarks that we want to be considered?
Speaker 0: All right, I'm back.
Speaker 1: Or maybe not. Anyway, why? Okay, so we've. We've got the, um. Uh. The staff report and you know, direction about a staff has recommended a loan conversion approach because it offers the city flexibility. And I will throw out that I think flexibility is important these days and also individualized assistance. It's not one size fits all and our businesses are of very different natures and sizes and have different needs. Could be administered like a federal loan converted to a grant if the recipient complies with certain requirements. So council what's what are the benchmarks we want included? Councilmember De Soto has his hand up.
Speaker 4: Thank you. You know, I think like all of you, I did receive that email from the owner of Rockwall Winery and the fact that she had, uh, indicated that that she employs 81 people and she is facing dire situations. It seems as though what we are considering tonight could potentially assist her through this difficult period. So I think definitely job retention is certainly one of the key benchmarks that I would love to see. And I think what's unique about that venue is it does seem to be a catalyst. So that might be another benchmark. Um, so those are the two things that I'd like to see are one thing though that I would discourage is sub10 ending. And the reason why I'm going to specifically talk against Sub10 Inning is because what I have seen in the past is a lot a good number of facilities have leased out or subleased out areas to container cargoes. And I just I don't think that's that's in keeping of of kind of a type of built environment that we're, we're striving for. Um, and I think it's happened along, um, the winery RO Area Spirit's Alley, but I've seen it elsewhere too. So that's one reason why I'm going to speak against Sub10 anything, because I do think that there's an easy dollars to be made for leasing out to container trucks from coming from the Port of Oakland.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thanks, Mr. De. So who's next? Cousin Rudy. And then you, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Yes.
Speaker 4: I want to go next. I understand, um, the vice mayor's question that this was going to come back to us. And then we'd have to vote on it. Is that the question?
Speaker 1: Oh, no, I thought it was the vice mayor asked. I think, what's the timeline? And once you get direction, what's the timeline? And I'd have to look back at my notes to Ms.. Mercado. She said, We we need to move quickly because the deferrals are ending in June. But, no, I don't think this is back to us, does it?
Speaker 0: It's not it's not our goal to bring this back to you. We want to implement the program and report back to you in the fall Q1 of next fiscal year about where we are, how many of these loan conversions that we've done and and give you a report and maybe we think about what are there any next steps? Are we have we satisfied what we need to do to get the tenant through that step?
Speaker 4: Okay. So I just, you know, I like the concept of converting deferred rent into a promissory note. Um, some of the things that concern me that we brought up when we had our subcommittee read out was just, there was no cap. And the way this looks now, it seems like there's no cap because a tenant could request rent deferral for up to 18 months. That's a year and a half. And the staff could determine that they want to convert that rent deferral into forgiveness or either 50% into a grant or a 100% forgiveness. And that was the whole thing that we wanted to at least I thought I wanted to avoid in the beginning was, you know, just a blank check and this looks like a blank check. So granted, there are, you know, some requests to have some criteria and metrics. But, you know, unless we come up with those today at 912 when we haven't even got to our regular agenda, then we're not going to have an opportunity to have a discussion on them again. So, I mean, I again, I like the idea and I'll hear my colleagues and get back into the, you know, the nuts and bolts of it, but that this just looks like a blank check to me. And that's exactly what I didn't want to happen in the first place. So but I do like the concept of a promissory note, you know, with an extended due date. Um, but, you know, given the size of potentially 18 months and given the fact that our staff could just either forgive half of it or all of it, you know, just leaves me queasy because I have no idea how much it's going to cost.
Speaker 1: Councilman Brody, may I, may I make a request of you? Councilman Brody I think so. What I really want to do is keep these special meeting items moving forward, because after all, this is all about COVID relief and the need is now, I think you really you hit the nail on the head, one of a few nails on the head. How about seeing if you can come up with what you think a reasonable period of time would be? I think there's a figure out there, the time period out there, I'll give you give you a moment to think of it. While I hear from two other colleagues who have their hand up. Let's hear from Councilmember Vela, then the vice mayor. Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 0: Thanks. So a couple of things. I am okay with the concept of the promissory note. But I also want to understand what the finances were pre-COVID. I am very wary of a business basically saying that they're going to be shut down if we don't just automatically forgive all of their rent. I'd like to know what the state of the business is and whether or not the business, because we are investing at that point and I would want to know that they're that they have an ability to continue to operate. I also think that employee retention needs to be part of that. And while a business may employ anyone, people or 100 people, how many of those individuals are employed full time with benefits here in Alameda? I won't say with benefits because I am I want to understand how many of the employees are benefited versus how many people there might just have their temporarily or hourly during high season. Other things that I would like to look at, I personally would be interested in capping it at three months. And I think, you know, if we're talking about anything beyond the three months, then I think that I would just have it.
Speaker 1: I'll get to next year. Okay.
Speaker 0: I would want it I would want it to come back to council to discuss why there is an extended need and what the plan is or the model. I think I'd also be interested in understanding what businesses in the criteria I'd want to look at or what businesses found a way to continue to operate in some form during the shutdown, and some of our businesses find new ways to operate. There was an entrepreneurial spirit that I think has kept some of our businesses afloat. Again, this is the last resort, not the not the bailout out where a city with a limited budget, we don't print our own money like the federal government. And, you know, these are these are policy choices. And if we if we give to one person, that means taking from something else. And so I want to be very cognizant and intentional with how we go about making these decisions. The other thing that I would want to know is the number. Well, I think we can give points for being a catalyst, but to me a catalyst is what I would want to define, what cattle, what we mean by that. And I think the other thing that I would want to look at is what's the what's the potential sales tax that we think that they can bring in? And I am for for some of these other businesses, or is their business model going to change under under the new kind of continued restrictions? Do they have a plan for continuing to operate? So those are those are my initial thoughts on this. But I am more drawn to the promissory note option because I think that that protects the city and and address some of our concerns that we expressed earlier on when we discussed this.
Speaker 1: Okay. And so can I hear from the city manager? Had his I saw you put your hand up. Yes, Mr. Levitt.
Speaker 3: I just had one question for Councilmember Vela. And then as a comment and the question for Councilmember Vela is, you said about capping at three months. We currently have the deferral for three months. Are you saying capping at an additional three months for the for this program? So that would be a possible total of six months?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 3: And then the second comment is, we had talked about whether we could get this to in front of you tonight, May 19th, or whether it would take more staff work to get to June 2nd. And then Debbie and then that in my conversation, I push for it to be May 19th, in part because I thought there might be more questions that came up and that way we could bring it back on June 2nd. And so that was part of the reason we brought it on May 19th is to give us some more time to try to deal with it on June 2nd. If you have more items that you wanted us to consider and bring back for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Well, and I'll continue just kind of but I'm not sure. Again, I'm I'm not wanting to rush things that are not well thought out. But I'm wondering if we can't give sufficient detailed instruction to staff and say this is what we want. Go forth and start doing it. Let's hear from Ms.. Mercado. What were you going to say?
Speaker 0: I wanted to just respond that one of the things that we read in the documents was that in order to qualify for this, we, the tenant, would have to provide us with an extensive list of extensive information. And i. I. I am. I. And the staff report which like current cash on hand payroll information list of creditors. And then one of the things that we would do that I didn't want to go through the whole is that one of the things that we would use to evaluate an applicant is the tenant would have to provide us with a resiliency plan, like how do you plan on digging yourself out of here? So a business continuation plan. And we also like the the grant program that you guys approved last council meeting and you're discussing again this council meeting. We think that there should be an employee like the tenant should have more than 30 employees to be eligible for this sort of program. So we want to make it a little bit different. And then we also think that they should demonstrate significant loss of income of 30%. And we want to be able to just make it a little bit more difficult to to have to to be eligible for this, because we want to we want to make sure that we're we're using this program strategically.
Speaker 1: Okay. Mark Potter and then the vice mayor who has a chance to be heard yet, I think as.
Speaker 0: Part of and just two, one, one approach the council might think about this evening about how to balance the desire to kind of get it right and cover all the points and keep things moving is that there are a lot of criteria that are contained in the staff report about how this program would be done. But there's a desire from the council maybe not to have it open ended. So one one potential approach is for the council to say, go forth and council, you're authorized to negotiate up to X amount of loan conversion or you're authorized to do something for X number of tenants for X number of month months. And so then we have we have parameters and we have a framework within which we can then apply the criteria that are contained in the staff report and the direction we hear tonight. And I think that may be a way to kind of strike that balance between getting it right and keeping it moving. Something to the council might want to.
Speaker 1: Okay. I guess I would wonder about how the council would come up with a particular amount of assistance, because I think, again, it would depend on the amount that the company, the business is paying. But hold that thought. Vice Mayor, you've had your hand up for a while now.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Um, so for me, I think one of the, one of the interesting things about these discussions is we've talked with the community and read about what our community, so many communities are going through, is that our employees are having their wages cut or losing their jobs and businesses are seeing significant reductions. It's it's struck me and it's actually something that I've heard from a number of Alameda businesses who do don't rent from the city. But it struck me that it's interesting that there is a perception that people who are in the business of renting land must be made whole at all times through this through this process. And so everybody is taking a haircut and taking cuts and struggling. And, you know, we can't tell commercial landlords what to do in terms of we don't have the authority, but I think we can show moral leadership. And I do think that there is something I you know, we get about $1,000,000 a month in rent. And I think that we need to be thinking a little bit about the fact that we're collecting rent from people who are not legally allowed to use their buildings. And to me, that's the threshold I think we should be using, is that people who are not allowed to use their buildings because they were not legally allowed due the public health order, the length of time for for for the for for for a loan program would be based on how long that their business was impacted by the public health plus one month so that they have a chance to get in and start up. I think that we know that Councilmember De Saag mentioned job retention. I think if somebody can show that they retain 75% of their jobs over a year, we should look at 50% just taking 50% now and converting it. That would be our metric to to grants a year after. And then they might have an additional couple of months to pay the other 50% of rent that they were due. I struggle. I am struggling with the idea that our goal is to make sure that we're having people pay us for for land and buildings that they're not they're not allowed to even be in and use. Right now, I don't think every business that we rent to is going to qualify for this. We have some who have changed their business models or who are open and whatever else. You know, I think we could go to the city manager's recommendation. We could give some direction and some numbers could be come back. In terms of what we think we're based on the deferral program and whatnot, what we think that this might impact, we obviously don't know when things are going to be able to open up, but we do know that certain businesses are going to start opening up in the next two, four, six weeks. So this isn't an 18 month rent deferral program or anything, as it was, I think pointed out in the in the staff report as a potential way forward. So to me, I think we can I think we can I think we can craft something. I don't want the council being involved in having to make every single decision on this. I think that's getting us too deep. And I also want to be careful that our criteria is not us deciding who is important or who makes enough money. I think, you know, business communities and business ecosystems are made up of a lot of different sized businesses and they all have important places within that. And I don't want to I just government has never shown itself to be really good picture of winners and losers in these things. And so I think we should find the find the problem we're trying to solve, which is help people through this time when they are currently being asked to pay for rent, that for something that they can't use and then figure out a way to to support them coming out of that and then hopefully collecting a little bit of the money because there is rent, there is there is wear and tear on that building over the time that that that we should be collecting. So those are those are my thoughts. I don't know. I'll look forward to hearing other people have.
Speaker 4: But.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Odie, who moved me.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So I took your assignment. Thank you. Thank you. And heard my colleague. I agree with the vice mayor. I mean, when you if you're shut down, I think we should be more lenient for, you know, any type of abatement in those those situations. I mean, that that's just a fact. But if you're, you know, get up and running on July 1st and you request, you know, a nine month rate rent abatement or an 18 month rent abatement, you know, I'm not sure if that meets meets those values. I like the idea of Avella. You know, let's start with another three months. People could ask for up to three months. And I also think that, you know, we can extend these payments out. There was the suggestion was the total deferred rent is due in 18 months. But if you have a ten year lease, you know, why not let someone spread out those payments over the last ten years of that lease or whatever turns out to be nine and a half years? Um, there's one other item, and I forgot what it was. Oh, I mean, I still think having a cap, like, if we, if, if this number gets to be 300,000 and maybe this, it gets, the council gets pulled back in and says, you know, we're we already spent 300,000. Do you still want us to pursue this? Because, again, I'm really leery about the blank check and really leery about the threatening letters. I'm really leery about, you know, the parade of supporters coming to council. Um, so I just want to make sure that we're fair to everybody, but to the vice mayor suggestion. Yeah. I mean, let's be as leaning as we can when. When they're shut down. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Council every day. So, yeah.
Speaker 4: I'm here to speak in favor of going beyond three months, largely because if you watched, for example, 60 Minutes this past Sunday, you had the chairman of the Fed talk about recovery, probably not really happening until the end of 2021. And even if we shelter in place, begins to lighten up soon, if not and within three months, I think everything that you hear about in the business sections of newspapers or or if you watch CNBC, everything you hear about is that demand is still going to be tepid. So my sense is that that maybe it's not 18 months, but I don't think it's three months. So I think we need to go a little beyond that. Thank you, Count.
Speaker 1: Counselor every day. So you understood that that's an additional three months to the six months we've already mentioned the three months we've already provided.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No, I mean an.
Speaker 4: Yeah, no, I understand that.
Speaker 1: Is there any reason you wouldn't think that we could go with the additional three months now and revisit it if we're not seeing businesses open out there? And I watch 60 Minutes the other night, too, and that Jerome Powell, the chair of the Fed, is very eloquent and he said we're going to um economy will recover when we get a hold of will we get coronavirus under control. And I think he was speaking to nationwide. I mean, we are the most populous state. But I'd say that here in the Bay Area, we we got ahead of a lot of things. And I think our recovery is going to come back sooner than some places. But again, to the point Nanette made in the beginning, the advice given was don't make long term decisions for short term problems. Right now, we don't quite know the magnitude and duration, but I think we could come up with a reasonable figure now and then certainly come back and revisit it. My thought, I hear that.
Speaker 0: Sounds like.
Speaker 1: Nodding heads and I think misspeak kind of. Were you going to add something and then. Councilmember No. Okay. Um, we ready to make a motion in some direction? Councilmember Vella. Oh, you're muted, Councilmember Vela. You're muted.
Speaker 0: I did want some clarity from my colleagues in terms of if they had a suggestion for an overall cap, because I do think that we need to have stuff come back to us that exceeds a certain amount. And then the other thing was, I think while some businesses were were closed in that, like, for instance, you can operate a tasting room, you could. There's other portions of the business where you could still bottle. You have product that's not necessarily spoiling. So I think, you know, again, I like the aspect of this bacardi's point of looking at the resiliency and looking at what that different businesses took to try to to get out during during the closure, because I think that that speaks to trade it to an attempt to get some recovery. I am wary of or I did have a question of if a business owner has multiple properties that they're renting and and a combined set of employees, the total number of employees that we're requiring that a business owner have. How we came up with that number. In order to get the qualify for the relief.
Speaker 1: They wanted to see at least 30 employees, Mr. Conner.
Speaker 0: So it was just looking at what other other landlords were doing. That's where we came up with that number. But I would say that we have I don't think we have too many tenants that have multiple. I mean, we have a couple of tenants that have a couple of buildings, but we don't have tenants spread across multiple properties very much. I mean, that's a that would be an unusual and for an example, I would say like Astra has Building 360 and 397, but there are very few tenants that have more than one property. Okay. I mean, I would be inclined to to lower it to 25 since that's what we did for our grant to see 25 employees. So we're looking for a grant. We did more than 25. I understand that. I understand that. But because our grants were up to 25, why not lower it to say people with more than 25 that way? There is not this section of businesses with five people that aren't are aren't qualifying, that are tenants and.
Speaker 1: And can I just make a clarifying or asking clarifying question? So right now we're only talking about businesses that are tenants where the city is the landlord. The grant program up until now has been for small businesses. So I it's not that I mean, I guess I guess I'll make the point. There was a fund founded to point small businesses to apply. Okay. So Councilmember Vallas agreeing that there is that delta that we're leaving people out.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: All right. And Councilmember Vela, did you have or Councilmember Odie, because you both raised this, do you have a, um, a cap, an idea of what cap and the cap is, the amount of how much rent the city is giving up? Is is the cap you're looking at? Did you have an idea of what that would you know, what would would trigger you wanted to have the the program or have a report that brought back.
Speaker 4: I'm worried about. Councilmember Odie, I'm sorry. I'm worried about the amount that might be abated versus, you know, the amount that might be deferred. Um, so, I mean, when we did the subcommittee we talked about 300,000. Mhm. I mean it'd be good to get a report back and I think like Ms..
Speaker 1: Mercado's nodding her head so that might be that she's in agreement with. That's a reasonable figure.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 4: And Councilmember, I don't know, I think you said this, Mayor. Um, you know, if this, if we need to do more in three months, we can do more.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: So, I mean, I totally agree with that. I'm not saying I don't I'm not trying to be miserly or anything, but, you know, I don't want to give this huge blank check and then find out maybe it was not necessary. But if we need to give it and every three months we come back and we need to give it, okay, that's a different story.
Speaker 1: We can do that. That sounds good.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 4: Are there any groups that are under 25 that might might qualify for this? Any. Any you know, there's like a mom and pop and there are a couple of mom and pop shops out there. I don't know.
Speaker 0: Um, well, so we do. I mean, there's, we have the Park Street sellers. Uh, yeah. And we have like the.
Speaker 1: Oh, yes, yes. Just Alameda point.
Speaker 0: And you're right. Just Alameda, right. If you have to have those, those types of businesses. We also have, um, you know, probably, probably many of the tenants, um, like Pacific Pinball. They probably don't have that many employees, employer employees. Um, so, I mean, I think it, uh, I think they're, I think in over, over 25, it's, it's a smaller group. I think you're going to hit your sales rounds, rounds, Astros. You will hit I mean, I don't know about Rockwall, she said 81, but I think a lot of those might be part time employees. As Councilmember Vela said, I think the antique fair might have a lot of part time employees. I mean, I don't think that they might hit that 25 threshold. So, um, I, I think the 25 is, it's, it's, it's a reach for many of our tenants.
Speaker 4: So because I would like maybe the 25 is just for forgiveness, but, or a conversion, but I'd like to see as many people eligible as possible, even if they were, you know, ten employees or five employees.
Speaker 0: So the other thing I just want I mean, I want to be clear about what we're proposing, because remember, remember a lot of our research, not very many landlords are offering rent abatements. So this is sort of I mean, in fact, I, I had read that practically no one is offering rent abatement. So I think we're being very, you know, patterning our program, patterning our program after the federal PGP, where we're setting the pace by saying we're going to loan you this money and potentially you will be forgiven. And so I think I just want to make sure we're clear. We were over 25 are only 25 were offering abatement. Just straight out the gate.
Speaker 1: Can you clarify that, please? Well, I. Well, I do think that that's that's a good point that we, um. Just because we can because we're the landlords doesn't mean we should do something that other landlords aren't doing. And it's. And it isn't because we're being cheap. It just might be that we're being prudent, that we want to be in a position to be able to do the things with that revenue that, that the, um, that the our made a point, um, you know, the revenues are paying for because remember that, that the revenues made there are used out there. But I think we can help people through some hard times. Um, but I think we should be more judicious with the criteria about who actually gets their rent abated along the federal program. Paying at the back end of your lease. I can see that things are going to get better for most, but we've got to apply these criteria. Um, and I just think that there's a lot of things we'd like to do, but already we're seeing less revenue and that's going to start, meaning we're unable to do some of the things we need to do to keep these areas viable places for people to come when the customers can come back. So I'd like to see us craft something that really relies heavily on deferral. You know, we can lengthen the amount of time, but abatement under really specialized circumstances. Anybody want to try and craft a motion?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Vice Mayor, not slate.
Speaker 3: I know I don't want to craft a motion because I'm not sure I'm I'm so I'm definitely on that team abatement. You know, I appreciate Mr. McConaghy comment. I think just because everybody is not doing the right thing doesn't mean we shouldn't do the right thing. And I think we spend a lot of time talking about tenant landlord relationships. And I think this is one where we're where we need to show leadership and even use that leadership to encourage others to do so. My question is, we have the 90 day deferral as it is. So if we were to say let's say I keep hearing about three months, that's how how does how does the the the 90 day deferral and the loan conversion, does that become a six month loan conversion program? And how did how did the two things we have 90 days and deferral and then we're adding another 90 days essentially in loan conversion are those two separate things so they still have to pay the 90 days that was deferred under the original agreement. And then this is a new. Set what the proposal is.
Speaker 1: Can you clarify that, Mr. McKenna? I. When you're unmuted. Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes. So. Okay. I would say I'm not sure if I'm clarifying or if I'm giving you my opinion, but I would say that the all of it gets mixed in together. And so if after six months, we you know, the tenant has proven that they're I mean, that they've overcome, I would say, and and met some of the benchmarks that you've set up like employment. And I think that we would potentially offer a 50% abatement and that they would just be stuck. They would be not stuck. They wouldn't be subject to the original deferral program that we put together. Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. And and I'm going to call did you finish your comments, Vice Mayor?
Speaker 3: Well, I had some comments when I saw the city manager's hand go up.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: I wasn't going to let him. I thought that was related to the questions.
Speaker 1: I think he might want to talk about it. And I just want to say something and maybe this is just semantics. I would say we're all here to do the right thing. And so we may not agree with each other, but a difference of opinion does not mean that someone is supporting a position that is the wrong thing. It is nice to be more generous. I would say, you know, there's a lot of considerations, but it's, you know, we're all right. We're all trying to do the right thing in these difficult times.
Speaker 3: And I would never say that I didn't suggest otherwise.
Speaker 1: I said it might be a matter of semantics and sometimes it's a matter of perception. City Manager.
Speaker 3: Yes. Mayor Ashcraft and City Council. I would agree with what Nat ended up saying at the end, and that is that I would see the 3 minutes I've envisioned that the three months would be combined with the first three months.
Speaker 4: Or.
Speaker 3: The other action that you requested, where if they didn't do three months from April through June, that they could add another month at some point. But if you you added this three months for the loan, that could be wrapped into a loan that we would probably try to wrap all six months into a loan, or else it would make it unfeasible for for the tenant to be able to to manage that loan at that point.
Speaker 1: And that's my kind of. And your.
Speaker 0: Comments. I really did like the vice mayor said about her, that making the program and the length of time the building was unusable or that they were not open plus one month. I thought that was pretty clever. And then I do like the three. I like having three months or $300,000 being the cap and having the council say whichever is greater or whichever is lower. I mean, I think that gives us some guidelines that we can work with in administering a program. So those are just my two comments.
Speaker 1: Okay. How does that sound, counsel? So. So we've got the.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. I believe I had the floor.
Speaker 1: Sorry. I was looking away, taking notes. That's okay. Yes.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: So thank you, Councilmember Odie, for directing my attention. Council vice mayor.
Speaker 3: It's down there.
Speaker 1: Not on the. The.
Speaker 3: I. Worried about $300,000. Our total rent is $1,000,000 a month. We already if we were to go with plus one month we're looking at four months and whatnot and half if half of that is abated. We're going to hit $300,000 with like two companies or three companies possibly depending on which ones we do it. So I just want to I just want to make sure that we don't set a cap that has us has staff coming back. And the other thing is, I want to be. Whatever. However, we move forward tonight, I want to be sure that we are careful, that we are not. I don't want to approve seven businesses because they were the first seven in the door. And then it turns out they hit the cap and now we're coming back and asking for more. So figuring out how we're going to have that cap conversation before people are told they have received this, I think is going to be an important part of this. But like I said, I as I'm further on the abatement side of this, I'll let my other colleagues decide how they like to move forward.
Speaker 1: And I would just ask the clarifying question. So when it comes to the application period, I mean, you're you're not contemplating first come, first serve, I would imagine I would think you're having an application period. And once all those applications are in, then the hard part comes comes that you need to look at everything and who meets the criteria. And I'm sure there's some sort of sequencing or, you know, ordering who's scoring highest or what have you. And then you'll know, I guess, how quickly you'd come to the cap. Is that is that a fair assessment of when you make.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. So I was thinking that and I wasn't thinking $300,000 total for the program. I was thinking as a tenant, I got that and there's very few tenants who pay $50,000 a month. That's I mean, you could get a long period, you could get a lot of room per tenant there. But I also think that it's not first come, first serve. I think each of these agreements will have to be negotiated. And there's a lot of paperwork that we're going to ask these tenants to provide us to make their case. And if they can't make their case, then they're I mean, we could offer them probably a more deferral, two months more deferral, but not necessarily abatement. I think they have to prove up because as you guys all just said, that, you know, this is money that we're going to we're going to be using for development and to dig ourselves out of having this dilapidated property. So I think, um, I think we would be looking at these applications pretty closely and with a lot of scrutiny.
Speaker 1: Thank you for the clarification. I'm an economist, Jodie. I say use your double take, but I mean, I did get that. I mean, we read these lease leases, those are high monthly rent. So that's what I mean about it. It is lovely to to be generous, but it has its cost. Councilmember Brody.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. 300,000 person per tenant. I mean, that is basically a blank check for almost every tenant. I mean, I just go down the list, you know, 27,000, 30,000, 38, 2013, 12 nine two, two, three, two, five, four three. I mean, those are just the the least the monthly leases. So I don't know.
Speaker 1: Would you. Councilman Brody, may I ask, would you have a capped amount for those paying rent within a certain category? Because I, I can see your point that this would be too generous for those. And I, when we were on the subcommittee and probably has been provided to the rest of the council and this kind of gave us that list of the rent, the monthly rent payments. But what would you think of having like a small, medium and large cap somewhere? I want to see what we can do without. I think the principle you're you're advancing is a is a good sound one. But is there a way that we can give staff direction without being so much in the weeds, you know, the parameters?
Speaker 4: So here's kind of what I would like to think based on my colleague's comments. If you are shut down and locked out. I mean, we said it. We should abate your rent. For the first three months or whatever until you're when you're locked out for the second three months, we should be as generous as we can with deferrals and this loan conversion. And then when staff reaches 300,000 in proposed abatements, then they come back to us.
Speaker 1: In proposed abatements statement tenant.
Speaker 4: Not deferrals abatements.
Speaker 1: No abatements but that. But even for a smaller tenant you would spend it cumulatively.
Speaker 4: Cumulatively in total total.
Speaker 1: Cumulative well which would give tenants paying a lower rent more months to have it. But the city manager has his hands up. He's going to clear this all up so we can move forward. Aren't you.
Speaker 4: Know.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure about that. I was just I was clarifying that I think Councilmember Audi was saying 300,000 among all the tenants is where he's talking about.
Speaker 4: So statements, though, not deferrals on abatements.
Speaker 3: Right. I think I think there's a little bit of a split on council. Again, I'll just recommend that we take your comments and we come back with two or three choices in June. And then I think we can synthesize it and be able to bring it back and you can have a good program moving forward.
Speaker 1: Okay. Let's hear from Councilmember Vella.
Speaker 0: So I would want to know what this means to the capital improvement projects that we have planned out at Alameda Point on our other properties. Because, again, I think that there there's a cost to this. And while I think that, you know, we need to I also think there's very few businesses that have truly been locked out to a point of being able to undo and unable to do absolutely anything. I think that there was certainly a period of time that there may have been a stall and they'd have to reconfigure how they're operating. And there are some businesses that that business completely probably dried up for them. But I don't know that that necessarily means that they were or were locked out. And I think so. I want to be conscientious of that. And I want to go back to what the budget analysis is and what gets delayed, because I also don't want to be in a position where and I've been at meetings where we've had our tenants come forward and register different complaints about infrastructure out there where, you know, where were then causing more harm to other.
Speaker 4: Businesses out there because.
Speaker 0: We're not investing in certain infrastructure things as a result of giving these abatements, especially if the business is not going to be able to be sustainable in the long term. And we're just delaying the inevitable.
Speaker 1: Good points and I do think we probably have a couple of businesses. I'm just thinking of our, um, some brewpubs that, that, that don't produce the product that they could be selling and rely on people coming in. But you're right that, that is probably more the in the minority because even the winery that was mentioned, they're still selling their wine, they still have their membership. And, you know, you go out and pick up your bottles of wine per month. Um, but so, uh, councilmember decide it just quickly.
Speaker 4: I think one way to get at the issue of not being a blank check for everybody, all those, you know, 20, $20,000 a month rent one way to not get it be a blank check to to a lot of tenants out of Alameda point or whatever properties that we own is again goes back to the question of having benchmarks for example jobs howsoever will be defined it certainly if we create a threshold that that that will deal with that another benchmark going back again is that the notion of catalyst and when I read the staff report by Catalyst, I think we're talking about basically for the most part, foot traffic generating or or a type of business that has positive collateral effects with regard to businesses immediately surrounding it. So I think that will be one way to kind of account for, you know, an attempt to not be a blank check for everybody, as Councilmember Odie is rightly, rightly concerned about. Thanks.
Speaker 1: So Council, shall we take the city manager's suggestion and submit our comments to staff for them to return in June? Or does someone feel that we're ready to actually craft a motion and move forward?
Speaker 4: I couldn't wait to June.
Speaker 1: Um, I, I, um. I think we can certainly wait till June. I want to make sure that we're helping folks who need help and not keeping them waiting too long. And we also don't want to defer too many things to June because that will come back to haunt us in its own way. Councilmember Odie, your thoughts?
Speaker 4: I was going to make a motion. Not a completely solve the problem motion, but one to give staff the authority to. I think this was requested early that for the three month abatement or three month deferral, it could be any three months. So let them have that flexibility and then also give staff the discretion to give an additional three months deferral per tenant that would be converted into a promissory note loan type arrangement. And then they could come back and, you know, further discussion on potential abatement, because I think there were some good points here that were made. But, you know, it's going to be tough for me to, like, say goodbye to money. So that would be kind of my suggestion.
Speaker 1: Okay. So to give it authority to the staff to let is take any three months off as the deferral of the the original.
Speaker 4: April, May, June. Right. Mm. Some may want to play with that.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 4: So then, for instance, if you paid April, May, June, you can get an automatic July, August, September deferral. Right. Mm. Right. Okay. Everyone should have the opportunity for those three months and then give them the discretion to defer and convert into a, uh, a promissory note up to an additional three months. And then that, that should at least keep people, you know, less worried that from now until, what, the end of September, right?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Um, and, you know, I, I, I like, I think that has a lot of merit because, again, with more time, we get a clearer picture of where, where the reopening is going, where the economy's going. Our our revenues and our, our losses. And, uh, so, I, I, I think I, I like that. Um.
Speaker 4: And then we can, I can. I'm sorry. And I mean to cut you off.
Speaker 1: And then I think it was the other way around. Sorry.
Speaker 4: You can continue the discussion on abatement, although I am inclined to do as John mentioned, you know, if you if your doors are closed, you know, I'm super sympathetic to that. Without having it like a cap.
Speaker 1: I'm okay. I see the vice mayor his hand up. Yes.
Speaker 3: Does your motion include staff coming back in June with the crew? With the proposed criteria for discussion, for for the the potential, what we're calling it conversion to grant for 50%.
Speaker 4: June or July. You know, whenever they feel they can, they can do that.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay. I would be happy to second that motion then. Okay. And I'm just going to say, I think the one thing everybody needs is some certainty so that, you know, some folks are going to need to know if they have certainty of at least if we perform certain metrics, we can do that. So with the understanding that staff is doing an incredible, incredible amount of work and an incredible job doing that work. You know, the sooner the better with no date.
Speaker 1: Okay. And I'm so when and you want this to come back to us in June or give us a few months to play out.
Speaker 3: Would be June or July.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think I saw Miss Potter and Mr. Levitt, I guess in order of hierarchy city manager.
Speaker 3: First I was just asking before you vote, could you actually restate the motion so that I understand it exactly what what the motion is?
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 4: Ed, can la read it?
Speaker 0: Well, I think.
Speaker 2: I can try to read it. I think it was you were giving staff three months deferral for any three months that they could do the staff recommendation of any three months. And then you were giving additional three months deferral with the tenants, with the promissory note involved, and then bringing back the abatement issue. And then the clarification was the criteria for the conversion to 50 cent 50% grant and then it would be in June or July and it would be better.
Speaker 4: Or 100%, you know. I'm not that far off the table for me either, because it's like I said, I think if they're if they've been locked down and locked out, you know, I think.
Speaker 0: I think.
Speaker 1: I think Councilman, morality, if we're bringing it back for discussion that we don't have to narrow the parameters of the percentages are because we're bringing it back. Okay. So we've had a motion. Do we have a second?
Speaker 3: I seconded it.
Speaker 1: Oh, you did already? Um, you're too late to send it, Mr. Love it now. Yes, Mr. Low. You have to unmute the.
Speaker 3: I just had one more question. So. So it. I'm still not clear. Does the motion include abatement plus three abatement for while they're closed down? Plus three. Plus three. Is that what it includes? Because that's the way it sounds to me.
Speaker 1: Not high. Well, you clarify. Maker of the motion. I don't think we're getting to abatement at this. Okay.
Speaker 3: So no abatement.
Speaker 1: Well, let's hear from Mr. Odie.
Speaker 4: Well, I thought we'd defer that, but it was okay.
Speaker 1: That was my understanding.
Speaker 4: The April, May, June deferral Part A is to give those that may not want April, May, June, the option to take those and any other three months and just leave it open because leave it open. And then that we would authorize you on a case by case basis to grant additional deferrals of up to another three months , that people ask them that those were converted to the promissory note. And then we would have the discussion on abatement or or a 50% conversion into grants. You know, when you thought it was appropriate in June or July.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Miss Mercado. You're muted, this kind of. Yes.
Speaker 0: So I just have a clarifying question. Or like I do, we have some leeway and flexibility and the repayment terms. Because, remember, you had mentioned before that it could go over the remainder term of the lease. However, because one of the issues that you will hear, you probably have heard is that, you know, we are deferring these three months, but then they have to pay that 1/12 of it over a well over a 12 month period of time. So do you want to give us some flexibility in negotiating the repayment terms?
Speaker 4: I'm totally I mean, not as my colleagues, I'm totally open to, you know, having a promissory note go out to the end of the lease.
Speaker 0: Well.
Speaker 1: And if I could add, I think this is where these solutions can be individualized based on a particular businesses need and circumstances. And I think that staff is in the best position to know what those might be and to carry on those negotiations. So I would certainly support giving them the flexibility to do that. I think they understand the spirit in which we're proceeding. Vice Mayor Knox White.
Speaker 3: So I would agree with that. I just want to be careful that we're not also using you know, again, we're not picking companies that we think are good companies as opposed to using their accounting, etc., and existing rent. Right. I even think the catalyst issue is very more nebulous and than we would like it to be.
Speaker 4: That's why you say end of the lease, because.
Speaker 3: You know. I agree. I like end of the losers. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. If there are no further clarifying questions, we have a motion. We have a second. We have a roll call. Vote, please.
Speaker 2: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 2: Not quite. Yes. Odie.
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 2: Mayor. As the Ashcroft. Yes. Carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: Hey.
Speaker 1: It's for counsel. And you know what, people? It is 10:00. Goodness gracious. We we haven't gotten too far into our agenda. But let's take a quick ten minute break. Is there a slow ten minute break? Vice Mayor? Not quite.
Speaker 3: Thank thank you. I appreciate the break. I did want to say, given that we have a lot of people looking and we have a lot going on, I'm wondering if we wanted to make a motion did to hear the rest of the agenda so that people know that they're not going to be sticking around for another 90 minutes only to find out their agenda is not coming up. I, I personally would be willing to commit to that, but.
Speaker 1: I would be a little more judicious about that because it's 10:00 and I would say I would be supportive of a motion that certainly any item for which we have public speakers we will hear. Um, and I think there are some things on the regular agenda that need to move forward. Um, I think like the BIA votes, but I'm not sure that we'll get all the way down to the end of the agenda because I think we still have to take a a motion as we get closer to 11:00. But certainly we're going to finish this special meeting and then launch into the regular meeting.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. So ten minute break. It's. What time is it? It's 1002. Okay. It's ten or two. We are starting up at 1015. I know that's a little bit longer, but just give you time to get into place. Okay. See you at 1015. Thanks, everybody. And you know, before you you just remind me, Laura, which are we going to hear first on this next when the commercial or the. I guess council can decide what they want to do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think the staff is going to give the presentation in two parts. So I think they'll they'll address.
Speaker 3: Oh yes. Oh I can I can answer that. Monama. This is Eric. I can answer that. Ma'am. Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: Can you.
Speaker 3: Hear me?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can hear you. Yes.
Speaker 3: There you go. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. So I can answer that.
Speaker 1: You hear.
Speaker 4: Us? Yeah, we've. I couldn't for a second, so I guess.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 3: So I've asked staff to the guy who's going to give the presentation is going to do first the commercial and then that. And then after you're done with that part, then Councilman Brody can recuse himself and Councilmember De Soto. And then. And then he'll do the residential.
Speaker 1: Okay. That sounds great. Okay. We're ready to go live. Okay. Yes, Jim.
Speaker 4: And then.
Speaker 0: We.
Speaker 4: We we have to be out of the picture during the public comment, too. Right.
Speaker 1: Um.
Speaker 4: I knew yourself.
Speaker 1: Mr. City attorney. Even even. And Matt and yourself even admit. Yes.
Speaker 4: Speaker, are you there?
Speaker 0: Yes. All right.
Speaker 3: I see, cause there's no way to segregate public comments. Clearly, my recommendation will be that the two councilmembers step off the dais or the camera for the entirety of the public comment period.
Speaker 1: You can do that.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. I see.
Speaker 1: All right. Hey, wake up, Drew. I know. Come on, people. Okay. And we, um. And before we get started, I just want to say we don't need a long winded staff report. We've read our materials, the public had access to them. So give us the cliff notes. Give us the high points. It's 1020. Okay, let's do this thing.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. This is Scott. Looks from city engineer and members of the City Council. First, can you all hear me?
Speaker 1: Yes. In fact, I'm just going to let the public know. Thank you for indulging the council. We needed to take a little break there. And so with that, we are now moving into item camp to D. And I'm going to ask the city clerk, Ms.. Weisinger, if she would introduce that item for us.
Speaker 2: Recommendation to endorse implementation of Temporary Street Reconfigurations to provide space for social distancing in response to the COVID 19 emergency.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And so, Mr. Wickstrom, our city engineer, is on the line. So does that mean you are presenting this item or is it a joint venture or how are you doing this?
Speaker 4: I am going to lead the presentation and both Andrew and Rochelle are available. Should there be questions that come up?
Speaker 1: Great. That sounds good. Okay, Mr..
Speaker 0: Wikström.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And I would like to thank, obviously, Rochelle and Andrew for helping to basically write the staff report, which is very complete and thorough. So in the interest of time, as the mayor suggested, I will be relatively brief in my comments.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Offer Commercial Tenants in City-Owned Properties a Loan Conversion and Forgiveness Assistance Program in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. (Community Development 858)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_05192020_2020-7963
|
Speaker 4: Thank you. And I would like to thank, obviously, Rochelle and Andrew for helping to basically write the staff report, which is very complete and thorough. So in the interest of time, as the mayor suggested, I will be relatively brief in my comments. I'm going to start out with a presentation on the Commercial Street component so that all members of the council can be present and then we can break off later. The Commercial Street's component was really initiated by Davos through a letter that they had sent to the city, requesting support from city staff to help out their local businesses during this COVID 19 pandemic. It's something that clearly, as we read the start of their letter, we are very much in support of their goals and their aims. Really, what they look to do is to expand the areas that are available to pedestrians and the patrons to help out the local businesses. It's also an attempt to promote the social distancing that's required in our commercial areas now and for several months that we expect into the future. It's also a way to provide a potential for outdoor dining opportunities for businesses as they come back online and have limited seating indoors. And lastly, to provide some curbside pickup. So I'm going to touch on these items three, three items. First, curbside pickup, and we'll talk a little bit about how we can do some outside outdoor dining. That, by the biggest piece, is really the potential for some lane reductions on both Park Street and Webster. Now, initially when this came forward, it was proposed by Dava. And at the time the staff report was written, WADA was not 100% sure if they wanted to support, but they have since come come on board and are also supportive and requesting a similar kind of treatment for Webster Street as well. So starting with the curbside pickup, it's really an attempt to pursue parking spaces or set aside parking spaces for quick pickup for whether you're getting to go food or whether you're doing curbside retail. And it's a really pretty simple thing for us to do. It's really a matter of almost changing out parking meter signage at select locations, allowing, for example, say, a ten minute parking so that someone can go or just loading, unloading only. We can certainly work with the business associations to kind of spot where the most opportune locations for those specific curbside pick ups would be. It's also easy and inexpensive to implement and really we're talking about changing out some signage on the parking meters. There are a couple of cons in the sense that we might be losing a little bit of parking meter revenue. I don't know. That's necessarily going to be a significant sum of money, but it is certainly something to be considered. And then lastly, you know, there's as with anytime you talk about parking in a downtown environment, there is a need to have some degree of enforcement to make sure that people don't abuse these short term timelines. So that's a relatively easy thing that can be accommodated quickly. Second thing I want to kind of jump to and talk about our parklets. It's the idea of enhancing the outdoor space to use for dining or potentially waiting to get into to restaurants or other retail areas. And the idea is really is to take over existing parking stalls and convert them to places where people can wait or congregate as they're waiting to get into a into a restaurant or a building or potentially even have dining outdoors. The advantage of using the parking space for these kind of dining opportunities is it maintains the sidewalk clear. One of the challenges, if we try to do a sidewalk dining program is that if you someone eating at the dinner table, the ability for someone to pass by that is really constraining, particularly if you have people come in different directions and it's really difficult to maintain that six foot distance. So if we're able to take the diners and put them out into the parking area, or if there's a you know, if you're waiting to get into a retail establishment at some later stage of of opening, that can also be done a little further out. So there's an advantage for that. Now, the city does have parklet guidelines that date back to 2013 and the city has participated on a. Couple of different occasions in a national event called Parking Day, where you basically convert a parking stall into a dining facility for a day. And most recently, last September, West Cafe on Webster Street did that as well. But what that shows, I think, is that these these kind of dining options can be done. They can be implemented. They can actually be done relatively inexpensively. One of the key things that we are always mindful and considerate of as we do these is we have to maintain accessibility in whatever we do. So most of time when you step off the curb, there's a six inch drop. So any of these parklets would have to have some sort of a built up platform to raise it up to the same elevation as the sidewalk. We've shown through that part of the process that there are relatively easy and inexpensive ways for businesses to do that. I think another thing that that has been requested both by Vidarbha and staff certainly supports is, you know, there may be multiple businesses that request these things and there may be multiple like overlapping uses of some of these Parklets and staff would certainly be supportive of a district wide encroachment permit such that, for example, applying for a permit for all the park, street and lava could apply for a permit for all of Webster Street. And we could use that to simplify the administrative process. And then while still being able to review each of the specific applications on a case by case basis to to see how they function and make sure they meet the accessibility requirements and anything else we need to do. So that's the second piece, and I think that's something that's because we already have a parklet policy adopted. It's just a matter of implementing that and rolling that out in a little larger and quicker fashion. I think that's the next big piece really is the idea of Hart and Webster Street Lane reductions. And the idea here is that we want to go from a roadway with four lanes of travel to a roadway with two lanes of travel. The idea that we take what is now the outside lane, the quick lane, exclusive parking and we convert that into a parking area. And what it allows is we can basically convert more, if not all of the existing parking into curbside or outdoor dining facilities that are out there waiting facilities. I will pause for a second and we'll see if this works here. On on on the zoom, Laura, can you see if you can pull up the first slide? I think sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words and see if this works here. It's.
Speaker 2: We're making that happen now.
Speaker 4: Cool. There it is. Okay.
Speaker 1: It is so and so.
Speaker 4: I'll just be brief about this slide, but this is a nice way to illustrate kind of what we're talking about where right now this is example on Webster, it's very similar kind of thing that would be applied over on Park Street. There are now four lanes on Webster and we take just the inside two lanes, the blue lanes here, and that would be retained for travel. And then what is now parking, which is the orange would be converted into an expanded sidewalk area, whether it's outdoor dining or other kind of uses. And then lastly, what was the outside lane that would become a parking parking stalls? And so maintaining obviously areas for a bus drop off. And we worked with the business associations to find out where the best pick up and drop off locations. But this is a nice, quick cluster of example of how it could be done. So and so this is good for the slide line. If you go back to what the regulation is saying, we will certainly work with both AC Transit and the fire district to make sure that they're satisfied for language. I think that if you look carefully in the reminder, show the temple and we would certainly need to have Olympic lanes to satisfy satisfy the fire requirements. You know, the other thing I'll add to the idea of a lane reduction is as part of the Park Street Signal Improvement Project that was just accepted by council a little while back, we did traffic counts on Park Street and similarly we did traffic counts on Webster Street in the past two years. And on both of those streets, the amount of traffic that we have is conducive to a lane reduction using that old data before the pandemic came through. And as everyone, it's clearly known that the traffic volumes are certainly lower now than they were last year at this time. So not only do we think because of the reduced traffic in the short term, because of the COVID 19, we also have data from last year that would suggest that doing this lane reduction is possible, is feasible with the traffic volumes that we have had. And we'd certainly expect to see in the near in the short term. Details. Obviously, there's a lot of details to make this thing work correctly. And we are kind of at this early stage here to kind of proposed the idea to council and really seek your support and recommendation to see if we should go forward and really kind of flesh out the details, developing those fast forwarding platforms, basically reshaping roads to accommodate this, making sure we can accommodate right and left turn movements at each of the intersections and even considerations about if we're moving the parking out to the street, what are we going to do about paying for parking? In terms of parking meters? Do we have adequate turnover for those parking sources? A fair amount of work that still needs to be done. But we are we're kind of bringing this forward to council to seek your input about us furthering this program going forward. I will note also for this program that if we take of it in terms of a relatively rapid deployment, this is the kind of program that we can get out in the order of a month or two. And it's certainly something that could help the businesses as they come back online and certainly could be in place through the duration of the summer all the way through, say, the end of October or even into early November, at which time we could reassess the program as we go into the winter months and potentially then look at if it is successful and supported by both the business and the community, potentially look at what next steps might be to make it more of a permanent kind of installation as well. So those those are the highlights for the commercial items. Yeah so really seeking direction from the council to move forward largely consistent with outlined in the report and we if given that direction we will certainly be working closely with both both business associations downtown the association and the business association. So with that short staff report unavailable for any question.
Speaker 1: That was sweetened to the point. Thank you, Mr. Wickstrom. Um, I suspect we have public speakers on this item, but before we get started with our public speakers, any clarifying questions for Mr. Wikström? Okay. And, madam, quick, do we have public speakers?
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Councilmember Odie. Yes, sir.
Speaker 4: Now we have to step away. Right.
Speaker 1: Um, we are discussing the commercial streets, and that's Park Street and Webster Street. And are we going to finish that discussion and then go into the residential streets, which is where you would recuse yourself? Mr. Chan, the city attorney?
Speaker 4: Yes. With the exception that I.
Speaker 3: Advised a councilmember step away during public.
Speaker 4: Comment, because it's too difficult to determine which which portion it is for.
Speaker 1: I see what you're saying. Okay. Yes, I would.
Speaker 2: Yeah. If I could get to I think members of the public might have comments on the residential portion and would want to hear the presentation first as well. So we're probably going to call them.
Speaker 1: Oh, so you.
Speaker 0: Oh.
Speaker 1: Okay. So we'll wait to hear public comment until we've heard both staff reports. So at this point, we're going to ask, well, so then we'll just excuse our two colleagues who have conflicts because they live on streets that are being contemplated in this so street discussion. And we will keep them away both for this next staff report and the public public comment period. Right. Okay. All right. So you can go tune in to your favorite TV show or something. Yes. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Okay. So then we will move on to the. And I don't think there were any clarifying questions on Mr. Exchange Report. So then who are Mr. Wikström? Are you also presenting on the streets?
Speaker 4: Yes, I am.
Speaker 1: All right. The floor is yours.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you again. The mayor and members of the council again present in the second half of this presentation about the residential component of the low streets. This is a program that was launched on April 29th as a pilot program, really looking at two streets. We started at Pacific Avenue, running from Oak Street to Grand Street and Rosales from central to Fern Side. Initially, we started out with a relatively limited number of barricades that effectively closed the streets to through traffic and allowed local residents to go into those streets to get to their houses and also any deliveries or services that needed to be done there. So the streets were initially selected with help from the Transportation Planning Department, really looking at the notion that they are bicycle boulevards. In our existing bike masterplan. We also looked at them, you know, geographically being on the east end of the side of the city, because we are recognizing that there is the James Park Open Space Trail and also the cat ramp trails along shoreline to get a little bit of geographic diversity about where these streets would be. Now, the intention and the goal for these is to really provide additional space for residents who, due to shelter in place requirements, are not doing their normal activities, spend a lot more time in their house and sometimes feeling cooped up. Want to get out and get a little bit of exercise, get a bit of fresh air. Yet there is the challenge then of potential for social distancing when there's multiple people on the sidewalks. So the goal was really to kind of create a space for these activities to occur and allow pedestrians and bikes increased use of the streets. And really the rationale or the way of doing that is to close the streets to through traffic. As I said when I started, this has been out since April 29th. We have had a part of the city web page that's been open with a survey that has generated a fair number of responses during during that time. And as of I think it was yesterday, there were 467 survey responses, and the vast majority of people, 75%, are in favor and are in support of these these slow streets as they have been deployed. There's the smaller communities that are 20% that are not in favor. And the concerns ranged from people not wearing masks or people walking out in the street and just a concern for some safety around that. That's one component. The other piece I want to kind of bring forward is a piece about traffic counts. Now, we did a informal survey. It's not super detailed, but we did do that for a one hour period on Thursday afternoon, several weeks apart. The first was in April 24th, just before the pilot program went into place. And then we repeated that survey again last week on Thursday. And on Pacific Avenue, if you combine both the pedestrians and the bikes, there was a 130% increase in the number of kids in bikes during that one hour period. At the same point, there was a 50% decrease in automobiles. So you can make a statement that the the the closures just through traffic are having their intended effects. Similarly on resales had bikes increased by 54% and the autos actually decreased by 77%. So, you know, in both cases there's been I'll say it's met its intended use. I will kind of kind of move a step. And I think many of you may know that I've had some my personally I city engineer have had some reservations about the program and it really relates around the idea that objectively having fewer cars on the road creates a safer situation, but it doesn't necessarily create a safe situation. And I'll do it by way of comparison to a couple other programs that the city does and how a couple other cities throughout the country are implementing this program. You know, first of all, where we do like a block party that occasionally residents will apply for it and hold during the summertime, streets are fully closed to traffic such that there's no vehicles going up and down and so that pedestrians can roam around the street safely and not have to think about or even consider the idea that there's potentially going to be a car on the road. And if we also look to how some other cities like New York has implemented their what they call their Open Streets program, they basically have it open or physically closed to vehicular traffic from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., subject to. NYPD staffing. And in all the photos that I've seen, there's always a uniformed police officer at one of the barricades to physically, if a delivery or emergency vehicle has to occur or come through to it to allow that vehicle to pass. San Francisco made some waves recently. They've closed off the great highway. They closed off JFK in Golden Gate Park and also at Twin, I think it's Twin Peaks Boulevard going up to the top hill. The advantage that San Francisco has in those particular cases is there are no residents that live or front directly on those streets and take access, are easier to do, physically closes off and there's alternate pathways for them. Now that's in comparison to, I think, what our neighboring city, Oakland, has done. And we are largely following the Oakland model of closing the streets to through traffic. And while it does again provide an improvement in safety, it does not fully, if you will, provide a complete and safe environment for the public is one of the considerations I have about how far and how fast we might want to go and how long we might run this program here. So a couple other things to keep in mind is barricades tend to wander when left on their own, I should say. It's actually residents tend to move these things around to their to their liking, to in their probably their opinion, more properly and fully close the road. And it does take a fair amount of staff time and effort to, on a regular basis, reset them to the proper locations. And should we expand this program further? Right now, that work has been doing in-house. But if we expand the program further, it would probably be warranted for us to hire an outside vendor to kind of be in the position to kind of reset those barricades on a regular basis. That is exactly what the queen is doing as well, to have an outside vendor that's coming through and having those things through. So that's kind of the brief version of the staff report. I think the question before the council is whether you endorse the program, whether you feel comfortable that we would extend this program through the shelter in place as kind of outlined in the staff report. And I think what it may lead to at some point is a a longer term discussion potentially about if this is really supported by the public and there's a desire to expand this program beyond the shelter in place orders, would it be appropriate to incorporate this into the active transportation program as a mechanism that we might look at for a more permanent or more durable type solution? I suggest the active transportation program largely because, you know, as I said about the Pacific, the number of vehicles going down and the number of vehicles going down, those are both the both those counts are taken after the quote or after the shelter in place orders went in. So what that really represents is a diversion of traffic off of those streets, onto adjoining streets. And to do that, if we want to make this more permanent, it really rightly should be done as a more community based conversation through and including the Transportation Commission and I think the Active Transportation Functions Program be an appropriate venue for that. So with that, I'm available for any questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Wickstrom, and good job of giving that brief. And thank you to the staff. I know we have Andrew Thomas and Rochelle Wheeler who have worked hard on these programs. So thank you both. So any clarifying questions before we go to our public comment? Vice mayor next week.
Speaker 3: I have just a couple and I will start with my my thanks to staff for not only putting together a really great program and presentation, but doing it very quickly. I know that they they worked really hard to get it here tonight. Looking at the map that's in the staff report, it looks like the current program is does not have signs that every is at every intersection is the goal to put signage at every intersection or is the are we doing that? As we move forward, I know that we started with fewer and there have been more and more, which is great.
Speaker 4: Sure, I'll I'll answer that briefly. We started off when we put the program into place, we had the ability within our maintenance department to do I think it was nine installations and we installed seven them on the first day. We then then created basically a work order for staff or for the maintenance department to create additional road close to through traffic and additional pedestrian warning signs. We at this point have 20 total installations available, and I believe we have I think 14 of them installed right now are deployed right now. The rest of them are being held back to see if we would move forward to phase two. We are going to be in a position to deploy those by late this week or early next week. Part of it comes down to just the capacity to create the signage and to then get them set out there. The intention was not to do every single intersection, but the intention was to to really get to the primary intersections. And if the program would go on further, we could get staff back some of those in with the lesser traveled or lower volume cross streets.
Speaker 1: And is that off?
Speaker 3: You know, that speaking more muted.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Yeah. Never a good.
Speaker 3: Thing. No. Okay. So it during the pilot. Well, it's been up. Have we had a chance to determine whether we feel it is safer with or without signage and whether there whether we think having signage at the intersection is safer? I know. I know. We're not going to say it is safe.
Speaker 4: So what are the early some of the early survey results? And a lot of the initial feedback we got when we started, when we first deployed on April 29th, was at that point, we did not have enough sufficient science to do some of the intermediate cross streets. And there was a fair amount of complaints that people would be coming down with, say, sales. They would come down on Santa Clara and make a right turn or make a left turn. And what we've done is we believe it was deployed on the 11th of May. We deployed additional barricades and additional signage to start blocking off or closing off to through traffic of those streets as well. So it's now on Santa Clara, also on point of Vista and then of Park. We added both Chestnut and Willow to or just out one or two little that was already closed off. We could add additional signage, but that is what we're somewhat limited by is, you know, the MSI is ability to our maintenance departments, ability to create signage and to the extent of, you know, we could go out and do a whole bunch of signage, but we're not really 100% sure about how long this program is going to last and how much effort we're going to put into it. So, yes, more signage does make it safer, but there is there are some limits that we're kind of as we're feeling our way through this this pilot program about how far we want to go in, also keeping in conjunction how long this program may be in effect as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilmember Vella, did you have your hand up for a clarifying question or you were just. Yes, Councilmember Vella.
Speaker 0: I do know that it was noted in the staff report about the barricades and the issues with the barricades. And I guess following up on some of the breaking news questions, I'm just wondering, I know that there's a resource issue. I also know that there's a statement about the people moving them. But I am a little worried because on on some of those through streets, there have been issues. Have we had any reports of near-misses or anything like that or other traffic safety issues that have happened since we implemented this?
Speaker 4: I have not heard anything directly. And I might ask Rachelle, who I think probably looked at some of the survey that a little more closely. If I if if you if you've heard anything.
Speaker 1: Wheeler have. Yes.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mayor and council members. Rochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator. So in some of the survey responses, people have said that there are cars that are coming speeding down the road and there's there's obviously like worry about that. I can't recall that there are people who said that they were almost hit and we're not aware of any reported collision happened on this closed streets during Q during this program.
Speaker 1: Okay. Anything further? Um. Okay. And I take it we have some public speakers on this item, Madam Clerk?
Speaker 2: Yes, I. I have public comment to read in the record, and we also have a number of attendees. And so but I'm afraid the public speakers are going to take us past 11 and we would need for council members to do the 11:00 vote. So I am thinking maybe we want to pause and ask council members Otis and Jason Song to come back and take care of the 11:00 vote before we get into the public speakers, if that's okay with everybody.
Speaker 1: I think we have an address. Okay. Can you. Can you do that?
Speaker 2: Yes. We're getting councilmember disorganized. Have texted Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 1: Okay. Perfect.
Speaker 2: Getting him to come back.
Speaker 0: So.
Speaker 1: Okay. And so we are. But will get them back. Hi.
Speaker 2: There we go. We need.
Speaker 0: It.
Speaker 2: Jason.
Speaker 1: We need. Yeah, we need to vote to go past 11:00. And so that's where we needed a majority of four to do so.
Speaker 2: So the remaining items, if you if the whole entire consent calendar. And then, of course, we have a six, a, B and C on the regular agenda and 9aa referral.
Speaker 1: And I will just say that I, um. I definitely. Want to get us to the the regular items. I think A, B and C are very important and I don't think six and six B are going to be very long. I think we have a little more time on this one. But council, it's almost 11, so we agree to either hear certain items or go until a certain time. And I know we're going to try to move things along as as expeditiously as possible. So. Yeah. And, you know, if I had to make a time estimate of how much longer on this one. Oh, I'm not sure. Councilmember Rudy, what were you going to move?
Speaker 4: Well, I was going to move if we hear the remaining items. And not to put a time limit on it, but. I mean, I don't know how many speakers we have on any of them.
Speaker 1: Well, I would imagine we have a number on this. When I add that's a suggestion and I do take all your suggestions seriously, I would like to suggest that we finish up this item, then move to the regular agenda, including the consent calendar and item six, A, B and C. Price may not quite. I'm not hearing you.
Speaker 3: Sorry. I forgot the push button again. I was going to I was going to second Councilmember Ortiz recommendation. I would just say the only the consent counter and a, B and C, I think if we just. My guess is looking at the referral, this is a very quick, not long discussion. So I would be inclined to just finish it all off with a commitment from myself to keep it short.
Speaker 1: I am not willing to go past midnight. That's just me. I don't think.
Speaker 0: A question.
Speaker 1: There is a fair to the public. If we could make a motion that we. To the balance of this agenda and finish by midnight. I would go for that because I think it kind of keeps us on our toes. And I'm going to ask for brief staff reports on everything. Coming forward.
Speaker 4: Or do we have a motion in the second or third?
Speaker 3: That would be my goal.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG, we haven't heard from you.
Speaker 4: I'm fine with doing the agenda and finishing up until 12, largely because I think, you know, there are several there are issues about this years, several years ago. And and I think it's a good point that, you know, is the public served up by us making decisions at 1215.
Speaker 1: And keeping them out past midnight.
Speaker 0: To. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: So I'm not.
Speaker 4: Out there at home.
Speaker 1: But they're not they're not fast asleep or maybe we put him to sleep. Okay.
Speaker 4: And Eric and.
Speaker 1: I would say it sounds like you've got support from two council members to get this done by midnight.
Speaker 4: But when that.
Speaker 1: Happens on the.
Speaker 4: Right, you know, if we're in the middle of the referral and we only need five more minutes, I don't mind going over, but I'll, I'll do my best to talk briefly.
Speaker 1: Okay. I won't support a motion unless we end at midnight. We're ending at midnight.
Speaker 4: Sure. And fair.
Speaker 1: Here. What's the motion?
Speaker 4: Let's cut our time from 9 minutes to 3 minutes then.
Speaker 1: Hmm. I think on this particular item, we need more than 3 minutes.
Speaker 3: I would like. As long as there's a commitment to finish six C, I am fine to say midnight. But if it's midnight and we're done with 60, my expectation is we're going to finish 60. We asked the council, we asked the respondents and the staff to make sure that they made this the agenda. We pushed them really hard. That's my biggest issue.
Speaker 1: And maybe we put 60 next on the item, although I have a commitment from staff that six and we are going to go quickly. Councilmember Bell, I see your hand up.
Speaker 0: So my referral was just going to come up. It's been in Council Communications which got cut off at a previous meeting and it is timely. So I don't want to just keep pushing it forward. It's. It should be fairly short.
Speaker 1: To get a motion that we end by midnight.
Speaker 4: Well, I move items, talk quickly. I finish by midnight. Anything we don't finish, we continue to tomorrow. 7:00. Continuation meeting.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: It's not that.
Speaker 1: Okay. Surrounding by midnight or sooner. Okay. So we have a motion by Councilmember o.T. Second, by the vice mayor mean we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 2: Yes. And I will just clarify. That means if you're still in part of your continue, if you're still discussing, say, item six or six or one of those items, you would still stop the discussion at midnight and then that would continue to tomorrow night. Right. Just to clarify that, that's what the motion is. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Vote or vote to overrule.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: Okay. And then so Councilmember de SAG. Yes. Not quite.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 2: Yes. At mayor as Ashcraft.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. We'll excuse you again.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: Sorry we had to bring you back. Okay, finish second. We'll start with our public comment. Let's skip Mr. De Sack one minute there. All right.
Speaker 2: Okay. So. Okay. For the attendees who are on the Zoom call, if you could please raise your hand now if you would like to speak on this item. Okay. And also, in addition, there's members of Dabbagh who are in the on the attendee as attendees, and they said they could answer any questions. If you get to the portion of the business district and have questions for them, they wanted you to know that. So it looks like we have only one who wants to speak on Zoom, but then I have six comments to read, so that is a total of seven and does reduce the time to 2 minutes.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's take our person who's live first and then 2 minutes to each comment.
Speaker 4: And the first speaker is Robert Del Rosario.
Speaker 1: Oh, hello, Mr. Del Rosario. Oh, Mr. Del Rosario. Yeah. And I welcome.
Speaker 4: Good evening, everyone. Robert Salazar, director of Service Development and Planning. We also submitted a letter.
Speaker 1: From AC Transit. Perhaps?
Speaker 4: Yes, from each other. That is correct. We did submit a letter to the city council commenting on this item. So that doesn't need to be read in the record since I'm going.
Speaker 3: To provide the same.
Speaker 4: Talking points. So AC Charter does acknowledge that there is a strong tie between strong commercial districts and strong public transit and vice versa. We therefore support the city's proposal for commercial slow streets that promote social distancing and economic development as businesses begin to open in this environment. As you're probably aware, Avicenna does still operate service during these times. We're carrying the most vulnerable in our communities and those that have no other transportation options to make their essential trips, whether it's for work, health care or groceries. With that said, we hope that the city treats all forms of alternate transportation modes equitably through the Slow Streets projects, proper street streetscape treatments for Haiti. Transit busses are measured, in my opinion, by three goals. One is safety. Two is accessibility. And three is operational performance, which is essentially the speed and reliability of the bus and the schedules. So we had to coordinate with the city staff to monitor operational performance and introduce any mitigations as we need to or even reopen travel. And should trains have been negatively impacted or delayed by these projects on Western Park for ensuring safety and accessibility? We're requesting that the city pay particular attention to the treatment of bus stops under the project. The bus that's become a potential point of conflict between busses pulling to the curb and either pedestrians and cyclists entering exiting the proposed expanded mobility zones on a given block, depending on what the uses of those mobility zones will be. So therefore, our HS2 request installation of temporary bus walls or boarding islands to avoid a potential conflict, to maintain safe transit access for riders while providing a safe path of travel for cyclists, pedestrians and other users. This treatment also helps keep the busses moving so that they're not ducking in to traffic to serve riders, which is particularly important in the single lane. If I could just wrap up residential streets, we don't want to have them close down fixed route and we also want to maintain paratransit access. So I thank you for allowing me time to speak and I'm happy to further coordinate with the city on this effort.
Speaker 2: Yeah. You're muted in there. Okay.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Thank you, Mrs. Reisinger. And. And thank you, Mr. Del Rosario. And that's going to our written comments. Okay.
Speaker 2: The next one is from Ingrid Baumann from Alameda. I've been an Alameda resident for 15 years, living on Broadway, and for 15 years I have only lived on two major and problematic thoroughfares of Alameda. I have would have very much preferred living on a quiet street where kids play basketball and can ride their bikes safely. I'm a pedestrian. I ride a bike and take public transit whenever possible. Through many well-crafted plans, I've seen Alameda rooms become much safer than when I first moved to Alameda. These improvements done by the Transportation Commission and advocacy groups need to be fully acknowledge and appreciated regarding the Slow Streets and Commercial Street Plan. However, I have some concerns. I came upon this plan as a friend, sent it to me to sign the petition in favor of slow streets. I would not have heard of it otherwise. I have since tried to read over the plan and feel quite overwhelmed at trying to make sense of it. It seems that the implementation of the plan will be largely up to the evaluation of the plan itself and the response from the community. But through which channels? Who do we expect will chime in on this? Right now, our community is coping with an unprecedented situation. Families are working from homes while homeschooling children. Many people are taking a risk every time they go to work. Many people have lost their jobs. No one is left untouched. Let's face it right now, the people who can educate themselves about community initiatives read about it at length and chime in at city meetings, are the only people who have the luxury to do so at this time. It is a luxury to be able to focus on large, sweeping plan to reshape almeida's urban fabric and come to the table to share enthusiasm or concern. It's unlikely that anyone who recently lost a job or income has to homeschool children or care for sick family members will have any bandwidth left to speak at council meetings in that sense, because this moment makes being an entire community input challenging. The input is likely to be lopsided. The program is trying to accomplish some ambitious and remarkable goals. Making access to our local businesses easier during social distancing is a fantastic goal and we should all support it. Trying to make our streets safer is an urgency for Alameda. Increasing use of public transit is essential to reducing our carbon footprint. What the. And she had many further comments. The next one is Cindy Johnson. I support Slow Streets and hope you do too. Despite the pilot being limited in a number of ways, I've been grateful for the program and know that expanding it will make it better. When I was young, our neighborhood streets were slow streets in the sense that cars drove slowly, expecting kids to be playing there. We spent hours in the streets biking, rollerskating, skateboarding, playing dodgeball, even pogo sticking. We didn't have scheduled activities and our parents didn't spend hours driving us around to get to them. I didn't think it was special then, but now I know it was. The Slow Street pilot program has been a sliver of flashback in that sense. Occurs to me that even post-pandemic, we could benefit greatly from dramatically slowing cars down on all neighborhood streets and treating our streets more as shared assets for people of all ages, not just for the exclusive use of cars. Regarding commercial district, my heart goes out to the local merchants that are under tremendous strain right now. I'm eager to support them with my business and hope we can implement strategies that allow them to open without endangering the health of customers and staff. I live about ten blocks from Webster and have been there a few times recently on my bike to pick up food and felt cramped on the sidewalk by other customers waiting. It wasn't that it was crowded, but with others walking by, especially in small clusters or with dogs, the distance can easily get eaten up. So I am encouraged that there are initiatives afoot to create more space for people by claiming road space. Taking a lane from car traffic and moving parking out is one good option. I would feel more comfortable shopping in an establishment if I can stay in front of the store while I wait while also maintaining six feet of distance from others. If it is a safe, comfortable and inviting space, I may even want to stay a while and dine when that's possible, but that would require significantly more outdoor space and more street charm. The European model of pedestrian street and large court outdoor dining areas in front of restaurants may be worth considering. The natural temptation will be to make it easy for people to drive cars and pick up purchases. But a drive through district. She also intentional comment.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 2: Next, Pat Potter. Wow. Who would have thought six months ago that you all would have an opportunity to turn Park and Webster streets into world class spaces? With your vision, Alameda will be ranked up there with the best European pedestrian plazas. We just have to make people our priority. Visualize this. There is a beautiful plaza between Central and Alameda Avenue with seating for dining stalls, for shopping and art exhibits. This plaza becomes a musical and outdoor movie venue as well. Once COVID 19 is controlled, walking and biking is encouraged when coming downtown and the parking garage is a place to park. If you are not able to ride or walk, the sidewalks on Webster Street are expanded and the business owned parking lot such as US Banks and Mountain Mike's our reason for parking for anyone who can't walk or ride a bike. But biking and walking is always prioritized along the street to create the best shopping and dining experience. To really make our business communities fun, relaxing and inspiring places, we have to envision them as places where we can stroll, shop and dine, not the places they are now, where people rush in and out of the area in their cars. We want people to see Park and Webster as places they can bring the family on a summer afternoon or see friends and enjoy. Our wonderful business community has to offer. And next is Denise Trapani.
Speaker 1: It.
Speaker 2: Yes. Start by thanking staff for all the work they've done so far on the Slow Streets program and thank you staff and council for your science and fact based leadership. I've never been prouder to be an Alameda and the existing slow streets though a bit out of the way for me have been wonderful. I'm fortunate enough to still be working from home, but the uncertainty that I and so many others are facing is difficult. Having the opportunity to safely go for a walk in the evenings down Pacific has been sanity saving, I remarked. I'm reminded of my youth when we were expected to go play in the street until dinner and it wasn't a death wish. It's so wonderful to see parents teaching their kids to ride bikes or children chalking up the streets for hopscotch and foursquare. It seems like everything might be okay. I want to ask you to please not only approve staff's recommendation to expand the Slow Streets project, but also consider adding pieces reminding folks who should be prioritized on the streets. Some drivers may still be surprised to see people outside of cars on the streets. I'm also very grateful for DARPA's support for reconfiguring Park Street to better support shoppers and diners. With today's further loosening of restrictions allowing for retail curbside pickup, I would like us to consider reconfiguring our street space and our business districts to allow for safe, separated bike infrastructure on both Park and Webster in order to facilitate car access to these business corridors. I believe this should be a priority over personal parking while there's a parking lot one block from Webster Street. We don't we still don't have any way for people to bike safely on Park or Webster. There are many recent and local studies that prove that decreasing car infrastructure and supporting biking and walking is good for business. Please, if you're going to do the work and reconfigure our streets, please don't continue to allow for on street parking while not doing anything to provide a safe place to bike. Thank you again for your thoughtful consent.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next.
Speaker 0: Lara.
Speaker 2: Yes. Olaf, Scotland. Sorry. Olaf Fallon, who's an Alameda resident. I recently saw an article about Berkeley closing some streets to allow restaurants to use sidewalk space or lanes for outdoor seating. This will allow many to serve the same number of patrons at once as they did before the pandemic struck. As I'm sure you know, the restaurant business is very episodic. There are busy times a day and quiet or dead times of day. When we get to the point where anything other than takeout is safe, barriers and testing requirements that limit a restaurant to half or less of its normal capacity will cut their revenue in half or less. The business will not spread out significantly. As a result, many restaurants will be unable to cover their expenses and will be forced to close permanently. Most restaurants operate on the very edge of profitability. In addition, allowing outdoor dining will simply be safer. Sunlight decimates viruses and destroys them. The large volume of space and air any shed virus spread into it will reduce the amount of individual. An individual comes into contact with end points of concentration, such as air conditioning units will be removed from the system. Similarly, most shops are small, intentionally to minimize rent and expenses. With few people in stores, revenues will be drastically reduced. Surely we can make this happen for our fine city. My wife and I moved to Alameda over 20 years ago for the sense of community we feel here and the local restaurants and shops are an enormous part of that. Please do everything in your power to help the city find creative ways to allow our restaurants and stores to open without endangering the health of our loved ones. Closing streets and lanes would be an excellent start.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: And next, the last one. Unless I think you just make sure. Oh. Okay. Yes. Last one is driven straight lo alameda resident. Temporary street reconfigurations involve reusing traffic lanes and parking spaces. The following is regarding the section Commercial Streets, Park and Webster. There is a proposal later tonight to remove 23 parking spaces that Central Avenue businesses and neighborhoods needs. Without those Central Avenue parking spaces, the existing parking spaces on Webster Street near Central Avenue become more necessary for the neighborhood. That is one of the reasons why it is extremely difficult for Webster Street businesses to in mass easily convert parking spaces to restaurant use to provide space for social distancing. Park Street, Oakland's Jack Glennon Square, and San Francisco's Market Street have parking structures. Webster Street does not. Individual businesses. Businesses should have permission during a limited COVID 19 emergency time frame to implement some street side expansion. But the city needs a plan for a Webster Street parking structure solution. Remember, outdoor temperature, fog, rain, wind and street lighting are factors that a normal indoor restaurant does not normally need to consider for its restaurant service. Such weather factors extremely limit the number of hours they can actually be used. For example, 6 hours successfully for outdoor dining. Most streets are designated for 24 hour vehicle use, and in particular, their use is for emergency evacuation, which is the daily basic public safety need for most of us in Alameda. Separately, I dislike the city's partial closing of First Avenue without advance public discussion. And that's the last speaker.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. And there are no further public speakers with their hands up, correct?
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. So with that, I will close public comment and I see. Miss Wheeler, shall we? There you have your hand up. I do.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I wanted to just if I could just amend a comment I made earlier in response to Councilmember Miller's question about near misses. So I was I was looking at the data again on that. We've gotten through the survey in the service request. And there there there was a recent report on Pacific at Schiller of someone who said that there that their child had almost been hit by a speeding car, their child on a bike. And and that is one of the intersections without a barricade. And so they were requesting the barricade there.
Speaker 1: Uh, thank you for amending. That's your comment. I appreciate that. All right. So, um, let's see. We've got two, three councilmembers. And so the, um, the items before us, we've. We've heard and the recommendations. So let's see, we should discuss the, um, the residential streets because that's the, the items that our colleagues were excused from. And so let's get that done, and then we will bring them back in because that time keeps marching on. So who wants to lead that discussion? Vice Mayor Next slide. How about you?
Speaker 4: Sure.
Speaker 3: Yes. Um, the video seem to make that clear. Thank you very much. I want to I want to thank again thank staff for all of the incredible work. I want to give my my strong appreciation for the network map that was that is included in the the packet. It shows some thought about developing this program into something that can really sustain what I would say is help to sustain and support that that part of this discussion, the business part of this discussion later that we will be having. You know, I appreciate the kind of how we have piloted this, that we've learned a lot of things. And, um, and I appreciate the acknowledgment, although I think it was said is it possibly is a point of concern, but that actually these slower streets are safer. They may not be 100% safe, but they are safer than what we have. And this morning, as as we on the council know, we had yet another pedestrian hit at a properly designed intersection at Constitution and Buena Vista. We know that the streets we have right now are not overly hospitable to people walking and biking. And so I'm excited to see this program when we're trying to encourage people to get out and exercise and actually keep their distance from each other, expanding and finding ways to reuse our public space adequately. For for me, I want to you know, I think there needs to be signage at every intersection. Well, I heard that we don't have it all right now and that we have to take some time to to create this. I think that should be a priority as as a as a part of this program, is to just continue to to roll that out. Because we did hear that where they've looked at it, signage is better than no signage and barricades, etc.. I'd like to make the clarification and it's one I've made it to council meetings already. I don't see this as a shelter in place program. This is a social distancing program. We're rolling it out. There's a shelter in place because we have the time to do that. And and we can spend some time thinking. But this is you know, we are going to be sheltering in place at least through the end of this year. They're not sheltering in place. Sorry, socially distancing. And part of the socially distancing is going to be don't travel too much, you know, keep your distance, etc.. And so the the staff report talks about, you know, we don't know if this will be around for a couple of months. We know that this program is going to be needed in around through at least the end of 2020 and probably very possibly into 2021. The good thing about the kind of the temporary way in which we're doing this is if that is a gloomy projection and things clear up or easier, we can always we can always take it down or decide what how to move forward earlier as necessary. Other than that, I, I just like I said, I think it's I think we have a great network. I would like to see it move forward as fast as possible. Most of my other comments are about the the second part of this conversation. So that was it. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: To Staff Council member Vella. How about you? Admit that.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I think, you know, I echo a lot of both mayors comment. I think we need to add more signage. I think we need to add more barricades, especially where we know we have near-misses potentially that have occurred. I think we need to stay on top of that and make this a state of design as possible. I also worry just because I think their normal methods of getting information out, like people at the coffee shop and things like that are limited right now that unless we have the whole street blocked off, like all of our sales, all of specific, then people just don't know about it. And they're, they're learning about it after the factories they drive through or as they pass by. So I just think the signage is absolutely critical and we need to do better on that and also do better on the barricades, especially for streets that we know people use as a cut through to pass pass through those areas. I notice on, for instance, on beer sales, there's there was almost like nothing there right around Addison school and that that makes me very nervous just because that's a place that draws a lot of kind of foot in bike traffic going through. So I just wanted to, to try to make this a safer design as possible. I do think we're going to be doing this for quite some time. It's not just about social distancing. It's about the fact that we also have a lot more people that are going to be working from home or doing remote learning for adults for the fall police to the end of the year. And they need places to go and be active and to do it in a way that is not going to overcrowd certain areas. So it's both of these factors together that I think we need to take into account. And I think we should just plan on having there at least through the end of 2020, if not longer.
Speaker 1: So I would say that I am very fond of this program. I, I regret that it brought up very fast in residents for not notified in advance until they saw the barricades going up. And I got a few emails that were people who were upset when I emailed back and said, I hope you understand that at this point in time our staff is stretched very thin and so some things didn't get done. I got really nice responses back. Now we understand this is a good program, but I do think for a number of ways, you know, this was brought about by an unfortunate incident, the COVID 19 pandemic. But as I have said often since we learned about all this new, new normal, there's always silver linings to every cloud. And and for me and for my husband, we try to get out every evening before it gets dark and take a walk on the weekends with active writer bikes around. And I'm seeing people out and people waving and chatting from a distance with people, even people they don't know. And I think this is this is part of what makes community. I do think that the way to go about it, though, is to expand it with time, but under the auspices of the transportation the active transportation plan , because then we have the ability to get that community input, which is which is important, because.
Speaker 0: That's.
Speaker 1: Just to say that, you know, you divert traffic from one street and it heads to another. But I also know just anecdotally from the walking, try to do a, you know, a walk to the west end of the city on one Friday night to pick up dinner in the east and the other. And it's really fun because you talk to people in their yards. And so we were walking back from Webster Street one night, a couple of Friday night, to go down Haight Street and set to talk to some people. And and somebody recognized me even behind my mask as the mayor. How do we get our street history to be one of the slow streets? And I said, well, you could ask the mayor, you know, email me at my at city hall. And so I will say and I said, you know, if if your neighbors really feel this way, have them email. And I promise I talked to our city engineer on the phone earlier and I said, I've got a bunch of emails to forward you. I am hearing from the street neighbors, eighth Avenue, maybe.
Speaker 0: Your street.
Speaker 1: Whatever it is that they're interested, too. So people, you know, residents like that, you slow things down. It's just it's healthy, it's good. But we want to do it properly. So as long as this shelter in place and we still are sheltering in place, even though we've opened up to early stage two and we've opened up curbside retail manufacturing, we still the public health officer says you stay at home as much as you can and just go out for those essential activities. But exercise is one of them and it's healthy. So we'll be doing this for a while. But then that also gives our Transportation Commission and whoever I will be overseeing this the time to work this into the active transportation plan. And then I think we all have to be cognizant as councilmembers to that. We are spreading staff very thin. So if we want to get these things done and done in permanent fashion, then I'll have to figure out a way to to manage that time. Um, so I would say, um. I think I've heard a lot of kind of. And the other thing I'll just throw in is that I have heard on a couple of occasions now from Ellen Corbitt, who is ah, she's at the U.S. Regional Parks District Board member whose district includes Alameda County Beach and Crab Cove. She has asked all the mayors of Alameda County to please do things, and I love it. At the mayor's conference last week, she held up Oakland and Alameda as examples of please close some of your public streets where you can to give people more space to spread out and recreate, walk and ride their bikes to take the pressure off our district parks the beach, because in some areas of the county and other counties, they've actually had to close these big regional parks, district parks, because people were just coming out in huge numbers and not doing things safely. That has not been the case in Alameda, but we are kind of bursting at the seams. So I'm glad we're looking at expanding this. I always want to see geographical equity. And I, I think this is an important program to move forward. So to move this forward, we need a unanimous vote. So, um. Who wants to craft that motion? Vice mayor.
Speaker 3: So I'm assuming a good dove. Councilmember Vella was raising her hand like.
Speaker 1: I couldn't tell either. Councilman Rivera, did you want to make the motion like she did?
Speaker 0: No, I didn't.
Speaker 1: I can read that live. Read one's elbow. Yes. Okay. No.
Speaker 3: All right. I so I would like to move that. We endorse the temporary street reconfiguration to prevent space for social distancing in response to COVID 19 emergency with with clarification that this is during social distancing and not just shelter in place and with endorsement of moving forward with the in the in the spirit of of Mr. Corbett's request of expanding this program on a temporary basis as we work through the active transportation program to identify how to address it on a more permanent basis in the future.
Speaker 1: Okay. Um, and do I have a second? Michelle Ellis.
Speaker 0: I can.
Speaker 1: We have a second? May we have a roll call? Vote, please.
Speaker 2: Council member Our Vice Mayor. Not quite. I remember Bella.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Mayor. As the Ashcroft.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Let's bring those colleagues back in and talk about the commercial streets portion of this.
Speaker 2: We're getting them now. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Welcome back, gentlemen. Okay. Now we are going to discuss the covered commercial streets has kind of a dark side sound to it, but they this, you know, opening up the the commercial streets Park Street, Webster Street. We had a nice staff report by the city engineer, a council discussion motion. It's almost 1130. Who wants to start? Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 4: I'll go fast, hopefully in fewer than four and a half minutes year for half of it. I think we got to go big on this for a number of reasons. One, other places are going to do this. I saw where Berkeley is thinking of doing this over at Oakland, maybe doing this in other cities. And our residents that are going to want to go out to eat are going to have that ability, are going to go. And if we don't give them the opportunity to do that safely here, they will go somewhere else. So I think just for that share equal a level playing field for our residents and our shop owners that we need to do this. I tweeted something last week. I thought, you know, every Friday and Saturday night we need to close park from Winter Vista down to San Jose and close Webster from Bonita Vista down to central and parking lots across the city where we have restaurants like South Shore and Alameda Landing and others. So I mean, that's my go big and go bold. And then thankfully, I was recused from the last discussion. And what popped up in my Facebook feed while I was checking the Internet was that the California ABC Alcohol Beverage and Control just released an update regulation that would allow restaurants and bars to serve customers on sidewalks, parking lots and street. So this is something that's going to happen. And I don't want Alameda to miss out on it. I don't want our restaurants to miss out and I don't want our residents to miss out and I don't want our shopkeepers to miss out on it. The only concern I have with only shutting down two lanes is I don't know anyone who's ever eaten with exhaust next to you, but it's not a very pleasant thing to do. And we're going to need a lot of space for people to walk and be distant from each other. So I say go big. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilmember de thug a great.
Speaker 4: You know. Can you hear me? Hopefully you.
Speaker 1: Can. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Judging by the emails we are receiving, this is something that residents are incredibly enthusiastic about. So I think definitely we should get behind this. They'll definitely help out many of our businesses in our commercial areas. The one thing that I would certainly encourage when it comes to Park Street is I do like the idea of closing off of the side streets like the portion of Alameda Avenue between Oak and Park Street, but also north of north of Santa Clara Avenue. We might want to take a look at closing off a portion of Everett Street between a portion of Webb. Yeah. A portion of Webb Avenue between Everett Street and Park Street. So that's something to think about. But this certainly, you know, it will certainly rejuvenate our commercial areas, making them what sociologists call a third space, a place where people come together and in times like this, obviously in a socially distant, safe manner, obviously. This is something that I think not just businesses, but residents will look forward to.
Speaker 1: Mike, thank you. Thank you. Casimir Vella.
Speaker 0: So, you know, one thing that I would like to add and somewhere along the lines of what Councilman Brody said, is that we have several street fairs scheduled typically during the summer on both Park and Webster Street. And obviously with the new guidelines, events aren't going to happen. But I would love to see some form of a special event street closure opportunity like that, where we close off sections of Park in Webster to all vehicle traffic for several days. But we allow for outdoor dining in in those spaces and it might be something that we could do potentially in in July and August. I think that there is a few different opportunities for that. I would love to see the area opened up and made available for outdoor dining again for foot traffic, foot traffic and biking. I would add that if that's the case, I do want to make sure that we have we think about bike parking and bike crawls and things like that that are going to be safe and clean for folks and ways to do that. I think this is these are these are things that we just need to think about now. And the other thing that I would like to add is, you know, if on Webster, we can't have the same types of closures that we can get on park, that we think about using those outdoor parking lots that exist off of off of Webster to allow for businesses to utilize those spaces. And I think that we need to do that because losing 50% of their tables, which is what they would have to do in order to comply with the distancing inside , is just not going to cut it. And I would just want to thank staff for their work on this. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Vice Mayor?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Most of my comments would mirror what I said earlier, so I will adopt everything my three colleagues have said before me and just say that I don't think that, you know, I appreciate how fast this has come. The reopening is happening now. And so, you know, let's get as much of it done as fast as possible and not spend too much time trying to iterate our way into this with the with the obvious caveat that I'm not saying do it tomorrow, but let's let's not be cautious, let's go big and be glad we did it and supported our businesses when they needed it at the immediate open.
Speaker 1: Have and so thank you thank you to staff. Good job in a short period of time. Thanks to all my colleagues for their comments and the public for all the emails you've sent us. I'm really enthusiastic about what was presented in the staff report and I endorse it all. I, I would be hesitant about closing Park and Webster completely on Friday and Saturday nights, simply because those are both bus routes. And I want to be mindful and respectful of people who do need to rely on public transportation and maybe getting to and from their jobs, even in the evenings and even on weekend evenings. And we all know what a hard hit public transit has taken lately. I don't think these are mutually exclusive concepts. I think that we will work with our transit partners and see what can be done. But, you know, yes, they do do a, um, a rerouting on when we have the street fairs in the summer, but that's usually for just two days during a set period of time. But when I was listening to, I think it was Councilmember Vella talking about closing off streets for outdoor dining, maybe for July and August. I was thinking there is a restaurant month which oh, that's probably at the wrong time of the year, but we could declare a restaurant month whenever we wanted to. I think it's traditionally done after the holidays, which is kind of a slow period and to just get people out to restaurants. But, you know, this might be a way to highlight Alameda restaurants and come, you know, dine outdoors at your your favorite restaurant. And I think there's lots of potential. And I know our business districts associations are listening. So I would say that we, we move this forward as that, uh, uh, we've move this forward to, to become a permanent, permanent feature. I, I'm really excited about the, um, the features that Mr. Wickstrom presented to us. And I really like the fact that the traffic data and I think there might have even been some webcam footage that showed we don't need all those traffic lanes on Park Street. And when you've got wide open lanes, people are driving faster, which is kind of happening now in parts of the city. So, um, who wants to make a motion? Councilmember. Vice mayor? Not quite.
Speaker 3: Sorry. I didn't think I would have to be the one making the motion here.
Speaker 1: I get it.
Speaker 3: No, I didn't, actually. Yes.
Speaker 1: I did.
Speaker 3: I paused, but nobody else raised their hand. I would be happy to to move approval of endorsing the plan with direction to staff, to look for opportunities for closing streets, whether they be Park or Webster, in order to support our our business districts.
Speaker 1: I have a motion. I have a second. Any council comment session? All right, Mr. Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 4: Just quickly, I mean, I understand that concerns about busses and everything and, you know, that's why I was proposing just an evening closing and then there'll still be cross streets. You know, my concern about, you know, you're still have three lanes. There are four lanes on Park in Webster. And I don't know if that just those extra park parking spot areas is really enough for people to social distance and enough for all of our restaurants have space to have the table that they need to recover. And, you know, and then if the areas are smaller, you know, then you get into issues of lottery and who, you know, the park in front of me is closed. So, I mean, am I allowed to go down the street or, you know, just because it's the park in front of me is open, am I prohibited? So, you know, all that things need to be taken care of. But, you know, I see this work in Canada, Montreal and Quebec because they're copying Vilnius. I think in I've never been there, but Berkeley is copying that. So again, our neighbors are going to be doing this and they're going to be taking away our dollars that could be going into our merchants pockets. So.
Speaker 3: So the motion allows staff to explore, I guess. Get that. Okay.
Speaker 1: Any further comments seeing then maybe we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 2: Councilmember de i, i, i.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: I may or as the Ashcraft. I. That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 1: Nice. Thanks, everybody. Okay with that, we are adjourning the special city council meeting and we are moving to. Oh, Madam Clair, this iPad is going to be the under. I'm back. Okay.
Speaker 2: Already addressed the gender changes and the proclamations are information only. So I think we can just go straight to all communications unless there's anything else.
Speaker 1: I think that's brilliant. Let's do that.
Speaker 2: And we do have one speaker that has submitted a public comment, and then I will ask any attendees to raise their hand if they have a public comment on their oral communications.
Speaker 1: Okay. So we're I know we're an item for of the regular agenda now. Okay, let's have a oral communication.
Speaker 2: Okay. There are no one's raising their hands. So I will read the one comment that we have from Robert Pon Alameda. They are ASHCROFT members of the City Council of Alameda. I am requesting the City of Alameda studying House Resolution 908. Grace Meng, D-N.Y., can condemning all forms of anti-Asian sentiment as related to COVID 19 and consider supporting it. We support the health care professionals on the front lines battling the COVID 19 pandemic, while Asian Pacific Islanders and foreign medical graduates represent greater than 5% of the U.S. workforce. They are very well represented as doctors greater than 19% and nurses greater than 8%, with Filipino Pinay representing nearly 20% of our friends in California, according to a 2017 U.S. Department of HHS HRC report. Sex Race and Ethnic Diversity of U.S. Health Occupations 2010 to 2015.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Endorse Implementation of Temporary Street Reconfigurations to Provide Space for Social Distancing in Response to the COVID-19 Emergency. (Transportation 4226287)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_05192020_2020-7923
|
Speaker 2: Public adoption of resolution confirming the Park Street Business Improvement Area Annual Assessment Report for fiscal year 2020 and 2021 and leaving an annual assessment on the Park Street.
Speaker 1: Okay. So the recommendations that we have for the public hearing and adopt a resolution confirming the CPA report for fiscal year 2021 and levying an annual assessment on the CPA. Do we have any public speakers on this item?
Speaker 2: Oh, wait. We need to ask the attendees. Do any attendees want to raise their hand and speak on this item? Okay. None.
Speaker 1: Okay. We have no, um, no speakers, and so I'm closing public comment. So, um, do I have a motion? Do you want to. Okay, I have a seconds. I have. Over the counter of today's efforts, we have a motion by the vice mayor, a second by councilmember designee. We have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 2: Councilmembers. Hi. Hi. Hi, Bella. I may or as he Ashcroft I. That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay, now we move to item six. Be mayor. I'm sorry for this one. Yeah. Yes. Councilmember De is recusing himself. Okay, let's give him a moment.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. These as a room? Yeah.
Speaker 2: 60 is public hearing to consider adoption resolution confirming the Webster Street Business Improvement Area Assessment Report for fiscal year 2020 2021 and leaving an annual assessment for the Webster Street BIA.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Park Street Business Improvement Area Annual Assessment Report for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Park Street BIA. (Community Development 256)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_05192020_2020-7959
|
Speaker 1: Okay. So then we come to a counselor referral nine if we can do it in 3 minutes. Considered dynamite.
Speaker 2: Best Consulting is sending a letter to Alameda County requesting assistance and protecting essential workers, especially grocery store and retail drugstore employees during the COVID 19 pandemic.
Speaker 1: Okay. That's serious. Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 0: Yes. So Council. City Council in Emeryville has already sent a letter. No masks are required for under the public. Face coverings are required. My hope is that we can actually have it so that the big box retailers will start providing it. They have an ease. It's easier for them to obtain some of their simple PPE, whereas the workers are busy working. And so I just hope that we can support this recommendation to the county. I know some of the Board of Supervisors will be supporting it as well.
Speaker 1: Okay. I mean, there are safeguards in place, but I think more can be done. And and I think this is a well-stated letter. I think the city manager might have if we'd given him a minute, here to talk about the testing facility we're working on bringing to the city soon. And it would provide the opportunity for essential workers, which are which include our grocery clerks and and the people at the restaurants who are doing the, you know, the takeout and delivery and meeting the public. So we're going to do our part now, limited, too. Okay. So, Councilmember Vallabh, would you like to add any any clarifying questions, discussion from the council? Councilmember Vela, would you like to make a motion?
Speaker 0: I just move that we authorize the city manager to send a letter on city letterhead with whoever whatever councilmembers want to sign on to supportive of this.
Speaker 1: Okay. Do you have a second?
Speaker 0: We've just changed the language.
Speaker 1: It's been moved by Councilmember Vela, seconded by Councilmember Ody. Do we have any discussion? Since then, we have had any public comment.
Speaker 2: No public comment on this item.
Speaker 1: Okay, maybe we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 2: Councilor, decide. Yeah, right. Next light.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Odie. Hi, Vella. I may or as the Ashcroft.
Speaker 1: I think.
Speaker 2: Carries by five eyes.
Speaker 1: Great. Okay. I'm going to leave one minute at the end because we're going to adjourn in someone's memory tonight. But we're now on to item ten. We could do council communications really quickly. Who wants to start? That's it? No. For you, counselor. Everybody. Anybody? Councilmember de SAC. Okay. Hearing then. So council we. I'm asking that we adjourn our meeting tonight in memory of a very recent member member of our Commission on Persons with Disabilities. His name was Anto.
|
Council Referral
|
Consider Sending a Letter to Alameda County Requesting Assistance in Protecting Essential Workers, Especially Grocery Store and Retail Drug Store Employees during the COVID-19 Pandemic. (Councilmember Vella)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_05052020_2020-7908
|
Speaker 0: of what you're recommending and why. Sure. Thank you, Madam Mayor. The recommendation by staff is to cancel the 4th of July parade. We understand, as Councilmember Odie said, this is a very important part of our community, but it also draws 60,000 spectators across three miles of our island. And the safety, while it's important event, our community, the safety of our community is first and foremost.
Speaker 2: Is to.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Otis point and question we are floating idea of even for the 4th of July of options of what we can do. Even just today, actually, one of my staff brought what I thought was a fabulous idea to do. You know, a lot of people love decorating their homes here for a 4th of July. So we think we could potentially build a virtual event around people decorating or decorating windows, do some kind of contest, create a bike walk map of all of the people participating, have some kind of voting mechanism. So I think we still can do something fun for the 4th of July. I think it's an event of that scale is extremely difficult to pull off. And, you know, it needs to be you need at least 3 to 4 months to to to coordinate an event like that. And with the potential of next wave and things like that, it makes it really difficult to to plan a future event on that scale. It's actually an in-person parade, but we will.
Speaker 2: Continue to explore options.
Speaker 0: Well, we look thinking this was if we look forward to hearing more from you and, you know, to our residents, we, um, we know what a popular event this is. And, and of course, we just, you know, it breaks our hearts to have to cancel it. It would break my heart more to see our rate of COVID 19 increasing. And there's just no way responsibly that the governor would even let us invite 60,000 people over for a little parade. But, um, Alameda does it right, and we'll figure out a way to do something. And thank you so much, Ms.. Aldridge. We'll look forward to just hearing more from you. So with that, we've had a motion by Council member Odie to accept the the staff recommendation to cancel the 2024 parade. And.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'll second with a quick comment.
Speaker 0: Great. And if you just want to wait for the previous speaker myself in this case to finish and then I will call on you with your hand up. And so. Mr. Dysart.
Speaker 2: Great, thank you. I think the cancelation of such a cherished event as the 4th of July parade only underscores the dire situation. Alameda and all of us across the world, in fact, are in with this COVID 19. So I think it is right and fitting that that we make this cancelation, however sad this makes us all.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. The motion has been moved and seconded. Any further discussion from Council Councilmember Vela? I just wanted to thank all of our staff for their work on this and for our Parks and Rec and Park Department. I know that you're constantly trying to come up with different alternatives for us in so many different ways, for so many different things. I love the idea of like a porch contest or something like that in terms of decorating and getting people into the spirit of things. I think if we can find a way to get people to celebrate and do it in a in a responsible way, I'm all for that. And I just wanted to say, I look forward to hearing what they come up with. Everybody start working on ideas for your 4th of July mask. I've got the color combination for you. Uh, okay. Anything further from anyone? Okay. Maybe have a roll call vote, please.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Recommendation to Cancel the 2020 Fourth of July Parade to Avoid Mass Gatherings Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. (Recreation 280)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_05052020_2020-7917
|
Speaker 1: Not quite. I O.D..
Speaker 2: At.
Speaker 1: Vela. I may. Or as the Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So the next item that was pulled from the consent calendar is five D. And Councilmember De. Thank you for this.
Speaker 2: Great. Well, thank you. I'll have to recuse myself from five D and five G.
Speaker 0: E is the web's history via A and she is the pinball museum.
Speaker 1: And may I suggest that we can put Tony and we can put Councilmember De Saag on hold and you could take those two items and then we can put him back on and on hold to to go back to five s. So, Councilmember de sag, you can stay on the call and we can put you on hold out. Yeah. Yeah. So it's going to he's left.
Speaker 0: He's well, he's left there and that's okay. Okay.
Speaker 1: We'll just.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Oh he's back it and you put him on me. Okay. All right then. So, um, I have like, I'd like to move approval of five D and five G. Okay. Secondly, I stand by the move by Councilmember Vella, seconded by Vice Mayor. Not quite any discussion. Hearing, man. You want a roll call on each item separately, Madam Clerk? Or how do you. How would you like that?
Speaker 1: I'm sure we can do to roll covered. So we'll do 5/1 and that's council vice mayor knox white i. Councilmember Ody.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Vela. Mayor as the Ashcraft I that carries by four eyes one absent and then five g vice Mayor Knox White. I Councilmember Oti.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Vela. I may or as the Ashcroft high that carries by four eyes with one absent. And we will put Tony back.
Speaker 0: It's like magic.
Speaker 1: I know. He will hopefully reappear, you know? There you.
Speaker 0: Go. All right. So I believe that the next item that was pulled is item five F, and this is the final passage of the ordinance amend the Alameda Municipal Code, chapter 30 to modify accessory dwelling unit regulations to comply with state law and make other administrative, technical and clarifying amendments pertaining to please use centers definition as recommended
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Final Passage of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager, or Designee, to Execute a Twelve Month Amendment to the Lease with Pacific Pinball Museum, a 501(c)(3) Non Profit Organization, with the Option of Four One Year Extensions, for Building 169, Suite 101 Located at 1680 Viking Street at Alameda Point. (Community Development 819099)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_05052020_2020-7690
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I was going to say and Mike Magic Andrew Thomas, uh, planning transportation and building directory if I got that in the correct order changes. And good evening, Mr. Thomas. I think he's here. I see his name. Mr. Thomas. What have you done with Mr. Thomas? Um. There he is. Okay. There you are. Okay. I. You look like you're unmuted and everything. Are you ready to go? Uh, he, um. Let's see. Can we hear in Mr. Thomas?
Speaker 1: We can't hear anything here. Oh. It seems like his audio is not connected. It. Um.
Speaker 0: Let's see it. Connecting. It's connecting now. I can see it. Try now. Oh, now you have to unmute yourself. Can you hear me? Yes. For a moment I could.
Speaker 2: Let me try something that works.
Speaker 0: I see this.
Speaker 2: So am I hooked up? Am I ready to go?
Speaker 0: I think you are. Fired up. Ready to go.
Speaker 2: Sorry for the confusion there.
Speaker 0: Super getting used to it around here.
Speaker 2: Getting good at it. Let me just. I'm sorry. Now I'm getting double voices going on.
Speaker 0: Oh, um.
Speaker 2: Let me try this. Can you hear me now?
Speaker 0: Yeah, we can hear you.
Speaker 2: All right. That's much better. Okay. Andrew Thomas, planning building and transportation director. As the city clerk said, this is there's two items we're covering. Two items in this agenda piece with. This is one is the introduction of an ordinance amending our parking regulations within the Almeida Municipal Code and really to try to modernize those those provisions. And I will just briefly summarize some of those amendments for you tonight. And then the second piece is adoption of a policy for the use of automated license plate recognition readers for the purposes of parking management and enforcement. And I'll talk a little bit about that piece as well. The two, though, are we're bringing them together in this one staff report because they're both, we believe, instrumental to improving and modernizing our ability as a city to manage public parking here in Alameda. They're both of these actions, we believe, are consistent with your general plan policies that talk about the need to manage parking as a as a tool in managing our transportation network. And there is no bigger issue in Alameda, or at least there hasn't been historically than transportation in our ability to manage traffic and transportation and parking is a piece of that. And the general plan recognizes that the 2014 Alameda Point Transportation Demand Management Plan adopted by the City Council, the 2018 Transportation Choices Plan and your 2019 Climate Action Plan all talk about how important it is that we effectively manage parking, not just to make sure that everyone can get access to public parking when they need it at a price that they can afford. But it's also instrumental in our ability to support the business community, reduce congestion around the city, reduce greenhouse gases, and just ensure the health of our business community and our environment, everything from our ability to to do street cleaning, which is a way of keeping San Francisco Bay clean, to dealing with the larger issues of climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gases. We're not going to be able to effectively do any of those things that we can't effectively manage our parking supply and the space for parking. The other goals of these of these two companion pieces, as we to manage parking effectively, we think it also has to be convenient and flexible for the for the public and the users. It has to be flexible so that you the city council, when making policy decisions about how to manage public parking, that you can quickly and easily flex your policies and your and your tools to better enforce these two proposals are also really just trying to make our parking program more efficient and more frankly, cost effective. And then lastly, and this is certainly not something we talked about when we originally wrote this staff report two months ago. But even with the COVID 19, we are starting to think about parking in a different way and the needs for parking and the needs for people to be able to pick up and drop off food and retail and all sorts of things. So we don't quite know how that's going to play out, but I think it's pretty clear to us that the need to manage our parking spaces and manage parking and manage the use of the public right of ways is not going to be an issue that's going to go away. And anything we can do to make that system work better, make it more flexible and easier to adjust, is going to serve us well. So two months ago when we wrote this, we are also very much focused on being able to start charging for parking at the ferry terminals. I wanted to and we were pushing, pushing hard to get those parking charges in place by August, obviously, with the. But COVID 19 and the health emergency and the complete sort of drop off in ferry ridership, we don't believe this is the time to start charging for parking for the ferry terminals, but we do think it is the time to start getting set up so that we will be able to do it when life starts to return to normal and ferry ridership returns. So let me just quickly summarize these two different actions. The first is the draft amendments to the parking codes. These are really quite straightforward because the parking code is so old, for example, that I'll just hit on the four main changes to the Muni code that we're recommending. The first is about forms of payment. The currently the Alameda Mosby code does not include provisions allowing for modern forms of payment, such as mobile payment or digital permits . That is that is going to be something we want to be able to implement in the future. And it's important that our municipal code allows it. This will allow these amounts, allow for flexibility and convenience of paying with cell phones, customized parking rates, all those kinds of adjustments and modernization that a modern parking program is going to need. The amendments allow for the different being able to charge for parking in different kinds of spaces. Currently, the AMC doesn't include any provisions to allow for pay by play or multi spaced meter. Nancy currently assumes that every space is always going to be numbered or equipped with an individual meter. Well, when looking into the future, looking at things like large parking areas, neighborhood parking permit areas, we want to be able to manage parking even if every space isn't numbered or individually metered. And there are ways to do that. Thirdly, rate adjustments. The current municipal code and these provisions which were adopted originally, many years ago, assumed that parking rates just weren't going to change very often. You know, just a parking meter was going to cost essentially the same for four years on end. These adjustments make it easier for adjustments to be made by the council and or the city manager and public works director. As necessary, it may be everything from changing the hourly rates at Park Street and Webster Street to establishing a special rate for a special event at Alameda Point. You want to have that flexibility to adjust rates and do it flexibly and quickly. And then finally, the other main big issue we wanted to address in these code amendments is currently the ordinance talks about any revenue generated from parking revenue must go straight back into parking, maintenance and parking enforcement. That all makes great sense. That's still where most of the money will probably always need to go. But these amendments broaden those potential uses so that if the council felt that you had additional revenue from parking, you could start to, let's say, use it for other transportation programs like funding a shuttle or supplemental bus service to the ferry terminal to reduce the need for parking and ferry terminals, using parking revenues for projects, transportation demand management kinds of programs, bicycle and pedestrian improvements could also be something that the council might in the future choose to use parking revenues for all. The Vision Zero work that you're doing is basically trying to make other transportation modes more effective to reduce the demand on the public parking supply. So those that's a general overview unavailable to answer your questions on the code amendments. Now, let me just move quickly to the second half of this, which is sort of the other piece of this equation. We also want to put the city in the position to be able to use the most modern tools for parking enforcement. And one of those tools that we are recommending is license plate recognition technology to expedite and make the process of enforcing these permit programs more effective. We also think it's going to make it more convenient and user friendly for the customer. It's going to help support that flexibility we talked about. And as I said earlier, it's just a very cost effective way of. Doing parking enforcement. For those of you who show the council is all very much aware, but for the benefit of the public. License plate technology essentially replaces the old fashioned manual approach for parking technicians to check to see if somebody has paid for the parking space on the public street or lost it there that they have or that they're using to store their vehicle. In this case, it's a camera mounted on a vehicle that automatically processes the license plate number on a car and that can then can then verify whether that car has paid for the parking. If not, they can immediately in real time send that data to a handheld and the parking technician can write a ticket. So there's no more of the checking for green lights on meters. There's no more of make checking for little white slips on parking that vehicle dashboards. No more chalking of tires, none of that. With this new technology, you are able to move much more quickly, much more cost effectively. And I don't know, I've already mentioned this, but we're just following the lead of our other cities here in the Bay Area, San Francisco, Berkeley, San Leandro, Emeryville. Pretty much any city that's really modernizing their parking program is using this technology. It's very cost effective. It's very flexible, and it's great for also understanding use. You know, how many cars are parking every day in certain lots, but there is a there are issues to be considered. And the first and foremost is the privacy issues around this kind of technology. What this technology does and the privacy issue that we talk about in the staff report is you're collecting huge amounts of data, huge amounts of data at once. And when, in fact, we only need one while we're really looking just for one thing, has that vehicle paid for the parking for the space it's using that day? However, by collecting this amount of data, and if misused or not secure, it can be used by individuals or organizations to track people. It can be misused if it's in the wrong hands and that or is transferred to some other group or organization that wants to use it for a different purpose. Obviously, from our perspective, we're only interested in the technology for one reason, and that is to help us manage our parking supply. We are not interested in it for tracking people or for any other purpose. So what you have attached to your staff report in the package today are two important documents. One is the policy. And so this would be the city's policy for how this technology will be used and how will be used in a way that they were careful about making sure that that information and that data does not end up being misused by others or by ourselves, and that we try to minimize the potential privacy impacts of the use of this data that may occur if we are who are using it for parking management. So essentially the exhibit to the impact analysis essentially acknowledges the risks and identifies mitigations and essentially strategies and requirements that we can impose on ourselves to really minimize those potential risk and safeguard personal privacy and meaningful and minimize the potential impacts. I won't summarize both those documents, but I think the three main criteria that you will see is that we take essentially three approaches. Number one, the control of the information, the way we're proposing to proceed here is that like every other city, we would be bringing on a separate vendor to provide this technology and to store that data for us. This data would be owned by the city of Alameda. So with our information, we are going to be responsible for it and we're not going to share it. Now, of course, you minimize all the you minimize the risks around that whole issue of not sharing if you don't store it for very long. So the second important concept here is as that parking technician with their vehicle is driving down the street and recording every single parking, every single license plate and getting hits or no hits, you know, hit is in this terminology, meaning that car did not. Hey, for the parking or that car is stolen or is is wanted for some reason there's a violation in that only in those cases the data would be kept for violations or hits for other existing problems with that vehicle, stolen vehicle or something like that. That data then would be stored for a maximum of two years. Every other license plate, all the other data. If you paid your parking ticket, your car is clean. That data is erased that day. We don't need that data for our purposes. We don't want to have to store it. We the the proposal here is just to eliminate that data. So the vast majority of the data that's collected each day around the individual vehicles is going to be deleted. We only keep the people who have not paid for their parking or there's some other violation there. The vehicle is stolen or there's an issue, this active crime situation around that vehicle. So there is a tradeoff. Of course, that means we're not keeping information. That information could be valuable to the police department if they were investigating some sort of crime that occurred after the fact. We felt that on the whole, this was an appropriate trade off. We we recognize there are privacy issues and there is a tradeoff with police trying to balance that with personal privacy. But in this case, we felt like we had about the right balance. And it has sort of been, in our view, the balance we struck here is a a policy that recognizes the privacy protections are necessary, allows us to proceed as a city with cost effective parking enforcement and modernize our planning and management of the parking, as well as our climate change and customer convenience and flexibility sort of goals . So we think we've struck the appropriate balance. We hope you agree. If you do, then the recommendation would be to introduce the first reading of the ordinance amendments tonight and approve the policy for the use of automated license plate readers for the purpose of parking enforcement. If you do approve the policy, then our next step would be to start soliciting a vendor who is comfortable with our own restrictions and requirements. And of course, that vendor would come back to council for before we could sign a contract. So that's sort of the initial steps. I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Good report. Um, Counsel, do we have any clarifying questions before we go to public comment? I guess I should ask the city clerk, do we have public comment on this item?
Speaker 1: We do.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, Counsel, let's just ask any clarifying questions of Mr. Thomas. Now we'll hear public comment and we'll come back for a discussion. Vice Mayor Knox Wait.
Speaker 2: I have a quick question.
Speaker 3: I think it might be for the city manager, but whoever is the appropriate place and I apologize for not asking this earlier, it didn't come up until I was listening to the presentation. I'm curious in in how the decision was made that the public works director is the one who sets our parking policy price. Given that the transportation this is kind of moving us further into a transportation policy arena, which is where I think park pricing and parking should be. And why that wouldn't be either the city manager or the the transportation director or planning body and transportation director who's. So I'm not sure who I could.
Speaker 2: Eric, unless you want to respond, I can certainly give some background on that.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Mr. Thomas.
Speaker 2: Um, I look, I think for tonight's purposes, it certainly would be fine to make it the city manager instead of the public works director. Our thinking around that specific language, though, was not that we were trying to take the power away from the city manager or the city council, for that matter. It was the thought was that council would set policy directions. For example, Perkins Webster Street Youth Council in past years have adopted a policy that the city should maintain the park. The parking meter pricing at a rate that would ensure 85% occupancy. The concept being, if it's all empty, it means the price is too high, if it's all full and its price is too low. So 85% occupancy sort of means you're driving down the street every block. There's one or two spaces available that would be sort of. And the thought was, once the council set the policy, then the public works director and the management of the parking meters and the parking lot are really under the purview of the public works department in the city of Alameda. So it wasn't really trying to set the public works director off as the policy maker as much as the person implementing, you know, changing the actual rates to implement a policy that was adopted by by council. That was the thinking. I think changing it from public works director to city manager or his designee also would be a fair. Adjustment if that was something the council wanted to do.
Speaker 3: Thanks. Thank you, Mark.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. And Mr. Chen, city attorney. Mr. Chen.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I just want to also add that looking at the ordinance, there is existing language and previous ordinance language that designates the public works director as the person who is essentially managing the various parking endeavors. So if the council wishes to make changes, will want to be really clear in the ordinance. And what places is the Council looking to make changes from public works director to something else, it appears. And maybe a dozen or more places in the ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that. And Mr. Leavitt, did you want to add anything? No. I can hear you. I could see you shaking your head. Okay, that's a no. Um. Any other clarifying questions? Mr. Desai?
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you. Um, what thought? Well, frankly, I'd love to see Cesar Chavez Day be celebrated March 31st. I think it's a state holiday. Um, it's. It's not included there in section nine, so that I would certainly encourage that. And frankly, I think generally not just in this one, but generally I think the city of Alameda ought to celebrate that day. Um, so we might look forward its future and how we might change the city holidays. So, yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 0: That was your clarifying question. Thank you. Um, I've got one. If no one else has a clarifying question. Um, Mr. Thomas, I just wanted to ask a question in the I'm in the draft policy, which is exhibit one and. I'm sorry. I have the temperamental iPad today. Okay, I got it. And my question is on page two of the draft policy. It talks about storage of data and parking enforcement. El Paso automated license plate reader data is stored based on the following schedule. License plates collected but not cited. So what you were talking about there? Collected. But they pay. There's no problem with that car. That data is not retained. But the second bullet is license plates for issued parking citations retained for two years. Now I don't see our police chief popolare here, but if I recall correctly, the policy that governs our LPR data for the patrol vehicle mounted pass the one year retention policy. And assuming I'm correct in that, why would we make this data storage period longer? And I see city attorney been shown with his hand at that. So.
Speaker 2: Mr. Shen And so we actually inquired with the police chief and the fact that the policy here in front of you actually stores data for less time and all the cards. So what Mr. Thomas is proposing is 24 hours of storage of no heads and two years experience ahead with the police department's policy. It's more I believe it's in the more in the range of six months of storage when there's no heads and and potentially unlimited length of storage when there isn't. So the policy in front of you tonight stores far less data than the existing APD policy that's in existence, that the inquiry that we made earlier today with the police department in anticipation of this question.
Speaker 0: So my question would be, cause I was on the council that set that policy. And I know the police chief wanted a longer period of time and he didn't get it. So do you have that language to share with us? Because I'm trying to remember when we might have lengthened that retention period.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately, I don't. My office reached out to the police department in my understanding and said it's generally six months, but if there is a head and the head is different because for the police departments they might be engaged in, for example, with the district attorney's office for a multi-year investigation that the district attorney would request. And there will be necessity to keep that data essentially until the case is well over. And that could be many, many, many years because it could be the prosecution, the appeal and any collateral appeals. And that's why the data, I believe, is stored longer with the police department. And I unfortunately don't have the exact data. But we did inquire into the patient on this question. And my understanding is that it's six months and much longer to the extent necessary for any particular case for the police department.
Speaker 0: Well, you know, I always like to follow the advice of our city attorney, but I was there at that vote, and that is not my recollection. I'm willing to say maybe my recollection is, but I, I well, this is what I would say and this is what I wrote in the notes that I don't see any reason that we would retain license plate data from. It's you know that's that's related to that has has turned out been a stolen car. And again once the a case is is ongoing. So there is a stolen car. So it's pursued. Of course, we're not going to destroy that data. In fact, I think there's even something in the policy that it then becomes it goes into an evidentiary file. That's something else. But for all others that are being looked into, I would want to make sure it was the same retention period as we use for police department powers and and not any longer. And I just looking at the council, I don't think any of you all were on that council with me. But anyway, Councilmember Vela, did you have your hand up or is that just your hand? Okay. Councilman Rivera and new speaker. Well, I, I, I recall this conversation did come up when we were considering six Alpers. And I believe that your statement about it being only written for a year is correct, because I thought that was part of the discussion when we were talking about Six Alpers, which was an issue that came before the council, not this council, but the previous council was when I thought that conversation occurred, I did I did have also a question about the type of photographing technology that would be used, because, again, this was something that came up before with the six Alpers, which was what exactly getting photographed. So is it just life and is there a way to crop it out for it or to small make it so that it's just limited to the license plate and even perhaps just the back of the vehicle? And that wouldn't necessarily include faces, that sort of thing. I think Mr. Thomas has an answer for you, Mr. Thompson.
Speaker 2: And you'll see that in our privacy impact analysis, this idea of making sure that the camera that's mounted on the vehicle, the parking technician vehicle, is directed down and focusing just on the license plate. You know, we don't care about somebody who might be sitting in the vehicle. That's not our issue. The issue is literally just reading the license plate. And so one of the mitigations is the direction, how the camera should be directed when it's mounted on the vehicle.
Speaker 0: But I guess my question is, if there's something, would there be an instance where something else would get captured? And if something other than the license plate gets captured, are we going to be cropping the image?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, in terms for the purposes of the parking management program, so there's two different LPR policies, the one that the mayor was talking about for the fixed, which is for fighting purposes. And then this LPR policy, which is for parking management, you know, for the, the, the, the mitigations that we were contemplating where first of all, if your car is clean and you paid your parking, then we're not keeping any data at all. No, no photographs of any kind. They're being they're being deleted immediately. That day just erased. If your you have not paid your parking ticket and I do remember a process by which, you know, if we start seeing photographs coming up, which are just too broad, they they can be cropped. Now, once again, we would only be cropping photographs that we're keeping and those would be somebody who got a parking ticket or they came up with a stolen vehicle or something like that.
Speaker 0: Right. I mean, I'm just I'm just thinking of a scenario where it's like in one of these lives, somebody walking with a small child who happens to be shorter and all of a sudden we start capturing other things. Is there going to be some sort of review mechanism to make sure that we're limiting what we're actually capturing?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Absolutely. And I think that's. Well well, while you're taking public testimony, I'm going to go back and read through the impact mitigation just to verify that my recollection is correct. Once the third important and last piece of this I think is important in this policy is and the mitigation is this annual review. Like, we do need to be checking on ourselves. We do need to make sure and I think that's one of those kinds of things that as part of the annual review and that's the reason I mentioned the vendor coming back to council, I think this is an evolving conversation really getting down to these kinds of specifics. I think it would make great sense to have that sort of annual review, include a review of, okay, let's see some of the photographs you've been keeping for a year. I mean, if we start seeing that it's getting sloppy, that we're catching all sorts of people and not. Just license plates. It means we need to sort of, you know, clean up our program and do better training, frankly.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 2: Or work with our or work with our contract vendor and say, hey, you need to clean up your program if you want to keep our contract.
Speaker 0: Okay. And Mr. Shin. So. Mr. Chan, we can't hear you.
Speaker 2: I've been able to obtain the APD LPR policy number for for 62. So I'm going to read the language to the council. Thank you. Requested the specific language. The language for the APD policy is that all LPR data downloaded to the server will be stored for a period of six months and thereafter shall be purged unless it has become or it is reasonable to believe, to become evidence in a criminal or civil action, or is subject to a lawful action to produce records. In such instances, the applicable data shall be downloaded from the server onto portable media and stored into evidence. And so that that was the, the information I was attempting to convey, which is that it's six months unless there is a case pending, at which point it becomes evidence and it stays much longer.
Speaker 0: So it doesn't say two years anywhere.
Speaker 2: It does not say two years, two years as the what the proposed in front of you. I think that the parallel is that what Mr. Thomas proposes for the 24 hours is close. The parallel there are six months. The two years. Here is the parallel to the somewhat less definite timeframe in the APD policy.
Speaker 0: Um. Yeah, I. Well, it would be great if. If you could maybe while we're hearing public testimony, if you could just email that over, cause I just, like I said, I, um, I do remember there are not a lot of times that I disagree with our police chief, quite frankly, but I really felt and it was one of those cases where we worked with the ACLU and the Oakland Privacy Project and, you know, trying to establish that balance between police needs, you know, crime fighting, crime solving needs and protection of civil liberties. And I just remember there was a one year limitation that didn't make the chief very happy, but, uh, and I just don't remember it coming back for modification since then. Um, but anyway, um, if there are no further. Mr. Thomas has his hand up.
Speaker 2: I just very quickly. Yes, Councilmember Bell on that provision that everything will be cropped out of the photograph is actually already in the, in the impact thing. So any photograph will be kept for that, not a limit if it's not purged immediately that day, it is being kept because of a ahead or or not paying. Then even still it's cropped if there's I.
Speaker 0: Guess my question is the sentence that comes after it that says personal identity information, call it connected. That cannot be technically. Obfuscated will be used solely for the purpose. What would that be?
Speaker 2: Cheese. I have no idea if that's. Why don't you take public testimony? Let me. Let me read out. Okay.
Speaker 0: It's just the final sentence. Point number three.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a funny phrase when you think about that.
Speaker 0: Um, okay. So should we go to our public comments, counselor, or any other clarifying questions? Okay. Ms. ways here. Let's hear public comment, please. Okay.
Speaker 1: We have two. The first one is from Karen Bay, Mayor Marilyn Ashcraft, City Councilmember, City Manager Eric Leavitt and city staff for Alameda paid parking and our ferry terminals and city lots will be a new source of revenue. And we have before us an exciting opportunity to use these revenues to fund high priority transportation projects. Parking revenue is something one of the highest sources of revenue for some cities. In my opinion. It's important that we separate the permit parking revenue from the daily parking revenue and manage these revenues differently. Permit parking is a more stable source of revenue, which could be used to fund some of the high priority transportation projects listed in the Transportation Choices Plan that currently have no funding sources. There are two projects that I list below for your consideration. One, as we move towards finalizing and implementing our public parking management plan and using public parking permit revenues to fund a smart city parking management system could be prioritized. Is state of the art automated parking management system can assist us with controlling operating costs, collecting pertinent data that will help us improve the management of public parking long and long term transportation planning. The second project is the Alameda shuttle funding. The Alameda back shuttle could provide shuttle services to our three ferry terminals and would be an important tool in getting more people out of their cars and getting more people to use public transportation. We can expand the Alameda shuttle to provide citywide services as more funding becomes available. Finally, we could use the Oakland Broadway shuttle model, which is a partnership between the city and AC Transit. And ah, we could explore other models to determine which model works best for Alameda, but this is a great opportunity to fund this high priority project. Thanks for your consideration. Oh. And the next speaker is Jim Strelow. Lifelong resident of Alameda. Madame Mayor. Council Member Staff There is a major hole in the logic of your license plate recognition policy at Alameda Point. Your intent is to limit and manage how long people park at city run parking spots. The major overlooked flaw is with management of non city run parking spots. Look at Williams-Sonoma was warehouse at Viking Street and West Orange Ski Avenue. Businesses at Alameda Point have parking for their own business needs. Those businesses currently have no need whatsoever to watch who parks in their parking spots. There is no current demand for parking in front of those businesses for not doing business with them. But once the city opens up, Seaplane Lagoon and the new ferry location, vehicles will soon realize they can park for free in non city parking spots nearby. There will be no license plate recognition at those free parking spaces. Those businesses will thereafter have to pay an employee to spend time to monitor their own business parking spots for scofflaws who are not doing business at their location. Their own business parking spots will become an attractive new nuisance to people who will want to avoid paying at the LPR parking spaces. A solution might be for the city to authorize these security monitoring service that currently patrols the area to report potential violators to a business contact. That service can then determine if there is a potential violation. And phone a tow truck service. But even at that, the city's license plate program will be a daily nuisance for businesses to mitigate. Your policy will spend lots of money for LPR equipment to monitor empty parking spaces. If people can park for free nearby, please fix your policy to plug that loophole. And that's the loudspeaker.
Speaker 0: That's the extent of our public speaker Public comment. So I will close public comment and we will return to council discussion. And I want to thank City Attorney Evenson for sending me that data retention policy for the purpose for the police department. I can see that we were even stingier than I thought we were with data retention. And so what I'm saying is, and I don't know if Mr. Thomas has a copy of this, too, but I do data retention, which is just one paragraph long. It says, in pertinent part, that all our data downloaded to the server will be stored for a period of six months and thereafter shall be purged. Unless it has become or it is reasonable to believe it will become evidence in a criminal or civil action, or is subject to a lawful action to produce records. In those circumstances, the applicable data should be downloaded from the server onto portable media and broken into evidence, which I think is in your policy. But I would argue would I do want to argue, but I would suggest that if the police department is retaining data for six months, unless that that license plate is found to have been involved in a crime or a civil action, and then, you know that that takes it into the realm of evidence. I would think that it is reasonable to have to have the policy for the parking lot data also be retained for six months unless these other circumstances apply. Unless. I mean, Mr. Thomas, if you think there's a reason to retain parking. Right, Dad, want to make sure we're.
Speaker 2: We're saying the same thing here. So under the police department's current program, all data is kept for six months?
Speaker 0: Yes. Well.
Speaker 2: Everything is kept for six months, and then it's deleted unless there is some reason to keep it for a for an actual crime or as part of evidence, what we're proposing to do is, unless this person has a ticket or is part of a crime with a stolen vehicle. That data are data will be eliminated in 24 hours. So if you're saying no, if you're saying you want us to keep it for six months to reflect the police department's policies, then that would be that would be extending our how long we would be holding data.
Speaker 0: We're maybe saying two different things. I'd say right now, your policy says license plates collected but not cited are not retained at all, and that that is different from the police department. But remember what this policy is governing and what this council I think is likely to approve, but I won't speak for my colleagues is a parking management program. The, um, the police department, they, they do keep data for six months unless it is a notice to be in a crime. So I. And the second bullet of yours is license plates for issued parking citations. I kept for two years, I. Don't understand why you would need two years to pursue someone who has a parking ticket. If I you know, if you again, if it's one of these vehicles, but then you're going to share that information. If you have gotten hits on vehicles that are stolen or vehicles that I love the term, but scofflaws involved in some crime, you're going to you're going to turn that over to the police anyway. So could you help me understand why you think parking citation replace expired parking citations need to be kept two years?
Speaker 2: Well, our thinking was you need you have to give people time to appeal. Parking tickets. So there's it might draw out. I mean, we look at San Francisco. I think they have if there's a if somebody's dealing with a parking ticket, they keep that information until it's. I mean, I guess one clarification we could make clear is it's until resolved or two years, whichever is whichever comes first. I mean, if somebody comes in and pays their parking ticket the next day, we don't need to have that information for two years. The thought was after, if if it's still not resolved in two years, we're going to get rid of the information. I'm I don't know why. If you wanted to shorten it we couldn't to one year but I just want to make I mean those are that's the that's the information we're keeping for somebody who hasn't paid a parking ticket yet or had some problems. So we can shorten that if you'd like. I'm just don't know what top of my head right now, what would be too short? I mean, like I said, we're not interested in keeping information if we don't need it.
Speaker 0: Um. Okay, well, I. I said those are, those are my views. I think that retention, um, is, you know, should be a reasonable length and reasonable minds could differ over what that is. But I don't want to take up all the time. Councilman Brody, I think I set your hand up.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thanks, Andrew, for the presentation. That's typical of Andrew presentations. Very forward thinking, so I appreciate that. Um. I had the same recollection of the mayor that it was one year, but it was six, six months. So I wanted to question but then, you know, maybe a solution of that is, you know, we do they collected, not cited, not retained. And then we do a second category. If it being for some other reason, like it was stolen or involved in a crime, then it would go off into that other category like like we have for our, our, our mobile readers and then maybe for, you know, issued. And I don't know how the technology works. I mean, two years does seem like a long time, but, you know, maybe six months after it's cleared or maybe after it's cleared or if it's not cleared, it stays till it's cleared. I don't know, something like that. But I get the analogy between the, you know, six months equating to the not retained and the two years equating to the, you know, as long as it's needed for evidence. Well, I guess what I'm trying to struggle with, you know, not so much this policy, but I'm trying to figure out , like the use case how it would work. I mean, so are we like proposing getting rid of meters and getting rid of slips and or are we going to have both or do we just not know? Or because it's a.
Speaker 0: Tiny like.
Speaker 2: Picture how this would work in real life? Right.
Speaker 0: I mean, Thomas is going to look into the future for us.
Speaker 2: We well, I speak first of all, it's this I have, but I have the benefit of working with a very talented group of other staff members. This has been an effort that's public work staff, police department staff have been working with us on this all along.
Speaker 0: So it's a good collaboration.
Speaker 2: You do have a very talented group of staff people working on this. What we but this is how we've been thinking about it. We want to introduce this license plate readers first that allow me to point and the reason we were thinking Alameda point was to very first of all the two ferry terminals operating. We were originally thinking at full steam with COVID 19. Our timing might be a little off, but the idea was and here we have these large areas around Main Street, which is completely unmarked, unmetered. This technology would be perfect for that. Then we have a situation at the Seaplane Lagoon, which is also very comparable, and this also addresses the speaker that spoke about the problems. We actually thought about that our the way we were going to use it at Alimi Point Seaplane Lagoon, obviously the the vehicle goes into the parking lot with 400 vehicles to check their license plates to make sure they're paid. What is nice about this technology for ferry riders in particular is you can walk to the booth and type in the license plate and say, I'm going to leave my car here all day. Here's how you go and pay. Or you can literally do it on your phone, do it literally, park your car, jump on the ferry, and then pay for your parking space on the ferry. Ultimately, we see this expanding and using this citywide. So you could start introducing it with street sweeping, I think Park Street, Webster Street, you know, Park Street garage or the municipal garage, the municipal lots, you might start integrating it in there because ultimately what you would be doing is you would be pulling out the old meters and instead putting in a pay by plate, sort of multi space booth. Or if somebody has already got the application on their phone and they're paying for their cars, they go to the ferry terminal a few days a week. And now there, if we start expanding the technology and this is I mean, which is a multi-year effort, this is not something we're thinking. We just overhaul the entire city. One in one summer, it was we were sort of thinking we would be rolling it out. The ferry terminals, Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal was another one where we felt like it would be very easy to implement it and use the technology there. So we'd be sort of but still have the meters on Park Street until further notice. That was sort of how we were thinking about it. The other thing just real quickly.
Speaker 0: Does that answer your question?
Speaker 2: Mr. Rodi Yeah, I think so. I mean, I, I was picturing robots and, you know, like the Hayward, I think has a robot in their garage. And I know that the airports have like the license plate that charges to your fast track and things like that. So anyway, whether it's you or a group of people are very forward thinking. So I appreciate this and you know, I, I am open and probably would prefer not keeping a clear citations for. Two years or so, I'm open to hearing what my colleagues think would be a better a better retention for those.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I think the city vice mayor. Stand up or. No, no. Okay. Anyone else have any comments? Okay. I that is the vice mayor said sorry.
Speaker 3: I my mike wasn't on, but I was saying I'd be happy to.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. My lip reading skills are not. They're not up to par.
Speaker 3: That's all good. Just. It's just a couple. I really want to just say how thankful I am to have this here. I think city staff across the board has done a fabulous job. I really appreciated our staff working very directly with Secure Justice to get input from the privacy community who are not here supporting or not supporting this, but who gave a lot of input and really helped make sure that what we ended up with was a report that even though we have yet to adopt a, a, um, a surveillance policy. Yet back in January we gave direction to use San Francisco intel. We have. And so this, uh, this is the first one that's come forward with a report that actually says when we're going to do surveillance stuff, this is the type of information we have so that we're having a mindful conversation about it. And I know it took a little bit of learning, but I just wanted to give Andrew and his team and everybody big props for that. Thank you very much. I think this is fabulous. I do think and I had looked through here for public works director in the current language Public Works Director as mentioned from Public Works stuff, whether it's paint, etc.. I do know the one place I would in having nothing to do with our current public works director who actually gets this and has let our parking conversations in the past. But as as rules have changed in the city over over time, I would consider at least putting the city manager in there right now. We're moving it from the council. I would say the city manager or designee would be the person. I just think it makes it cleaner. And it's an odd place for the pricing parking pricing policy or sorry, parking pricing policy to live at the public works director, because the pricing itself is not based on any sort of public infrastructure decision making. So but that's not the direction of the council. That's fine. I'd look for to support this either way. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Over and I have a quick question before I call on Mr. de SAC and Mr. Thomas and the data retention policy is that the length of time is that that length of time taken from other cities policies? Where did that come from?
Speaker 2: We looked at I don't remember exactly where the two came from the two years, but we do have also a very good parking consultant has been helping us with this. I did some of the excellent staff that's been working on this. They've been furiously texting me during this conversation.
Speaker 0: What did we do before? Text messages?
Speaker 2: I just got a text saying, you know, we could probably make one year work, but bureaucracy takes time.
Speaker 0: Well, that I mean, what I was going to say is I don't want to get hung up over something like that. And I, you know, I, um, if I get parking citations, I pay them. So, I mean, maybe, maybe they really do take two years. I assume you didn't just call that. You remember that.
Speaker 2: If the council wants to shorten it to two years, we can wait.
Speaker 0: It is two years. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, I mean 2 to 1 year. Sorry. You want to do it to turn it to one year. We can work with that. And then another thing is we're going to have to then start working with selecting a vendor, bringing that vendor back. Right.
Speaker 0: We've got that whole.
Speaker 2: Conversation probably again when the vendor.
Speaker 0: Right, Anderson, let's hear. I'm mindful of the fact that it's 930 and we were just an item six. But and I know Mr. de SAC has had his hand up, so.
Speaker 2: Mr. Desai Well, thank you. Two points. One is, um, I really like the ordinance. I think, um, citizen Karen Bay summarized it best, but I especially like the ordinance and how it improves the way residents pay their parking fees or whatever else. Um, I also like the ordinance. Um, just because the way that, that we will going forward fund certain transportation projects, I certainly welcome the ordinance. And second, that the second point, though, is, you know, I'm not a fan of the license plate reading policy, quite frankly. And frankly, it doesn't really have to do with the privacy issues that people have spoken about tonight as well as in the past and in the in the far past. Um, quite frankly, I don't, you know, as one of five council members, I prefer the old way of identifying people who haven't paid their, their parking fees and the old way of assessing parking tickets. Granted, it's less efficient, it's less revenue generating, but, uh, you know, doing license plate reading. To do. For parking tickets and violations. I really think we we run the risk of having a parking ticket regime that's just completely on steroids. So I prefer the old way of doing things. I would hope that we separate the policy from the authorities, because I think this audit, for the most part, is silent on on on the on the license plate reading aspect of the. Nice discussion. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. So I think we've all been heard from and I do see that our colleague, Councilmember Vela, has slipped out of view, but she might be putting a baby to bed and she's back in the nick of time. Councilmember Vela, um, are you ready to. Did you want to say anything more silly? But should we do? I was ready to support. And I'm ready to support approval of this ceremony. Yes, taking into account. But I would like to only retain the information for.
Speaker 2: One year instead of.
Speaker 0: Two years. So we were talking about a little bit and she filed the whole thing. And apparently Mr. Thomas, his staff has been furiously texting to him and they just let him know that while they could shorten it to a year. Bureaucracy takes time to get through the citations. Uh, I. But we're, we're retaining. We're retaining any evidence that there's an evidentiary need. So somebody is contesting it. They're still going to. They're still going to be able to to hold it. I just don't see how a bureaucracy would allow.
Speaker 2: That would.
Speaker 0: Require us to send out a ticket two years after the fact or something like that. I think it might be the court case pursuing it if indeed, but then it would be in an evidentiary file. I've seen our city attorney not. Are you now, Mr. Shad? Actually, I was in a band and Councilmember.
Speaker 2: I think Councilmember.
Speaker 3: Vela is right. If there is a judicial proceeding, the.
Speaker 2: Existing policy would allow staff to download it into an evidentiary file and keep it for the duration of the judicial proceeding, which will probably go beyond two years.
Speaker 0: Right. But it would be initiated inside of two years and hopefully inside of one year. Correct. So that. Yes. Yes, it certainly would. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 2: In fact, the statute of limitation requires that.
Speaker 0: Okay. So all right. So then if I understand, I think you just stated it that you you are moving approval of the amendment to the municipal code and approving the policy for the use of the appears with the modification that the retention period be limited to one year in the case of parking citation. Yes.
Speaker 2: Yes. Mayor.
Speaker 0: Yes. Which who is that so councilor. Okay, so.
Speaker 2: I like to separate out the ordinance itself from the other items and have a separate vote on on that.
Speaker 0: I'll ask the maker of the motion.
Speaker 2: Actually, I think that's mandatory. If he asks for it, though.
Speaker 0: Tip I forgave.
Speaker 2: Laura. About second whichever motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um. Well, I don't mind. Is it? I mean, whatever. We need to move things along to move forward, whatever. Whatever we need to do. I don't. I don't. I'm fine bifurcating. Okay, that moves it along. Yeah, let's do that. You can. You can be the maker of both if you like. That's fine. Okay. So we've got a motion that's on the ordinance. Okay. All right. So the ordinance amending the municipal code corrects.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: And 72nd. That was you council every day. So I forget. Roll call, vote, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember De Sang.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Knox.
Speaker 1: Wait.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: Odie. Just Bella. I may or as he Ashcraft I that carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Second motion on the policy for the use of automated license plate readers. Motion.
Speaker 3: I'll move approval and if somebody wants to.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's been approved. And live by vice mayor, seconded by Councilmember Bellamy. We have a real cover, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Not quite.
Speaker 2: High. Odie Yes, that's was the amendment that Melissa talked about earlier.
Speaker 0: By the.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 0: By.
Speaker 1: Mayor as he Ashcraft High that carries 4 to 1 with Councilmember Dysart voting no.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas. Good report. Good work to all of the staff who worked with you. Thank you. All right. With that, we close out item six A and we move on to item six B, but I bet Mr. Thomas is staying public here. And can I just say at the outset that it is 930, we've got a few more items to to cover. So let's be as expeditiously as possible and getting through this next.
Speaker 1: Public hearing to consider accepting an interim report on the status of the general plan and housing element, an annual report on the status of the Transportation Choices Plan and Associated Work Program Priorities. And an annual report on the West Alameda Transportation Management Association. And.
Speaker 2: Are you ready for me?
Speaker 0: I. I missed my sitter.
Speaker 1: I don't think we have to read the sequel language. I think we was.
Speaker 0: You okay? You're fine. Yeah, I. We just lost you for a minute there. Okay. No, it's all good. Okay, Mr. Thomas.
Speaker 2: All right, Mayor Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: Welcome.
Speaker 2: So I am good. Thank you for having me back. Um, I'm going to be. I'm going to do this very quickly and just make myself available to answer questions. This is an annual report on the general plan, the and the housing element and our transportation planning efforts.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XII (Designated Parking) to Improve Procedures for Management of Public Parking on City Streets and in City Lots; and
Recommendation to Approve a Policy for the Use of License Plate Recognition Technology for the Purpose of Parking Enforcement. (Planning, Building and Transportation 4227287) [Not heard on March 17, 2020]
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_05052020_2020-7763
|
Speaker 2: So I am good. Thank you for having me back. Um, I'm going to be. I'm going to do this very quickly and just make myself available to answer questions. This is an annual report on the general plan, the and the housing element and our transportation planning efforts. So I'm just going to hit some highlights. I'm available to answer any questions. This is sort of that annual opportunity to kind of take, you know, take stock of where we're at and think about where we want to go. It's been an unusual 12 months. Ten months. The first ten were very normal. They're working on all the things we've been talking about working on. And then the last two months, everything sort of changed, particularly from a transportation perspective. But before we get there, let's just talk about the general plan. I think the council is well aware we have been working on our general plan update for the city of Alameda. Many of those elements of the plan have not been updated comprehensively since 1990, so it was time. So we've been posting the new elements on the city website. We will. We have them all up. We're just about to post the final one, which is the update of the transportation element. So if anybody is interested, go to the city website. We're going to be working with the planning board to start forums on that at late spring or early summer. So that is going to be exciting. What it really does is it talks about the need for change in planning for change over the next 20 years. We're in a changing region. Climate change is a big theme throughout the plan, improving mobility and transportation options and of course, dealing with our housing opportunities in our housing needs. We that is not an issue that we see going away over the next 20 years. So we have to plan for that. And this provides us a an opportunity to really think about this from a city wide perspective before diving into the housing element update in the next year or so. Obviously preserving neighborhoods and our business districts is a big push. And I'm pleased to say that any new general plan update that we've posted really I think, puts a much bigger stress on economic development, the need of our business community. And then along comes COVID, and it sort of really emphasizes that. So I think in that respect, we have a very good first draft up, but at this point, the council should probably just sit back and watch as the community tells us what they think. First housing element. We're working our way through this housing element period. Every year we have to report to the state how we're doing. 2019, which is the reporting year, was a good year for Alameda. We issued building permits for over 600 housing units. We are more than halfway through our eight year period council. As the Council knows, our regional housing need for this eight year period is about 1700 housing units. About the need is that about 100,000 of those are for lower income households. So obviously that's about 66%. I mean, that's a huge portion and a big, big hurdle to climb or get over. The good news is we're on track to meeting our regional housing needs in terms of numbers. If we keep on track, we will by the end of the period in 20 2021, 2022, we should have built our 1725 units. A big part of that is because a couple of big projects got started in 2019, and we can continue to work through codes that are still under construction today. The boat works or excuse me, the Del Monte Project, Alameda Marina Project inside a phase one. So those are the big three. And then of course, we recently re-approved the Boat Works Project, so we've got our fingers crossed that that will actually start to break ground in the next couple of years. Of course, the two big challenges around housing element. Like every city in the Bay Area, we're struggling to get enough affordable housing that we still have a very real housing crisis, affordable housing crisis here in Alameda. We're doing a good job building affordable housing, but it's just not enough. And this summer, we should be getting the revised schedules for the next regional housing need. The region should be getting its. Bur this summer we probably won't have ours till the following January, but it's going to be very we're going to learn a lot when we see the regions number and that will help us forecast what our number will be. So that's what we're looking at in terms of housing element, transportation plan update. First ten months, we were just plowing along, doing great. Alameda The active transportation planning effort. The council was taking a real leadership role and very active role, pushing us on things like Vision Zero and our Vision Zero policies. Are you just recently approved lane width policy? So we were we were chugging along COVID 19, then showed up and things all of a sudden shifted. The good news is we've been able to continue working with our consultants and staff, you know, just remotely. So we're still working on those plans. But some of the things we've also started to think about and work on, of course, the Slow Streets program, which is just one week old now, we've been have we have a survey out 75% of the people responding to the survey gave it a big thumbs up. So, you know, lots of suggestions about how it should be expanded, changed, improved. So that'll be that's taken on sort of a life of its own. We're also working with Park Street and Webster Street, looking at their proposals to try to create some more space for for the business community by reducing the number of travel lanes on Park and Webster Street. So these are two things that are we're actively working on right now in transportation, which, you know, if you had asked about this just six months ago, we're like, no, no, we're not. That's crazy. We're not thinking of working on those kinds of things, but now we are. So the transportation group and this is the transportation planning staff and the public works staff really working together. Our public work staff has been doing a great job helping us work through these issues. There's a couple of last things I just wanted to point out on transportation. You've all seen the projections and not the projections. The reality of what has happened to transit ridership in the last two months is, you know, a transit we just have gone down to, you know, 10% of their normal ridership. So all these services to all our transit services, nobody's riding them. We have done a couple of things in response to that, which I would have never have been anticipated three months ago. But with what we are doing right now is we've suspended the supplemental fees for the line 19 because all of a sudden AC transit stopped running them. So we are not funding the supplemental transit service for the line 19 right now because they're just able to provide basically a Sunday service. So we we've put a halt to the supplemental service for line 19. We were planning on funding supplemental service for line 96 starting in August. But that doesn't make sense right now. We don't want to pay money for a service that nobody is riding. So what we've talked to AC Transit about is just slowing that down. And instead of making the decision today to have that supplemental bus service funded in August, we've delayed it for six months. So the go no go day will be December of this year to decide whether we want to fund the supplemental service starting in March of next year. We're also actively talking and meeting with Leda on a weekly basis to talk about their return to normal and their plan. As you all know, we do not have our regular ferry service from Harbor Bay and Main Street today like we did just a month or so ago. So how we do turns on service in Alameda and what rates and which terminals get turned on when is is a conversation that we are actively involved in with them right now. Frankly, this this two months has given us an opportunity, all of us with also our TMA and our looking at our, our, our TMA and what we do for TDM and our TDM requirements on new projects. It's giving us an opportunity to kind of rethink all of that. We may end up rethinking it and come back with the exact same game plan that we had before COVID. But this it's there's lots of interesting questions about how does transit recover, how many people continue to work from home, not just city staff, but just general, you know, people who normally were commuting five days a week while they still commute five days a week. In the future. I know leaders thinking there is going to be a lot more demand for mid-day service because people won't be working half days and working from home half day. So everything is changing. And we're really it's going to be an interesting six months ahead of us as we help the community plan for recovery, but also as we work with our transit agency partners and decide how best we can help them with our resources. Because we do have resources that the Council has put in place through private development impact fees and annual assessments. So we have resources. The interesting question is how do we best use them as we move forward? And it may not be the same way we're thinking six months ago, it might be different. So with that, I will wrap up my presentation. I'm available to answer questions on any of these issues. And thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I just before we start with the council clarifying questions and then go to public comment. I just want members of the public who are watching this presentation to know that Andrew Thomas is a longtime valued member of this staff. And right now, in addition to everything he's doing, leading the planning, building and Transportation Department, he also has a pivotal role at our emergency operations center and I believe is one of the team of city staff who are planning the transition back to whatever the new normal looks like. So thank you for all the hats you wear so well, Mr. Thomas. And with that, let's do it, madam. Quick. Do we have public comment on this item?
Speaker 1: We have one speaker.
Speaker 0: Okay, well, we will take any clarifying questions about the staff report, and then we'll hear our public speaker and we'll come back to discussion and wrap up. Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 2: Thanks. That one really brief question. I noticed Roseville Village was listed there as counting towards our housing elements. Are those 80 replacing and is there a replacing? Are we allowed to do that? Because we're not really adding? Yeah, I hope it does, is that the project is an expansion of Roseville Village. I don't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head. I have it right in my fingertips. But you're right. We don't get credit for the existing units, just the new units. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any more clarifying questions before we take our public comment? Okay. We'll be back. Madam Clerk. Public comment.
Speaker 2: The.
Speaker 1: This is from Ruth Abby from community the action for sustainable Alameda. Mayor Ashcroft, members of the city council, thank you for your leadership and support of the transportation initiatives that keep our pedestrians and bicyclists safe and provide alternatives for Alameda to get out of their cars and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Community Action for Sustainable Alameda is pleased to be a partner with the city in the Line 19 BART Shuttle Outreach Project and we look forward to continuing to support the development of the active transportation plan. Special thanks to transportation staff Gail Payne and Rochelle Wheeler, who go above and beyond in their diligence and inclusiveness. Our community is so fortunate to have them as public servants.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that comment. And um, I will just note that we've heard two public speakers tonight, Ruth, Abby from Casa and earlier Debbie Ryan from Casa. And those two ladies were my choices for this year's Grand Marshals for the 4th of July parade. But rest assured, we will we will find a way to to recognize you. You know what? I've just gotten a text message, Madam Clerk, from a viewer who says there's no sound to the TV audience for the last 2 minutes. So.
Speaker 1: Correct. We got a text, too, and a couple people tell us and it's working again now, we understand.
Speaker 0: Working again. Okay. Good to hear. All right.
Speaker 1: We did nothing different in the room, so we're not sure what happened.
Speaker 0: Uh, the gremlins. Okay, so. Okay, so what we are asked to do on this, this very important report is to, um, to hold the public hearing and endorse by motion the General Planning and Housing Element Annual Report Transportation Choices Plan Annual Report in the West Alameda Transportation Management Agency Annual Report. And let's hear from council and let's have a vote. Who wants to start?
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 0: Councilmember everybody.
Speaker 2: Well, first item of approval of all three items, and that way someone could second after everyone talks. Um, real quick, thank you for this. Um, I'm concerned about transportation, you know, whether or not it turns out to be reality or not. I read a poll maybe two weeks ago that 75% of the people would not cut back on public transportation. And it was it was consistent among demographics, whether you're Democrat or Republican, conservative, liberal men, women, racial age. So I think that's a challenge that we'll have to work on. So that's my only comment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I think I saw vice mayor and then councilmember today. So they did not see you. Okay. Sorry if I say Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 2: Just a second. The motion.
Speaker 0: Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Any further discussion? Okay, now I see a hand count for.
Speaker 3: Pushing my glasses up, and Tony hand was upset. Didn't want to step in front of him.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: You guys don't make it easy on me.
Speaker 3: I keep trying to duck down.
Speaker 0: I try to reach. I try to read your mind. And it's just going nowhere. So, yes.
Speaker 3: In the spirit of brevity, I just want to in the end and, uh, the, uh, building planning and transportation director Andrew Thomas said it, well, our transit is in trouble. Not only is it funded by my fare box, it's also funded by sales tax, which we just lost. And so, you know, I read this and it and quite honestly, it was such an exciting report. And at the same time, the next steps for 2020 are so much like, Oh yeah, we're not doing that. We're going to spend so much of the next 6 to 12 months just trying to put the system back together. And I and I appreciate the acknowledgment of that. So I will I will gladly support this moving forward tonight. But I also would like to do so kind of with the idea that we're going to be we're going to be making sure that as we're focusing on what we're doing over the next six and eight months is not just supporting how transit comes back, but supporting the things we do have control on and making sure that the money, whether it's the transportation money that we're getting from assets, etc., which comes in from sales tax that we're putting that in the priority places, the policy priority places of this council that is driving how we're making funding decisions as less money is moving forward than we were hoping for. I'd also, you know, once this is done, I'd like to make a motion for for direction. So for after this, if I could come back, I'd like to share it just briefly. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. So we have a motion. We have a second. Do we have any further discussion? Hearing, then maybe we have a roll call vote, please.
Speaker 1: Member disagree?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Not quite. Yes.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Mayor. As the Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: Perfect. And then vice mayor, next, why you wanted to come back with that motion?
Speaker 3: I did, yes. Thank you. Safe Streets was not on the agenda tonight for discussion, but I would like the opportunity to have a conversation about that. This important program, which is all about social distancing, which will be with us for at least 12 more months, is going to is going to be a part of our community conversation for for four months to come. And I'd like a chance for the Council to have some conversation about that as well. So I'd like to make a motion to provide direction to staff to bring that back at our next meeting. It doesn't need to be a staff report, it can be an oral report. But I just I got an opportunity to kind of talk about it and make sure that we're all on the same page and moving forward.
Speaker 0: Okay. Is there a second to that motion? Also. You're talking about the slow streets, John.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. Okay. So that's a motion to give staff direction, to bring that program back for discussion to count.
Speaker 3: On May 19th.
Speaker 0: Oh, at the next meeting, if possible.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's what I'm saying. I don't need a staffer personally. I don't need a staff report. I think we can just have them bring the map in and ask for a comfortable discussion.
Speaker 0: I might like to hear from the city manager just because I know that the staff reports all have to be out by this Thursday. Right. Mr. Leavitt, what do you think?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, that would be very difficult. Other than especially if he did enter a special meeting. Maybe. But it's that would be difficult on May, May 19th, because the staff reports are due tomorrow. Tomorrow are not due tomorrow. They're they're finalized as far as review. Tomorrow is what they are.
Speaker 3: Right. Okay. I guess we'll do it in June when it's, you know, I'm sorry. I had planned on bringing it as a referral. I thought we were going to have the opportunity to be able to talk about it tonight. So I didn't file for referral.
Speaker 0: Okay, I have a question. I'll get you just a minute. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Fine.
Speaker 0: Okay. Question Well, Councilmember Vela. Yeah, I was just wondering if if the vice mayor is just asking that it be agenda so that there can be a council discussion about it or a council Q&A and perhaps we can get it agendas that way, or perhaps at least maybe we can get an update. I think the Brown Act makes it difficult for us to converse about it. And I don't think that he's at least from my perspective, I'm not necessarily looking for a staff report. I don't know that he is either. But it would perhaps just provide an opportunity for council conversation and discussion without necessarily a staff report. Um, so my feedback is, I think waiting two more weeks to hear this has benefits because I want more than just the council talking about it. I do want benefit of staff input and I think there's even some legal issues we should be aware of. And so, um, right now we've got, um, we've got our two streets that are open and I know staff is looking at some others and maybe even another facility elsewhere in the city. Um, but, um, I, I just, I would want more because the thing is, so we bring it back and then we give staff direction to come to us at the next meeting. Wouldn't couldn't we just. Say that as soon as I'm trying to be respectful of all the things staff is doing to.
Speaker 3: But I'll let staff determine.
Speaker 0: How quickly am I? I call on speaker, sir. I've got Mr. Otis. Hand up Mr. Otis for this.
Speaker 2: Ernie. I know that one of the places that are designated now is within 500 feet of where I live. So can I begin this discussion? If if it is within 500 feet of where you live, I'd recommend you reduce. Okay. Amount of.
Speaker 3: Well, unless unless it's about.
Speaker 0: Okay. Mr. Vice Mayor, if you to just wait for me to call on you. I will. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 3: Sorry. Even if my interest is in having a citywide conversation about this program, not discussing Pacific Avenue where Jim lives. So I guess as it comes forward, hopefully you can think through that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: In short time. Okay. So, um. Your motion is what? Again.
Speaker 3: I guess my motion is to bring it back as soon as possible before future streets are rolled out so that we can have a conversation about how this program is moving forward.
Speaker 0: And, Mr. Levitt, would that would it be reasonable to get it on the first June meeting?
Speaker 2: Yes, the first June meeting.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um, okay. So is there a second Councilmember Avella? I'll second it. I just I want to have a I do have a question about if there's going to be any changes or elimination of STS prior to that date. It's like, are there going to be any major decisions being made prior to series? Here's the problem, and I'll let Mr. Shen, our city attorney, answer that. This item is not a generalized. And you tell us if you would, Mr. City Attorney, but how much how far can we go? Yeah.
Speaker 2: And so given that this is not agenda related to the item, my advice of the Council's brief direction to staff to bring back whatever the Council wishes to hear, and staff will bring it back to you so that we don't generate a discussion on an item that's not on the agenda.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we've had a motion. It's been seconded. Maybe we have a roll call vote, said.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de Sung.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Not quite.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: The last. Yes.
Speaker 1: Mayor as the Ashcroft?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And that carries four with one absence of councilmember voting.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, everybody. And moving right along. Actually, let me ask council. It's 10:00. Two people want to take a brief break and resume in 10 minutes. Okay. I'm going to take a break now. Okay. Let's take a ten minute break. We've been going for actually, we've been going for 4 hours straight because we started closed session at six. So it is 1001. Let's be back at. Okay, 1015. We're starting. So be bend your seats a little bit before to log in if you would. Okay. See you in ten. And, Madam Clerk, what do we do? We do anything. Do we turn our video off?
Speaker 1: You can leave your videos. I'm just going to pause the broadcast.
Speaker 0: Perfect. Okay. Back at 1015. Starting at 1015. Thanks, everyone. Starting at um, yeah, at 1015 it is 1015 and we are back in session. Okay. Hello everyone. We have returned from our brief break and we are moving on to item six. See, Madam Kirk, were you introduced that item plus.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Public Hearing to Consider Accepting: 1) an Annual Report on the Status of the General Plan and Housing Element, 2) an Annual Report on the Status of the Transportation Choices Plan and Associated Work Program Priorities, and 3) an Annual Report for the West Alameda Transportation Management Association (TMA). Consideration of an Annual Report is Exempt from Review Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the General Rule that CEQA only Applies to Actions that have the Potential to Cause a Significant Impact on the Environment. (Planning, Building and Transportation 481005) [Not heard March 17, 2020]
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_05052020_2020-7730
|
Speaker 0: See, Madam Kirk, were you introduced that item plus.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to accept 2020 annual report on the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, and I cannot tell you how excited I am about this plan and which of our public works staff is present here on this.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor. As you Ashcraft, members of council, you know, you get.
Speaker 0: The nod now that this is our assistant city manager, Jerry Byrd, and we're happy to have you.
Speaker 2: Hi. And my mike is working, so. That's great. So good. Yeah. So I'm really fortunate tonight to be here with Patrick Pellegrino Day, our climate action coordinator, and Liam Garland, our public works director, to present this item. It just a quick shout out to the two of these folks. It's really a pleasure to work on the Caap implementation with Patrick and Liam. Passionate about the topic, innovative and really just instrumental in developing the plan and leading the way on key components of the development and implementation that we're working on now. Also a whole host of other members of staff across the organization who are working on this. So as you know, we're recommending adoption or excuse me, acceptance of the 2020 annual report tonight for the the 2019 Climate Action Resiliency Plan. The timing of this is a little in advance of what would be a year for the plan, but we are trying to align it with the transportation plan annual report that you just heard earlier tonight, because in addition to the dozens of strategies that are in the carp, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is really a big part of it, and that transportation plan helps to do that. That's another focus of the plan is also sequestering carbon. And then a final strategy or list of strategies are around building resilience to change related to climate impacts for the city of Alameda. The plan was adopted on September 3rd, 2019. Three key goals reducing greenhouse gas emissions adaptation to climate change. And then the third is what we're here talking about tonight. It's really the effective implementation and capacity building to ensure that the plan comes to fruition. That was really important to the city council when the plan was adopted, and it's important for all the plans that we work on. But for this plan in particular, because climate change is really is a really important topic for this year for the city of alameda and the community as a whole. A cornerstone of the caap is the the annual report and this is our first annual report for this document. So it's worth summarizing the progress where we're basically looking at some key metrics that we've put together into a dashboard. And we've launched that dashboard publicly. And I'll talk a little bit more about that in a few minutes. And then we're describing the next steps for the near medium and longer term actions associated with the plan and is our first effort. So we really want to make sure that we're hitting the high highlights, but also hearing from council, if there are things that you'd like to hear from us, hear more about or you'd like built into future plans, feel free to give us that information tonight or going forward as as part of as part of other communications. And before I really get into the details of the annual report, the three pillars of sustainability are mentioned in the in the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan there, the economy, the environment and equity. And we all know that with the coronavirus right now, all three all three of those pillars are being pretty significantly impacted. So we have taken the time to step back, look at the plan, and we remain confident that we'll be able to move forward with the implementation. But much like some of our transportation efforts, there'll be new challenges that we'll have to face as we come through the COVID 19 public health pandemic. So with that, I'll move on to the highlights and accomplishments. They're called out in pretty significant amount of detail in the the annual report, but also in the appendix, which does summarize the action steps that have been taken so far. I'll just give a few examples tonight. In January, Alameda Municipal Power went to providing 100% clean power for the community. The council passed a resolution requiring all electric vehicle development for new residential projects on city owned land. And we also property say we but it really is the royal we in this case property owners in the community passed out water quality and flood protection fee that will help us improve our our overall infrastructure. And looking ahead, we're focusing on some near-term projects like our communications plan, our master tree plan update. We're also moving forward with design work for Veteran's Court, which will translate into a longer term capital investment and and physical improvements for that area. And of course, we're looking at sea level rise for due and big projects for us, projects that we're working on now that will take a little time to to develop solutions for and work with our our neighbors and our. Partners on our Doolittle Drive and flooding at the entrances to our at the entrance to our tubes which are significant infrastructure projects more than likely for us and will involve significant budget and planning processes. Just going back to the carp for a minute. We have over 200 action items in our Climate Action Plan. The appendix that we attach to the annual report includes updates on about 35 of those action items. In our first what was a six month update for you when we initially plan to bring this forward on March 17th? It's now been eight months, but like Anja was saying earlier, it's been the last couple of months have been more about planning for what might be in the next fiscal year. And so we're we're still working on some of those those priorities that have been identified, but we expect to gain momentum again. And then in the coming months on our climate action efforts, we do engage with a number of agencies and other groups around the state and the country where we're also really focused on our local partners. CASA Bruce and Debi were mentioned earlier. Casa in particular has been instrumental in supporting the development of the plan and we see them as key players as we move toward or we move forward with our implementation efforts. And I mentioned it just briefly, but before I wrap up, I really want to give a shout out to Patrick, who was able to take a series of ideas that we had around around indicators and metrics and turn it into a dashboard for us. The dashboard will continue to evolve. We've we've obviously just gotten started with the implementation. So a lot of the data is just is just getting started. But we've planted those seeds. And you can take a look at our dashboard on the the Climate Action and Resilience Plan website. If you if you search for if you search for city of Alameda Karp, you'll end up on the Web page. And the first paragraph has a hot link to our to our our new dashboard. And some of the key metrics are in the areas of transportation, sea level rise and energy. So you'll be able to see what we're doing in those areas and be able to track over time our progress. And so check that out when you have a few minutes and we're available for any questions that you might have increased our presentation with that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. And Madam, quick, do we have public comments?
Speaker 1: Yes, one.
Speaker 0: All right, counselor, do you have any clarifying questions on this staff before we hear a public comment? Since then. Let's hear the public comment, please.
Speaker 1: Okay. This is from Ruth. Abby from Community Action for Sustainable Alameda. Mayor Ashcroft and members of the City Council. The 2020 annual report on the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan documents the significant achievements undertaken by the city since the adoption of the plan in September 2019, including 100% clean power provided by Almeida's publicly owned municipal utility. Passage of the water quality and Flood Protection Fee resolution supporting all electric residential development on city owned lands. Implementation of the city's Transportation Choices Plan. And Zero Waste Implementation Plan. Update Initiation of the Active Transportation Plan and Vision Zero Action Plan. Initial recruitment of a Sustainability and Resiliency Manager as you move forward to review the city's budget priorities in light of the COVID 19 process. Please continue to prioritize these efforts in mitigation and adaptation, in particular. At the Budget Workshop on May 20th, we will be encouraging you to move forward to prioritize the hiring of the sustainability and resiliency manager, to ensure that Alameda continues to demonstrate leadership in greenhouse gas emission reduction and to keep Alameda on the climate safe path. We will specifically need these staff resources to ensure that Alameda is prepared to respond in addressing federal, state and regional opportunities for funding shovel ready projects as we emerge from sheltering in place and are able to respond to stimulus funding opportunities. Thank you. Thank you for your leadership and vision for Almeida's future. And that's it.
Speaker 0: All right. Okay. Thank you. So with that, we will close public comment. Okay. So what we're being asked to do today is to accept this 2020 annual report. It is a very impressive undertaking and achievement so far. And, you know, I think we're all noticing a silver lining of this cloud of COVID 19 that we're under is with fewer cars on the on the roads. The air quality is incredible. And, you know, some beautiful skies at night. And you notice the fragrance of the flowers more because there's not that overlay of air pollution. And I don't know if it's just because it's springtime or maybe the improved air quality, but it seems like there's a lot more birds out there and you're hearing them in. So anyway, that's a good thing. But so council, before we move forward on accepting this annual report, any brief comments or do we just have a motion? We're running a little on energy. I can see. Okay. I'd like to move for approval. Thank you. Councilmember Vela, we have a motion that says so. That's the second. Okay. It is by Councilmember Vela, seconded by Councilmember Ody. Any discussion among council hearing hearing then? Correct hearing then. Okay. Roll call vote, please.
Speaker 1: Councilmember days. Thanks. Not quite.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Odie. I Bella. By May as the Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: Thank you very nice thank you all for for your good work and good report. Thank you, Mr. Bird and Mr. Garland. And have a great day. All right. All right, then we are moving on to item six, the.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Accept 2020 Annual Report on the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP). (City Manager 2110) [Not heard March 17, 2020]
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_05052020_2020-7762
|
Speaker 0: Thank you very nice thank you all for for your good work and good report. Thank you, Mr. Bird and Mr. Garland. And have a great day. All right. All right, then we are moving on to item six, the.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to provide direction on potential measures amending the city charter.
Speaker 0: Okay. And this was a is an item that is being brought forth by the subcommittee that I appointed when I was sworn into office in December of 2018, almost two years now, not quite. These last couple of months have seemed like about a year. Anyway, I want to thank the the subcommittee, the charter review subcommittee, councilmember Desiree Vice Mayor Knox White. And who's taking the lead on introducing this item that you, Mr. Vice Mayor?
Speaker 3: I think that was Tony's arm, too.
Speaker 0: So are you guys going like this?
Speaker 3: I'm going right into the camera.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. We did it. Councilmember De Sorkin, I have met many, many, many times over the last year and a half, including on tonight's items with two different workshops and a number of community meetings between the Alameda Citizens Task Force and the Alameda Democratic Club and many other groups and voters you talked about with, I talked with as well. As we mentioned at the last meeting, we were going to bring forward a reduced list of recommendations. They fall into two groups. One is related to counsel compensation. So recommending that we allow future city councils the flexibility to determine their compensation. Right now, the city charter, as we all know, limits or sets the council compensation of $50 per meeting up to two meetings a month for council. And I think it's 150 per month for the for the Mayor. Rather than having the charter set a specific amount for the city council, we propose to set a maximum so that voters know that they're not just writing a blank check and that in ten years city council, the city council will meet. It would pay them themselves $180,000 a year. And we and given that the the job is part time, we felt that that that maximum should reflect what the average looks like in the in the Bay Area or in the East Bay, which is about 14, $15,000 per year for city councils, which also comes out to about 30% of the median individual salary, which is about in Alameda, which is 72%, $72,000. Also clarify that since we would be increasing how much money council members were making, we would clarify that council that that insurance is only for the city council and not for entire city council families and extended family measure to.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Could I could we get clarifying questions maybe on each item.
Speaker 3: If that's how you want to do it?
Speaker 0: Yeah. If if that's okay with you. We've gotten a lot of correspondence on this item, so I just wanted to ask you a couple clarifying questions. Vice Mayor Knox White. So is the is are you proposing that the council vote ourselves a raise?
Speaker 3: Not currently, no. And that the proposal would allow future councils. And in fact, actually, the language here would propose that a future council couldn't even vote for a raise until after January 1st, 2023, which would be after any of the five of us who are on the current council would be have finished our current our current election and their terms or anything.
Speaker 0: So, um. So is this something the voters would vote on?
Speaker 3: The voters would set the maximum. Yes. And in the language would say that it would not take effect until January 1st, 2023.
Speaker 0: So so just for clarification, for folks who might not have had a chance to read the staff member, these are ballot measure proposals you're introducing, is that correct?
Speaker 3: Yes, I would actually go so far as to say we're introducing the idea of the council directing staff to draft ballot proposals, which will come back in June or July, and for further council discussion and then a determination at that point whether or not to put it on the ballot and then the voters would vote, whether or not to. Sorry, I understand your question now.
Speaker 0: But no, I.
Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. And therefore, the that the voters would be determining whether or not the council should in the future have the flexibility to give themselves a raise. And in our public meetings on this issue, we had very strong support for the idea that the council is currently underpaid and that there is a concern that the current pay the council could be a limiting factor in attracting candidates. Who may not have the wherewithal to self-fund themselves, but being a volunteer for the city.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You've answered my question. Did anybody else have questions on this item before? Mr.. The vice mayor assigned to the second measure he's discussing tonight. Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So when you say clarify health benefits, so with what are we or what are you proposing we we do away with.
Speaker 3: Well, currently, there's no language about health benefits currently. I mean, would you know, it's very strictly our city charter says we make $50 per meeting. It does not talk about city health benefits. It doesn't talk about technology and car allowances, etc., the things that we do actually still collect. And so I think what this would do would not be this council adding yet another $15,000 on to $30,000 in or 20 to $25000 in health benefits, which some some past council members have taken. I'm not I haven't looked up. What? I haven't looked up who's taking what? Yeah. On the current council. But in the past, some council members have funded their their family health coverage through the city council. We have two other elected officials who do that as well. So this would this would clarify that council members would remain. So it would actually say that council members would themselves would be able to collect health benefits, but that it would not be family coverage.
Speaker 2: So then the only people that would be removed from eligibility are the family members of the council, which I'm incorrect. That would include Mayor.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's. Sorry. We are all the city council.
Speaker 0: We're the council. Yeah, that.
Speaker 3: Was that was that was my intent. Yes. And again, we can change any of this. This was just the the proposal. Tony and I came up here.
Speaker 2: Just to clarify.
Speaker 3: So if somebody wanted to change that or didn't like that and wanted to move forward with it with different without that language, with better with different language, that's fine. I just it was a starting point for.
Speaker 2: The conversation in 15 minutes. Okay. So if people were removed, you're proposing removing are the family members of the mayor and council? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 3: Yes. This does not past past versions talked about the city charter and treasurer currently that the charter gives the the setting of the compensation for the charter for the auditor and the Treasurer to the City Council. This would not change that in any way.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any other questions? Councilmember They certainly give a quizzical.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, no, I, I'm not quizzical. I just.
Speaker 0: Tell my principal I just want.
Speaker 2: To present some data for that. For the public, for the viewing public, uh, city clerk y figure, are you able to post.
Speaker 0: That data that I put together?
Speaker 1: Yes, we can post it. It might not look great for the members of the public, but we'll try and zoom and just give.
Speaker 0: It a shot.
Speaker 1: Good.
Speaker 2: Mm. Great. Well, what you have here, I went through a state of California database called Transparent California. And I went through all of the cities in Alameda County. And as vice mayor, I had said earlier, when you look at the data on a city by city basis, the city of Alameda lags considerably when it comes to pay . Our pay is $100, as I said, in the charter. But in addition to that, there's roughly about $400 of additional pay technology and and and vehicle. So it's roughly about 400, $500 a month. But when you compare it against the other cities, you can kind of you can generally see how we lag considerably. Perhaps Albany is the only other city that that that is substantially lower as low as us. On average, the monthly pay is roughly about 1200 dollars a month versus our roughly pay of $400. Um, so we want to just make sure to build a case that, that there is a considerable discrepancy by, in the way in which your city council here in Alameda is paid relative to two city councils in nearby areas. Um. So so that's just part of the discussion. I think the other part of this discussion is certainly members of the public has have expressed some concern about pay in this environment. And the reality is, though, is that the COVID situation is going to be with us for quite some time. So if we're going to have a discussion, we might as well have a discussion tonight on this regular Tuesday night meeting. It doesn't mean that we necessarily have to come to a decision, but at least we can begin to have that discussion so that the public is informed about where we're going when it comes to the council pay. The other thing I do want to say, though, is that if we are to move this forward, that to potentially put it to a vote in November, we have to recognize that this isn't occurring in a vacuum because there are several other considerable charter reform items that that we need that we will be discussing in the coming days. So I think each of us council members need to kind of put this specific item tonight in the context of the other things, too. So so I just want to make sure to mention that. All right. Well, thank you very much, Laura, for putting up posting this data from Transparent, California. And thank you also to Vice Mayor Knox White and in working together on this item. Oh, and also one more. Thank you to Mayor Ashcraft in appointing us to this charter item.
Speaker 0: And I, I appreciate the work that you have both than I spend many hours over the almost a year and a half that you've been working on this. And so thank you for for doing the deep dove and and then whittling it down a bit in light of the current situation. Okay. And any other clarifying questions on this report? And I did want to ask the speaker, do we have public comment?
Speaker 1: We have two.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, um, I think. Did I see Councilmember Ellis hand go up or did I just see you put your glasses on? Okay. Um, never clarifying questions at this time on staff report. Hey, let's hear our public comments, please, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 1: The first one is for mayor.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Sorry, sorry. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 3: Since. Since the comments maybe on also measure two. Can we quickly just go?
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Yes, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I thought we did, but we did not. Okay. Yes. Let's go.
Speaker 3: Through.
Speaker 0: The entire staff report and then we'll have our public comments. Take it away.
Speaker 3: I am assuming I am assuming that this one will be even clearer because they are all items we have more or less spoken about. But the second measure so we we we did propose in these move forward is one but we proposed doing them as two separate measures would be to allow language to allow the city prosecutor to commit crimes committed crimes, prosecute crimes. But that doesn't sound right.
Speaker 0: To do crimes.
Speaker 3: Without prior to district attorney requesting.
Speaker 0: We're not allowing that.
Speaker 3: Currently, the the city prosecutor has made that request and has received that permission. But last September when we adopted the, uh, the language appointing or creating the city prosecutor position and whatnot, we also said we'd like to look at amending the city charter to provide this direction so that it's clear for all future years. Also clarify that the absence, that absence in remote meeting participation rules. We need to make some clarifications that when your parent time family care COVID that that there are times in which remote meeting is perfectly acceptable and you can do it from the city, etc.. And it would I would call bringing it bringing our charter up to the modern world. Obviously not something where you just decide not to come to the council on a Tuesday. But there are some very, very real and good reasons why people might want to phone in or video in so that they can take care of children and family members or COVID pandemics. And then lastly, we just wanted to if staff had any clean up language they wanted to present to us, that would also come back to Councilmember SACS point. I think at least in my mind, the three meetings we're having on the charter this week, depending on what direction is given, at the end of the day, we would have one meeting sometime in June or July where we would kind of determine and determine which which all some whatever of the ones that we said, why don't we bring these back for future discussion will go on the ballot so that we would have be able to have that kind of balance and conversation all at once. So those are the those are them. We had proposed a couple of community task force. Obviously, this is not the time for community task forces. So once the COVID emergency kind of has passed, we would recommend some form of task force on campaign finance and ethics reform. We would think that the Mayor would appoint two council members to do that. And, uh, Council de SAC is the also I'll let you speak about it, Tony, but I wanted also to suggest the idea of a task force on District 11 elections. That was something that came forward just just from Councilmember de SAC, but we wanted it to be captured.
Speaker 0: From Councilmember de SA. What would you like to say about that?
Speaker 2: Well, I think at some point in time we might want to take a look at, um, uh, having district council members represent districts. And there's a lot of great models across the state of California, but certainly one of the impetus is as more and more cities, by virtue of being pressed by legal challenges, and also more and more cities just out of a desire to have council members represent certain geographic areas. Um, even here within Alameda County are turning to district elections. But also I think we might want to take a look at district elections from the lens of a form of campaign finance reform in the sense that, you know, having to campaign for districts could potentially cost less money, depending on the depending on the form of districts that you take. And by just if I can say quickly what I mean by different models. For example, our neighborhood neighboring city of San Leandro has districts, but each council member represents a district, a given geographic area. However, in order to represent that district, they have to be voted on citywide. So that's an interesting model in terms of district elections. But the classic district model is certainly, you know, you represent a certain geographic area and my light to gone out. But so that's about it. And I think sometime in the we can I agree that we can hold off the discussion on district of elections potentially by inviting even more people to give us their insights, like the League of Women Voters as well as Alameda Citizens Task Force, etc..
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. So now we've covered the staff report. Okay. Any clarifying questions before we go to our public speakers? Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And thank the two of you for your work. So are we not being asked to consider the last two items or we are.
Speaker 0: The task forces and the district's election is that the task.
Speaker 2: Forces task to.
Speaker 0: Work with two task forces.
Speaker 3: I don't believe it was my intention to ask the council to consider tonight. Obviously, at the end of the day that whatever the recommendation is going forward tonight is the council's will. And so if they thought one or the other was worthwhile and saying, let's do that, and then we could start in September, we can now.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: Certainly wouldn't be against it.
Speaker 2: And I won't talk about it unless others do. All right. And if I.
Speaker 0: Remember Councilmember de CYC.
Speaker 2: I thought our specific marching orders from several weeks ago was to kind of narrow down this initial list. So that's why Vice Mayor Knox White and I have the two items as kind of the headlining items and the other things kind of as well. We'll pick it up later.
Speaker 0: Okay. Understood. Thank you. Um, okay. Let's have our public speakers.
Speaker 1: Okay. The first one is Janet Gibson, who's an Alameda resident. Dear Mayor and Council Members. Alameda Voters want charter discussions to be inclusive and transparent. We respectfully request that the Council postpone these important discussions until our governor lifts the shelter in place. Order. If ever there were a time for City Council members to listen to your constituent, it is now tonight. You have received many letters asking for you to pause these discussions. But. Three are particularly significant letters from Alameda League of Women Voters, Alameda Citizens Task Force, an Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. These letters are especially important because each organization represents hundreds of Alameda citizens. What is everyone asking for? They are asking that you respect the limiting conditions of all of us are living under during this pandemic period. The situation makes all of us unable to engage in serious deliberation over the important issues that will affect the future of Alameda. Voters are asking that you postpone these charter discussions. If you want potential charter amendments to pass at the polls, the process must be trusted by the voters. You've got to get the wording right. And although that's essential over the long run, our city can function well while we work on forming a consensus. And then the next speaker is Patricia Gannon, who's also an Alameda resident. Honorable mayor as he Ashcraft, an honorable members of the Alameda City Council. I am following up on my letter of April 22nd regarding this topic. This is a complex and complicated issue which deserves to be fully debated in person by council members in an open setting so that Alameda citizens have a full understanding of the issue and have an opportunity to express their views fully in person. With the City Council at a meeting in council chambers, as convenient as matters to modern technology may be, sometimes the old fashioned way is the best way to proceed. There's absolutely no pressure to push this forward. I again urge the Council to table this issue until social distancing is ended and the myriad issues can be fully debated in an open setting. If the Council does decide to move forward, I fully support the recommendations of the Army two citizen task force submitted in its letter dated May 4th, 2020. Thank you for your consideration. And that's the last speaker.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, then with that we will close public comment. Um. Okay. So now. We go to a council comment and then we'll see what we what we decide. So I would like to start. As I say, I'm happy to. But do you want to start today? So.
Speaker 2: Sure. I'd like to offer this comment. I think the comments raised by the members in the public comment portion, as well as the volumes of emails that we had received, um, uh, are right. But for different reasons. Um. I think the data clearly shows that the City Council of Alameda for generations has been underpaid. I think the data clearly shows that, and I think the reasonable resident will see the data and then come to the same conclusion that that we're not a city council that's asking for for a change to the charter when it comes to pay. Insofar as the request is is grounded in the data that was before us is not we're not asking for the moon. I think it's reasonable in relationship to the to to what's around us. But I think, though, that as significant as this request is, I think we all know that any time that you have a request for a pay increase, it becomes a form of political football. And if it's going to be a form of a political football, I'm really concerned about this because I believe that there are two other items that we are going to discuss. And we can't we can't discuss it tonight because they're going to they're going to be discussed on the in the following days. And my concern is, any time you have pay, that it becomes a form of a political football and it could become an unwelcome distraction as we tackle the of the two one of the two other items that it could become a unwelcome distraction. So. I'm okay with postponing this until I understand where we are with the other two. At which point in time I would make it. I think we should then come back to this and figure out if we're going to put it, if we want to move forward to bring it to the voters. But I think there are two other items, though, that if we all if we bring up all three together, it could become an unwelcome distraction. And for that reason, I, I certainly support postponing it for now. So I'm postponing I'm supporting the notion of postponing, but for different reasons, not not necessarily because of COVID 19, but because of how we position this or anything it or anything else. This coming November, if there is to be a November vote. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm gonna go next. I have paid close attention to the many emails, voicemails, the public comments we just heard. And. And I respect all of your opinions. But I also want to make a few things clear. First of all, the council is not voting to amend the charter. The council will vote on whether or not to consider allowing or to allow the voters to amend the charter. To amend the charter. We will put forth proposals if we have a majority to do that and we'll take it to the voters. That is democracy. And while it is true that we are under a shelter in place order, there is still the need for government to move forward to function. You heard the items, many of them that we just discussed and approved and moved on earlier today have to do with the city moving forward in a responsible manner. And so I also want to point out a few things about this notion that the only way we can have full participatory democracy in our city is if we all are allowed to come to city council, fill the chambers, make our voices heard. Well, we are all adjusting and adapting to a new reality, and none of us is, at least I don't think on this council is anticipating that we're going to go back to the days of filling the chamber because we are still going to need to practice social distancing, whether it's in our schools, our restaurants, our businesses. This is the new reality that's going to keep us healthy. The other thing for all of the seniors out there to keep in mind is the governor's orders have specified limitations on what seniors can do in public. And I believe the golf resumption excludes people 65 and over. I don't think you'd want to be told that you can't come and speak to your council because it's not healthy for you to do so. But the ability to participate from the comfort of your own home. Submitting your comments by email, voicemail, or text message that are heard by the Council and considered and made a part of the record gives you your ability to speak and in some ways makes it even more convenient for the parent of a young child, for someone who would need to arrange childcare before they went out. For someone whose mobility is limited and it's just more of an effort to get to the council chambers for a meeting. I mean, we've all gotten accustomed to doing things in a certain way, but we're now learning new ways and we're going to adapt to those and we're going to move forward. And I know I got an email from the League of Women Voters saying maybe this isn't the time to have a thoughtful public discussion. But then yesterday, our League of Women Voters of Alameda announced the exciting news that for the first time, the United States Supreme Court began livestreaming oral arguments. And I say, if the Supreme Court can do it, we can, too, although we can give you video as well. The other thing is that this is a time when people are paying attention. They have more time on their hands right now with shelter in place. Many people aren't working. Many people are at home. I hold the weekly mayors, COVID 19 town hall on Fridays, and I've had at Friday and on Friday at noon on a day with nice weather. 75 people in in the discussion, you know, listening. It's not for me it's for the pretty amazing speakers I get on this week. Speaker is the county public health officer, by the way. But so and I've also read some really encouraging news lately that young people are younger generation 18 to 30 are getting more politically active and interested. And a lot of it has to do with the impact on their lives that this COVID crisis has had and what they see as governments maybe from the top mishandling of this. We're also going to have a presidential election in November. So life goes on, life goes forward. We take very seriously our duty to communicate with the public, and we're learning more ways to do it all the time. I've had probably more opportunities lately to communicate directly with my constituents in these Zoom town halls because they ask me questions. Not just the speaker and I, I'm. Be looking forward to to maintaining some of these new forms of communication. So as far as the items themselves, and again, I thank the subcommittee for bringing this forward, I do believe that it is worth bringing to the public the idea of allowing a future council to be compensated in a different manner, and also more in keeping with the the pay that other city councils are making around the Bay Area. There's nothing in Alameda that we do less of than other cities, and in fact, none of us has our own staff. So we're doing an awful lot of the heavy lifting by ourselves. I mean, we have fabulous city staff, but we are not assigned staff people the way Oakland and some other cities are. Um, and then the, uh, the city prosecutor language. I think that's a really important one for our residents. These are often quality of life kinds of cases that can be prosecuted by our city prosecutors, which the Alameda County DA's office just doesn't have the interest or the bandwidth to deal with, given everything else they're dealing with on a county level. So that's that's important for our for our city. And then as far as and clean up language, asking staff to take a look at the charter and see any clean up language that they want to identify and bring back to us. I think that's perfectly reasonable. I think I heard my two colleagues on the subcommittee say the formation of community task forces can wait and I would be agreeable with that. So those are my thoughts and I'm happy to hear from. Let's hear from Councilmember Vela. So I take a little bit different perspective, I guess. I think that shelter in place has actually impacted a variety of people differently than Ms.. Well, I'm so sorry. I have to interrupt you to do a quick motion because it's 1058. Sorry. Hold that thought. Um, so, counsel, we need a motion to consider two items. After 11:00, it's like 2 minutes to 11. So the next one is item six. This is the one that came back to us because council member, vice mayor in that vote had to leave and that's direction. On whether or not to waiver a conflict on the retention of a particular legal firm by both the city and the Housing Authority. And the other one is, um, nine A which is my counsel referral about the, uh, the community, the tax exempt special fund to provide gap resources for local businesses, renters, local organizations. So what we can do, if you like. Sorry. The, um. We can make a motion to continue in here those items, but only to go to a certain time. But I would like those items heard. So do I have a motion?
Speaker 2: I move?
Speaker 0: Okay. And is it until the time when you're like, um. What do we think, council? It's ten now. 1145. It's, I mean, it's it's 1059 that 2:00. Jim. 11 now it's it's 1059 on my watch.
Speaker 2: 1145 you said, okay.
Speaker 0: Ten 1145 think we could do this in 45 minutes? I think we can. Okay, um, do have a second to Councilmember de fax motion.
Speaker 2: Yes. No.
Speaker 0: Um.
Speaker 3: Second. Sorry, my mike. I turned my mike off the second. Second.
Speaker 0: All right, we have a motion. We have a second. Could I please have a voice vote?
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Not quite.
Speaker 2: I. I.
Speaker 1: Vella. I'm mayor as the Ashcraft High. That carries by five days.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. Councilmember Vela, please excuse the interruption. Just got this text. Okay. You were saying. Yeah. So I take a little different view about the shelter in place. I think that while some people may have more time, unfortunately, because they're unemployed and now out of work and, you know, trying to figure out where how they're going to afford to live, I actually that worries me about considering an increase to council pay even regardless of the data and what the data shows. I also think that many of us actually have less time on our hands. I am still working my day job and still teaching. In fact, I teach tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.. I am. Here at council meetings, having multiple meetings and doing a lot. And I also have zero childcare, so I'm actually doing a lot more and I think that we have a lot of working families and parents in Alameda who are doing a lot. And those individuals, whether they are unemployed and waiting in line at the food bank or, you know, trying to balance work and home life and child care, I think are not necessarily able to fit in and paying attention and participating or are not necessarily aware that these kinds of discussions are happening because they're assuming that we're working on, you know, essential or pressing matters. I do think some of the proposals like the perhaps the the clean up, the need to update our charter so that it's not. You know. Archaic in terms of the language that we have relative to access and absences. I think particularly with COVID, where even what we're hearing is that, you know, a lot of people, for instance, if of Kaiser, my mom had to go in and get tested for COVID last week. Both of my parents are seriously ill right now. I'm also taking care of them. You know, they would have had to be hospitalized in San Leandro. And so we have residents and members of our council are Kaiser participants. You would not be hospitalized in Alameda. You'd be hospitalized. At the Kaiser facility outside of Alameda. And under our charter rules, potentially your seat would be in jeopardy. So I think that sort of language is pressing. I, I am worried about the digital divide. I think it's real. I think we need to be careful about how we are letting people know that we're having these conversations, that we want meaningful participation. And yes, there are people that are online, but there are a lot of people that are not online. And our own systems have had glitches. And we've had a meeting that literally got cut off in the middle of the meeting. Tonight, I had issues getting on to zoom. And I think that, you know, if we're going to have these charter conversations, we need to publish it well in advance. It needs to be published in the newspapers with the information about how people can download whatever platform we're using, how they can get access to it, and what phone number they can call into to access the meeting, that sort of thing. We need to be publishing it on multiple different platforms and getting the information out. Working with Meals on Wheels, working with Mastic to get the information out because some people are also afraid to go pick up their newspaper, for instance. So I just think that we need to be thoughtful about how we're actually connecting with people so that they know that these conversations are occurring. Regarding Measure one, I think the Council can move forward at any time to make a recommendation to look at council pay. I am concerned, having seen a number of people in line at the food bank and the number of families picking up meals right now that the timing of this is just. It's just bad. It's not good timing. Well, I know that it would be for a future council. Let's have this conversation in the future, because how I feel about it, I agree that we're underpaid, especially somebody who literally pays to be here at times. When child care was available, I was literally paying to be a council meetings and special meetings because I had to pay for somebody to watch my child. When we had work sessions during the day, I was taking vacation off of my day job and then paying somebody to stay with my son. So I agree. We're underpaid. I just think that the because council can bring it at any time and because it would be for a future date, I think it's a conversation that we should look at maybe in a year or two, hopefully, when the economy has recovered. And I think also for the, um, regarding the health care, it just seems discriminatory. I don't take health care from the city at all. And I way that I have health care through my day job. But it seems discriminatory to say that you're not going to provide health care for families. Um, and I have concerns about that, especially if we're underpaid. That might literally be the only benefit for people right now. So I'm a little hesitant to move forward on that change right now. For Measure two, I think we need to do a better job of clarifying the parameters of the city prosecutor relative to how we're publicizing this issue. I think it's an important change that needs to happen, but I think we need to articulate it better to the general public so they understand what it what we mean by it. And they don't just think that we're going to have our own special prosecutor who's going to go out now and start prosecuting everybody. And that's some of the feedback that I've gotten. And so I think we just need to think about how we message that a little better to get some better engagement from people around that issue. Because I think once we have the conversation with them.
Speaker 2: They're supportive.
Speaker 0: Of it. I just think that they don't understand it. And so we need to think about how we engage people around that. As I said, I'm supportive of changing the language around remote participation and absences. I think the language is very much outdated and needs to be updated. In terms of district elections, I think we need to wait for the census results and the census is taking place right now. I think that could really inform the conversation. And so I think having I just be concerned about having a task force now and then getting the census data later, I think we need to get the census data and then let that kind of inform where we go. And hopefully we get good census participation so that we get good census data. The whole other story. And then in regards to just the other topics that I know we're not going to be able to discuss, I unfortunately will not be able to participate in Thursday's meeting. I have childcare conflicts and my husband has an evening meeting and my kid has a hard time going to sleep when both of us aren't able to be with him to get him to go down. So I won't be able to participate. But. Thank you, Councilmember Villa, Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And maybe my suggestion to the vice mayor and Councilmember de design present in that time should not be counted against them if they wanted to have more discussion. But I, I also agree with the take on of Councilmember Bella. You know, we are focused on this. This is our job. You know, when we're not doing our day jobs, those of us that are lucky enough to still have them or that are not there 12 hours a day because they're a critical employee, that the public really isn't focused on this. I mean, the public is focused on their health. The public is focused on their safety. If they're a family with child or school age children, they're focused on educating their children right now. I mean, they're really not paying attention. They're wondering how they're going to get through the next day without getting sick or getting the lessons taken care of or, you know, whether their business is going to be operating so or their parents are going to get sick. So I. I think it's. It's careful, too. I think we should pay close attention to what the public is focusing on. And then to Councilmember de SACS point. And I think it's the Janet Janet Gibson. I mean, we do have to be concerned about the perception. You know, we have two potential measures today. I mean, these were supposedly the least controversial. We have one tomorrow and then we have another one on Thursday. And I think if there's a perception whether we're not we're doing it or not, because I'm not accusing anybody of doing anything. If there's a perception over jamming this through, you know, right now it's past 11. We're discussing this. There's probably nobody that's that's watching because typically we lose audience at 11. And if we do this on multiple items, especially ones as critical as we'll be talking about at the end of the week. We have to be mindful of that perception. And this is where I think the perception problem arises with with at least one of these items. I totally admit we are not amending our charter either today or tomorrow or the next day. But what we are doing is, like we did two weeks ago, we are narrowing the focus. So we are setting up the framework and the parameters on what type of charter amendment we are going to ask the staff to bring us. So we're already chopping, you know, different alternatives off so that even though we're not doing an amendment, we have to be careful about that. And even though we are not voting to raise our pay today because we can't we are voting on a potential process or we're voting on the parameters of how we might want to do that in the future. So the optics of this particular thing in today's time concern me, especially if we're going to ask our our public. I have a lot of faith in them to sort through, you know, all of the noise. But if we're going to ask them to do make a change to something that's been around for 50 years like we might do on Thursday, I think we have to be cautious of that. So, I mean, nobody's here for the money. I mean, I know I knew it was a $50 a meeting. You know, that's kind of a second thought. I don't think anyone does it for the health care. I know that personally. I used it one month when I had a transition from one job to another. But that's not why we do it. We do it because we love our city. We want to make a difference. We we have people that share our values that think that, you know, we can do a great job representing them. But, you know, the optics now, we have 20% unemployment in our country. So at the time that 20% of our people don't know where their next paycheck is, we are discussing parameters on how we can increase hours. You know, we have we heard today that businesses are going to close, whether we like it or not, we're going to lose some some probably great Alameda business establishments. And, you know, those businesses are worrying about how they're going to pay their rent, how they're going to pay their rent, how they're to pay their employees, how you're going to pay their rent at home or their mortgage. And, you know, we're setting parameters on, you know, whether or not or how we're going to get a pay increase. And my cat is now climbing on my notebook. And, you know, we have. You know, I don't know if people know this, but, you know, right now our $50 is pensionable or posible or whatever the word is that that we make up to describe that. And that's $50 the the benefits if they're taken or not taken or not, the allowances are not. And by bumping up our pay, um, there could be valid reasons that Councilmember de Sykes added a different time and a different place. But, you know, it's not just the $25,000, it's the purse costs. And, you know, we've already I got a warning email just today about, you know, the funding of the purse system. And that's going to be a big issue next year when we have contracts up. And for us to sit here and ask others to take a cut or to contribute more. And at the same time, we're establishing parameters and us getting more attention pay. So I think that's an optics issue to me. And you know, then there's the whole issue of the pension costs. And we've heard on this dais, you know, the potential budget shortfalls that we're facing. And again, the optics of us asking, putting parameters around us, making more money and not that we don't deserve. I mean, we all do a great job, but the optics of that, at the same time, we're going to be asking our staff to come up with cuts because we are going to be in a world of hurt next year. Let me just tell you, we heard from Eric a couple of weeks ago. We heard it from our treasurer. You know, we are going to have to make some serious decisions if this is not turn around. And at the same time, we're asking, you know, Eric, to cut money. We're discussing the parameters of of giving ourselves more. So, I mean, I think this is just me speaking. So I'm not speaking for anybody. You know, I signed up for the $50. I think there are probably 500 more people in the city more deserving of a $25,000 raise than me. You know, you can start with that. Our city manager, who's been heroic, you can start with our assistant city manager, our city clerk, our city attorney. You know Mr. Potter, you know Lois Butler, all the people in economic development. And if I don't mention your name, is still as a raise from our police department, from the top to the bottom. I mean, everyone who mans or staffs the EOC, I mean, all of those folks just done a heroic job. And, you know, personally, this is me speaking. I would rather be giving than $25,000 or some portion of that than taking it myself. So on the health care, you know, we just had a campaign nationally about Medicare for All and health care for all. And now many people here on this dais supported people that advocated for that. And now we're we're considering, you know, something that takes it away. And I agree with Maria. I think, you know, it hurts women because if you're on the fence between running for a council and not maybe you're a single mom and maybe you're your reason why you might run as you might get health care. I mean, I don't think anyone does it for that reason. But, you know, if you can't get health care, you may not run. So by just saying you can't have your family coverage. And I do think it's discriminatory against families because, you know, if that's somebody's determining motive, you might just end up with a bunch of single people. And that's not representative of Alameda and the city prosecutor. You know, we've talked about this. I think there needs to be some more parameters around that. You know, we're having a discussion tomorrow where there is a proposal on the table that, um, a councilmember could be prosecuted.
Speaker 0: And let's not get into. I'm not just.
Speaker 2: I'm just let me finish. And so I think that there are some parameters because I worry about that power being abused, someone who's in the minority. I mean, I think our city attorney has a great staff. He does a great job. But, you know, he's an up and comer. He may not be here. All those others that work for him are rising star. So who knows who's going to be here next. And I say that because, you know, in our last situation, we had an agenda item on closed session. And I was told by our city attorney that if the council voted to approve that litigation, she wouldn't prosecute it. So I don't say that.
Speaker 0: To be.
Speaker 2: Critical. I say that because you can have a political conflict on that level that could manifest itself into something, something bad. So that needs to be some.
Speaker 0: Clock.
Speaker 2: Issues. Yeah. Okay, I'm going to three more points then I'll be done. On the absence of remote. I agree with Maria, you know, if you're sick or out of the city or quarantined, we had that ridiculous issue with her taking family leave where she could have lost her seat and the clean up language that's a little broader . I mean, that's sort of what comes back, you know, gender neutral, I think needs to be taken care of. It's not she anymore. So that gender neutral has to be wider. And then if we're not discussing the task force, I won't discuss the task force. But you know, Alameda progressives were not a group mentioned and then we have to be careful of unintended consequences fractionalization and you know we mentioned San Leandro Lee Thomas. Both ran citywide. He won his district, but because he ran citywide, he lost. So, you know, just all those unintended consequences. So thank you. I'm sorry I went overtime.
Speaker 0: That's okay. Um, let's see. Who haven't we heard from? I mean, Vice Mayor, you presented and Councilmember de. Thank you. I guess you did speak a bit. I do want to come back to a couple of points, but Vice Mayor, you didn't really did you have anything more you want to say or have?
Speaker 3: You know, I just I would just clarify a couple of things I heard. And it doesn't you know, however we move forward is how we move forward. And I, I respect my my colleagues regardless of how that is. Now, I think it's important to point out that the items on tonight's agenda, all of them went through public hearings. In fact, I think everybody on the council here attended at least one of those hearings. They were well attended and provided information. And I think it's important not to suggest that somehow this is being done at the last minute in a rush, in the dark of night. I understand that that is the language some people are using to to stop things. They don't want to see it moving forward. But I think that that we should at least acknowledge that there were online forms and many forms that that happened. I just I just I want to clarify, because Councilmember Odie, who I respect your position, but you kept saying we are we are deserving, we're trying to give ourselves money and whatever else. And as proposed, we would not be doing anything for ourselves if we ran and we won. If you run for reelection and you won at the same time that this was passed, you might in the future be able to give yourself that option. But I think it's I just, again, for for clarity, for people watching. There is no proposal for us to give us ourselves. There is no trade off between giving people a raise this year or next year or giving ourselves more money to live on the health insurance certainly can be swayed. I mean, I can't go anywhere on that one. It doesn't sound like it's moving forward. But, you know, I think that there are cases. I also think that at a certain point in time, you know, there are costs. And we should think about that regard. Costs for the health care, for the amount of work that is actually put in on the council. We have people we have employees currently in the city who do not get health care, who work more hours and that than the council does and whatnot. And so I do think that there's it's an important balance to think about, but I think it's up for discussion. If and when we decide to move this forward, it's a matter of time and I'm okay with that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. I and I'm just going to chime in on a couple of things. I, I listened to Melissa as councilmember and councilmember and I agree with what you said about the health insurance. And as far as the cost, I think we would actually need to know. Oftentimes a premium for water for two is the same premium. And the employee can pay to add family members, which I think is, is actually the way it works in many cases. Um, I do think and again, thank you for the clarification. Vice Mayor. We are not voting to raise our pay. None of us will see a raise in pay and that's okay. We know what we signed up for. The reason I support it and I think it should go to the voters to decide for a future council is it does help level the playing field. If you didn't happen to have the personal financial wherewithal, say, to to run a campaign to work less hours because of the commitment that running to serve on the council takes, you didn't have, you know, some special group or whatever that would you knew you could count on for backing. It would be good to know you were being fairly compensated. I mean, women for many years, we're still fighting the battle to be paid equally for the work we do compared to a man doing the same job. So I'm taken aback to somehow have it suggested that, you know, just just suck it up, that, you know, you shouldn't vote yourself a raise again. We're not voting ourselves a raise, but I think we do need to think about succession planning and and finding ways to level the playing field. You're right. We got a.
Speaker 1: Little. And Mayor, you saw your clock is up, too.
Speaker 0: Yes, my. Because that so let me just wrap up quickly, because what I wanted to say about as far as yeah, I don't like having a meeting at 11:00 at night either, but our next two meetings tomorrow starts at 530 and the next one starts at 6:00. And I can guarantee you we're not going to be still talking it at 11:00 at night. And this isn't the last these aren't the last conversations we're going to have on this topic. So, um, with that, I, um, I wonder where we can go from here. I, I think a lot of work's been put into this. Councilmember de SAC has his hand up and great. Well, time on the clock go.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you. Just. I'll be quick. I'm going to recommend that we postpone a decision on this item, on the pay item, specifically until the first meeting in June. And I'm going to make that recommendation largely because I'm mostly interested in what we're going to be discussing when it comes to charter reform on Thursday night. And that has to do with what will potentially be the mother of all battles to do with our historic measure.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We'll cross that bridge when it comes to you. Is this a motion councilman mediator?
Speaker 2: That's a that's a motion, yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. I see. So your motion is to.
Speaker 2: Postpone decision on the council, pay specifically to the first meeting in June. We've taken public testimony. We've had our public thing. I just think that the potential Thursday night discussion, if that is going to be on the ballot, that's going to be the mother of all battles. And this will be a sideshow that that's going to that's going to be just get in the way. So that's why I'm I need to know what we're going to do with on Thursday night first. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. That's a motion we'll get to whether there's a second. But Councilmember Rivera has her hand up. Yes. I just wanted to say, I think at least I think we need to make a decision separate about when things go on the ballot. I would hope that we can move forward certain things for points of discussion without necessarily making a determination on what goes on the ballot. I would like to have a conversation about politically.
Speaker 2: Street.
Speaker 0: Strategy, about presenting things and in terms of a timeline for ballot consideration and at a separate meeting. And I would also just like to say that, you know, in multiple evening meetings in one week are very, very difficult for me with with a young child. And they are, I know, for other families because of that. So if we are going to have a conversation about that, to think about alternative times that we might be able to meet and have that like on a weekend or something like that, then that that's a good point and thank you for raising it. We I know when the clerk reached out, it was because these two nights had been set aside for the budget hearings. And so I guess, you know, there had been some consensus. But that's a that's a very good point that you raise. And so, Councilmember Vela, what you're suggesting is to also have a further discussion about the sequencing of the timeline for bringing items for the ballot. Yeah, I think we need to have a thoughtful conversation around combinations and timing and what we would want voters to consider, because there could be a number of different things on any given ballot. And I just want us to be thoughtful about what the overall ballot composition looks like and not giving voters too much to kind of consume in one and one on one ballot. There's a lot of different proposals. I think we might want to think about what gets put together on what ballot. So timing wise, would you want to have that discussion also at the first meeting in June, or do you want to see a separate special meeting? I didn't understand which I, I think if there's room on the at the specials at the meeting in June, I don't know what that agenda looks like. I also would want to know what we're asking folks to move forward on. Like, for instance, I'm not necessarily I want to get the census information back before we talk about, you know, districts or something like that and for some of this. I just want to kind of understand. Can I make a motion that we all have more time to discuss this on the census? And I want more than 24 hours in the day myself. But on the census, I keep hearing from Congresswoman Lee that they have asked for an October, an extension to October, to get the census materials in. But then when she was on my town hall last Friday, she didn't know and her age didn't know if that has actually been done. But I can say I think we're safe in saying we're not going to see that data in this calendar year. Right. Yeah. So I just I think just trying to narrow this conversation down so that people understand what it is we're considering and when we're considering, it would be helpful.
Speaker 1: And I think that motion. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think the motion is a good idea. You guys are really past your rules. And if you're going to all keep speaking, I would highly suggest going forward.
Speaker 0: I think.
Speaker 3: It was for 3 minutes more each.
Speaker 0: That we're sure. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a say? Okay. That was a motion. And second, let's have a quick roll call vote and everyone gets three more minutes to wrap this up.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Daisy Knox White. Hi, Odie. Hi, Vela. Guy Mayor is Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: Hi. Thank you. Thanks for being a good race person there. Um, the. Anyway, what I wanted did want to ask quickly of the city manager because I know I just looked at the agenda for the next meeting, but I don't know what early June looks like to you, Mr. Leavitt, get at that crystal ball.
Speaker 2: Um, I do not know why June is right.
Speaker 3: Off the top right now. I can try to find.
Speaker 2: That real quick if you want.
Speaker 0: Um, if. If possible. Um, uh. I see Vice Mayor as hands up and then back to Councilmember Vela because I was just.
Speaker 3: Going to suggest that, that given that some of the concern is about shelter in place and the first meeting in June is going to be sometime around possible changes. The second meeting in June, if we are able to go into July before actually making the final, final decision, the second meeting in June would still give us some months to have give some further direction and bring a final something back in July. And it would also give the community a little bit of time to start thinking, understanding what's going to happen with shelter in place. And so it might give us that six weeks instead of four weeks to come back with something.
Speaker 0: And if I could interject and I'm going to call on you, Councilmember Avila is I might actually ask for placeholders in both June meetings, because I think it's good to break up topics. So we're not covering too much at one time, and it also increases the likelihood that we finish earlier. Councilmember Vela, back to you. I was going to say, if we want to have a further discussion on what items we might want to move forward on, and then a second discussion on timing, that might be the way to do it. And I think when I talk about timing, there's a number of different elections between now and May 2023 even. And so I think figuring out when those elections are and what the timelines ahead of them are. I'm also thinking of staff time because if we're asking for that and that's going to have to put input, I think it might be a big ask to say, here's five charter changes. We want you to get ready for the ballot as opposed to here's one or two, let's do this, this election. There's these other elections we can consider. So for the second meeting in June, I think it would be helpful to understand when the regular elections, not where we would be paying for a special election, but where we have other things on the ballot. And also, if there would, if there is a need to have it, have it on a ballot, that we wouldn't necessarily have a council member running. But we have so many items that we're looking at moving forward. What would the cost be to do that? And we need to understand both. Yeah. So I think I'm hearing you say that to hold to to hold discussions in both meetings in June and and and we'll discuss timing. I do think there is an advantage to having some more significant things happen on this November election. Just because we can assure I hope we can assure a really good turnout in the November election and that just, you know, also gets more participatory democracy. But okay, so let's we're saying we'll hear items. The first meeting in June, the second meeting in June. What are we hearing? The first meeting in June? Councilmember de SA, you proposed I.
Speaker 2: Propose that we simply postpone our decision until June. And by the way, it could be mid-June or first week of June, either way. Um, and by postponing. The decision, basically. I'm also suggesting that we not even tonight that we not even adopt in concept the possibility of an increase in council pay. That could be a discussion that we would have again in. In mid-June.
Speaker 0: I just did. So it's either going to be the first meeting in June, which is the first Tuesday or the third Tuesday. So I believe you had earlier said bring back the council. QUESTION in the first meeting in June.
Speaker 2: I originally said that. But, you know, mid-June is fine too.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um, so, uh, Councilmember Vela, could we at least agree to drop certain things off of consideration like this? The. The elimination of family health care. Could that drop off? Since we're working towards narrowing. I would be okay with that because I would want to drop that off. And then I think the other thing that I would want to clarify for folks is on the district elections, that we would be postponing a conversation on that until after the census so that people aren't worried about it. And then I think we just know that there's.
Speaker 3: No proposal to even move forward. Is that right now.
Speaker 0: They're not.
Speaker 3: Making a proposal. I just want to there is no recommendation.
Speaker 0: I was I think I think just well, all I would say is I just really wanted my direction would be that we even wait on having a task force until after the census numbers. I think I'm understanding that both of this task forces are off the table for now. Okay. So it's more going back to the items. Measures are one and two. So I would I would want to eliminate the family health care conversation from Measure one. And I think just we need to clarify a little more the parameters and perhaps that could come with the then the next staff report around the city prosecutor and maybe the conversation tomorrow night could.
Speaker 2: Inform that a little more.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I think yeah, I think that's a good point. Okay. When we're thinking of divvying up between the two June meetings, I think we do need to think about the items that are coming to us tomorrow and Thursday. Tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday, don't we? Yeah.
Speaker 3: Can I. Can I propose the next. The June meeting should not now be two different meetings about different topics. I think the first meeting is which topics do we want to. Yeah. We've now had this conversation about all the topics. Which do we want to move forward? Right.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you're saying by then we would know we've seen or seen or heard everything. Which do we want to move forward on is the first June meeting?
Speaker 3: Yes. And the second meeting is now that we have some language from staff or whatever else, based on that they're going, we're going to have some sense of what looks like it's moving forward. Right. That right. You know, tonight, coming out of tonight, I'm not confident pay is moving forward, but it sounds like, you know, the measure to more of this. Right. And then and then the second meeting in June would be more about, you know, do you package it all together as one thing? Is it three items? Are there a couple we want to push off about 2023 because there is not another meeting until 2023.
Speaker 0: Timing secret election.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Um. Okay. So is that are you putting and you're accepting of Councilmember Val's suggestion to drop the. Yes. Okay, so can you can you put that in a motion? Cause I think you might get a second.
Speaker 3: As long as yeah. As long as yeah. I guess I hear from move measure for one forward for future discussion without discussion of health benefits and measure two. And I would just recommend my, my, my colleagues who want to clarify the language around city prosecutor provide that language to provide input to the city. Attorney So we going to have some conversation in June, in January about that because we can't all talk about it.
Speaker 0: In January and.
Speaker 3: June. Terry I do June in January all the time.
Speaker 0: Sorry said yes when.
Speaker 3: You're here in January. No, I'm in June. Thank goodness I'm talking. Snow moved us to bring those back for further conversation in June, along with whatever moves forward on Wednesday and Thursday.
Speaker 0: And any other language clarifying language that staff identifies.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilman Brody.
Speaker 2: I mean, I. I could actually second that if we actually if we're giving direction on Measure two, that actually there's language that comes back. Right?
Speaker 0: Yes, yes, yes, yes. That's a clarification. Yeah, right. Okay. Thank you. Right, right, right. Yes.
Speaker 3: With language.
Speaker 2: So. Okay. So between meeting one and meeting two. Yeah, I mean, I could second that and with a caveat, I mean and a caveat is that we're back in chambers, but I'm not going to push that if we'll just see what happens.
Speaker 0: Okay. Hey, Councilmember Vela, then Councilmember de Soto. Okay. I and I'm prepared to support the vice mayor motion.
Speaker 2: That second by second is right.
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Okay. Go ahead. Yes, sir. I just want to clarify that the second meeting in June would also include a conversation about I know that there's two scheduled countywide elections, but there's also other dates for other elections. And I think understanding what the cost of running various measures, perhaps at an off election would be would also be helpful. Okay. So cost and timing of each of these specials. Yeah. Okay. All right. It counts everyday to get your hands out.
Speaker 2: I think the simplest answer for me is just to simply abstain on this motion pending what we see happen on Thursday. Um, cause I'm not clear what it means to move forward. If that means we're accepting in concept the idea of council of Pay or we regulate.
Speaker 0: You're council member, it says, okay, vice mayor, let him finish. And then you the.
Speaker 2: In effect postponing tonight's discussion until mid-May. Because if that's if that's the the what what moving forward means is that we're basically postponing tonight's discussion until later. We're we're we're.
Speaker 0: Narrowing. Vice Mayor, back to you. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: Very postponing and narrowing. We are narrowing it down, Tony, but we are.
Speaker 2: And I can make.
Speaker 3: Decisions about what move forward.
Speaker 0: I think they built on actually they built on what you what you first.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And it doesn't that for all intents and purposes is going to happen after Thursday.
Speaker 0: Yeah. All right. Okay. So we have a motion. We have a second move. We have a roll call vote. Please. Please. Thanks, everybody.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, I get it. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Not quite. I Odie.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Bella. I mean, there is the Ashcroft. I like Carrie's, but.
Speaker 0: I just think you could I just say I really appreciate all of you and your thoughtful discussions. You all bring a lot to the table. And I do appreciate it. So thank you. I know it's late and all kinds of other things. Let's race through this because we've got, um, 12 minutes. 12 to the 4407. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, um, um, so if I could you please read item six e.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to provide direction to the city attorney to consent, modify or reject law firm, firm Ltd's request to waive conflicts of interest in connection with legal representation of the City of Alameda and Housing Authority of the city of Alameda.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Provide Direction on Potential Measures Amending the City Charter. (City Council Charter Subcommittee) [Not heard on March 17, 2020 or April 21, 2020]
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_05052020_2020-7849
|
Speaker 1: Recommendation to provide direction to the city attorney to consent, modify or reject law firm, firm Ltd's request to waive conflicts of interest in connection with legal representation of the City of Alameda and Housing Authority of the city of Alameda.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And so we had a discussion of this. It was presented. But then the vice mayor had an emergency at work that pulled him away so he didn't get to take the vote. But, um, I believe we're ready for the vote now. So, do I have a motion to, uh, approve this recommendation?
Speaker 3: I move approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's a move by the vice mayor to have a second councilmember de second seconded. May we have a roll call vote?
Speaker 3: Can I.
Speaker 0: Can I. Oh, I'm so sorry. Of course you can. You were here.
Speaker 3: Because I disappeared. I didn't, actually. I first. I would like to apologize to my colleagues for. For all the confusion of disappearing last time, and thank you for for your understanding. I just wanted to say that after having had a chance to speak with the city attorney and the city manager, etc., I'm comfortable with this, but I just want to thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your understanding.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Okay. Cover, please.
Speaker 1: With Councilmember de sal.
Speaker 2: Nice.
Speaker 1: Next light.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: O.d. So vella. No mayor as a Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: That carries 3 to 2.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Um, city manager communication. Mr. Levit.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Provide Direction to the City Attorney to Consent, Modify or Reject Law Firm Goldfarb Lipman’s Request to Waive Conflicts of Interest In Connection with Goldfarb’s Legal Representation of the City of Alameda and the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. (City Attorney)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_04222020_2020-7886
|
Speaker 0: Bella. Yes. Mayor. As the Ashcroft. Yes. That carry Sativex. Okay. Perfect. So we have approved the balance of the consent calendar. So now let's take them one at a time. Item five F as in Frank, I was pulled by Councilmember O.D., Councilmember O.D..
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just real quick, I'm supportive of this. I would just like to see if we could have the opportunity for all of us if we so desire to sign on to the letter.
Speaker 0: And, Councilor, could I ask you to just give a little thumbnail description for people who might be watching from home, but not following the agenda of what gives and your your particular knowledge about this?
Speaker 1: Well, that's recommendation support. I'll read the agenda item. Recommendation to support Resource Recovery Coalition of California's Emergency Solid Waste Funding proposal, which provides additional support to Alameda County Industries in response to financial impacts of the pandemic. So ACR had reached out to, I think, individual members, at least myself and I'm sure others, because this got on the agenda to have us send a letter to the state to include, you know, recyclers and waste haulers as part of any recovery efforts. And, you know, I think this is a good thing for us to do. And again, I just wanted the opportunity, you know, if if the council agreed to have all of us sign on, if we also agreed so.
Speaker 0: And one of the things that they talked about, and I think sent me a letter to was that, you know, we have a time where because of the shelter in place ordinance, many businesses are closed and those that are operating are operating at reduced capacity. They've had a number of client businesses simply cancel their accounts. And the way we have public works director Liam Garland here. I see. But the way that they do their funding and calculate their rates is all, you know, balanced on how much commercial business they have and how much residential it impacts our residential rates. So, um, so then you would, would you like to make a motion that we support this recommendation?
Speaker 1: Oh, sure.
Speaker 0: Because it was pulled from the consent calendar, right? Yeah. Go ahead, Mr. O.D. and then we'll go to Councilmember Geller.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Thank you. I'm of approval of the item with the caveat that we have to have the opportunity, if we so desire to attach our signatures to it in addition to yours.
Speaker 0: Okay. And Councilmember Vela, do you want to vote? Seconded and then discuss? I just wanted to. Yes, I wanted to. Second and and then also just say that I think that if we could send a message to the full council, I think that that really will be helpful. And and I look forward to signing on in support. I like that. And Mr. Garland, did you want to add anything?
Speaker 1: Nothing to add. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Any other questions? A discussion council. Okay. Seeing then the city collectively you would do a roll call that this. Councilmember DeSantis?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Looks like.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: O.D.. I vla I may or as the Ashcroft Zacarias. Bye bye bye. Okay, great. Thank you. All right, then we come to five G and Councilmember de SAG. Is this one where you're recusing?
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Recommendation to Support Resource Recovery Coalition of California’s Emergency Solid Waste Funding Proposal, which Provides Additional Support to Alameda County Industries in Response to Financial Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic. (Public Works 0274)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_04222020_2020-7860
|
Speaker 0: O.D.. I vla I may or as the Ashcroft Zacarias. Bye bye bye. Okay, great. Thank you. All right, then we come to five G and Councilmember de SAG. Is this one where you're recusing?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Yes, I will be. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. So do we need to let him step away for a moment? Yeah. There you go. This is not as simple as it sounds these days. Okay. Okay. Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I make this request almost every year, but I'm hoping that in the future, if our staff knows that it's given council member is, you know, recused from a certain portion of this, that they would split this into two resolutions. I think our council's done a good job of reaching unanimous decision during this crisis. And I think we've we've assisted, you know, some of our colleagues to come along by, you know, either changing the wording or splitting up the question to allow them to be able to support things and work in a collaborative manner. And, you know, I can't speak for my colleague because he recused himself, but I mean, there may be something on here he wants to support. And, you know, I think that if we can give him the opportunity to in the future, that would be helpful.
Speaker 0: All right. And would you also like to make a motion?
Speaker 1: Yes. I'll move approval of the item.
Speaker 0: All right. I have a second. Second vice mayor knocks way his second. So could we have a roll call vote, please? Any discussion? Any further discussion? Hearing. Now we have the roll call, please. I see. And not quite. I can't. Councilmember Odie. Hi, Vella. I may or as the Ashcroft high now carries by for as one top rate. And then can we retrieve Mr. Days? Lock him back in. Right. All right. All right. Places, everyone. Okay, so then we move to the last consent calendar item that was close at five K. Mr. Day. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Just quickly, I didn't support this one. This was on the regular. So and I will continue to hold the same position.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Any further discussion? Do I have a motion to read? And this is approval of an ordinance approving a development agreement signed between the City of Alameda and Boat Works, LLC, governing the Boat Works Project for Real Property, located at 2229 to 2235 Clinton Avenue.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Adoption of Resolution Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring the City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing on June 16, 2020 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2 (Various Locations). (Public Works 275)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_04222020_2020-7761
|
Speaker 1: That. This is harder than it looks at first glance. Sorry about that. They got set up. So, my name's Andrew Thomas, planning director. I am representing for today's item a team, a team of transportation planners and also public works department staff who have worked together on this. This has really been a joint effort. Today on the phone, I think I also have with me to help answer questions if necessary are our excellent city engineer, Scott Wickstrom, our well qualified. Senior transportation planner Rochelle Wheeler, and our overqualified part time transportation planner, Brian lives.
Speaker 0: In a tie. Oh, hi, Brian. Good.
Speaker 1: Is Brian wearing a tie?
Speaker 0: That's the first time I had to look at the name plate. But no. Okay.
Speaker 1: Just a little background. Back in September of last year, the city council approved a council referral to direct staff on transportation priorities and in advance of active transportation plan work. This resolution that we're presenting tonight addresses several of the requested short term actions that this council requested of us back in that referral. So we're responding to that referral. But it also and just as important. This this policy really is a step forward in the ongoing effort that this council is making to really transform Alameda transportation system, to make it safer, more environmentally sensitive, and just work better for all of our users, particularly our most vulnerable users of our transportation system. On November 5th of last year. This City Council adopted a Vision Zero policy aiming at reducing and ultimately eliminating severe and fatal injuries caused by traffic collisions in Alameda. This policy that we're bringing to you tonight, which was put together by our two departments working together, establishes safety as the number one priority for the design, reconfiguration and maintenance of city streets. Vision. Vision Zero dictates that we change the way the public right of way looks, feels, and operate. To achieve Alameda Transportation Safety and Climate Action Goals just for some of the viewers who might be listening in. This is a very important issue here in Alameda. This council taking a real leadership role in this, that the just one data point here between over the last ten years are on a ten year average between 2009 and 2018. Each year, an average of two people die and nine suffer severe injuries while traveling by either car by four foot on Alameda Streets. And just last fall, 12 collisions involving school aged children walking or biking occurred on our city streets. So we think this policy is an important step in transforming our network to be safe for all of our residents. It's not the final step. We still have a lot more work to do, but we do think it's a very important step. What I'm going to do now is just quickly, I'm not going to go through the entire policy and every single step, every single piece of it. But I want to just highlight some of the major policy directions that that are included here. This policy really states and reinforces the Vision Zero policy by stating that safety is our first and foremost priority when designing or redesigning streets. The resolution establishes a hierarchy and clear priorities for how we're going to allocate rights of way space. When we designing, redesigning or resurfacing streets safe and convenient, access for the most vulnerable road users is the highest priority, including children, seniors, people bicycling and walking. Transit priority is the second priority, as well as Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility. And then third priority will be space for on street parking. So we're establishing a very clear hierarchy with this policy. We know that all of these things are important to Alameda residents and businesses, but it's important to set that higher up that hierarchy so that when we have to decide how to use limited space, we have a clear set of priorities. The second aspect of this policy that we think is very important is that this relationship, that if we want to reduce deaths on our streets, we need to reduce speed. And by reducing and we can reduce speeds of vehicles by reducing travel. LANE With measures that reduce motor vehicle speeds can save lives. A person walking has only a 50% chance of living if hit by a car that's traveling 42 miles an hour. But if that same person but that same person has a 90% chance of living, if the car is only traveling 23 miles an hour per ngakoue, the National Transportation Organization's Urban Street Design Guide. Wider travel lanes are directly correlated with higher vehicle speeds. So what this policy says is that our streets in Alameda, our goal is to have our streets be 25 miles per hour. That is not only how we want to establish speed limits, but also how we want actual speeds to occur. What we see in Alameda is even though in some of these streets that are assigned for 25 miles an hour, we have people driving much faster. So with a couple exceptions, of course, we have Doolittle Drive and Harper Bay Parkway. So this policy says our standard width for travel lanes in Alameda will be ten feet. This as per national standards. There is an exception when working with trend on transit streets where we have transit busses or designated truck routes. Will the standard will be 11 feet. Less than ten feet is also possible when we are dealing with low volume residential streets. In other words, we're going to keep those travel speeds low. Next that I'd like to highlight bicycle lane and parking lane with the allocation of space between an automobile travel lane and the curb for bicycle lanes and on street parking. This requires a really careful balance and marking of space to ensure the safety of the people. Bicycling The people on the bicyclists on a bicycle are the more vulnerable of the users. So what this policy states is that the use of space for the safety of people bicycling is a higher priority than the use of space for on street parking. The policy states that separated bicycle lanes should always be provided instead of unprotected bike lanes whenever we can. So if we can find the space to protect the bicyclists, that should be our highest priority. And there's a standard width for a parking is eight feet, but seven feet is acceptable if necessary, to provide that safe bicycle facility for the more vulnerable user on the bicycle. As we move on now to the pedestrians, crosswalks and bulb outs, pedestrians and children walking and biking or being struck by automobiles in Alameda, shortening are crossing distances, slowing turning movements and visually narrowing roadway through the use of marks. Ball boats will increase pedestrian safety in Alameda. The safety impacts are even greater when accompanied by the use of bollards and other physical barriers and indicators. The City of Oakland did a study and found that 80% and 80% increase in the frequency of drivers yielding to pedestrians after they installed a paint and bollard pulled out at the uncontrolled intersection of Harrison Street and 23rd Street. This resolution states that more crosswalks should be placed at regular and interval and frequent intervals, arterials and collective streets that going forward. We are going to look at not just how many pedestrians cross the street today when we think about where to put pedestrian facilities. But what how many would use this crossing if we put in a safer crossing or with future development in the area? So looking forward to future pedestrian levels as well as current and looking ahead, placement will be prioritized according to high injury corridors, uncontrolled crossings at arterials and collector streets and locations, corridors and typologies identified in our upcoming active transportation and Vision Zero plans. Finally, the resolution also acknowledges that striping adding crosswalks both about this will require additional adventures of limited public funds for roadway improvements. Yes, we felt it was important to acknowledge that these facilities, bollards and striping require maintenance and physical barriers, will reduce the efficiency of things like the city street sweeping program. But we will we acknowledge in this resolution that these increased costs will need to be reflected in future city budgets, and that those issues and cost implications will have to be addressed with each, you know, capital improvement program and city budget as we move forward. And there may be tradeoffs between things like street paving priorities and other things. So this policy, we think, is an important step, aided by by no means the final step. We still have lots of work to be done to transform Alameda Transportation Network into that network that is safe and convenient for all users, especially the most vulnerable , and a network that supports our immediate climate action goals. As work continues on our planning effort, we will still we will be back in the future with more pieces of this and more steps in this process. It's going to be a long process, but staff is committed to working with the council to achieve these goals. It's not just about the climate. It's not just about traffic reduction. It's really about saving lives. So from our perspective, there's really nothing any more important than that. We're here to answer any questions you might have about the resolution. I think we have Scott and Brian and Rachelle and maybe some others on the phone to help me answer those questions. So with that, I'll turn it back. Turn it over to you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Great report. Important topic, miss. Why do we have any public comments on this item? We have three so far, and one more person has said that sending it in in the moment. Okay. So right now, I just want to hear from council. If you have any clarifying questions to ask of Mr. Thomas, we'll hold our praise and our discussion and all that after the the public comment and even have any clarifying questions. Councilmember Otis.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a couple of quick ones. And forgive me for asking this because I know we discussed this, but these buttons have been in the news. Could we do something on that already? Because I didn't see anything in there. And the belly button.
Speaker 0: You know, I might like to call on our city engineer, traffic engineer, city engineer, Scott Wickstrom to answer that one. Yeah, you are. Scott.
Speaker 1: Hello? Hello? Yes. Enter the number of his question. Beg buttons. We're not specifically part of this referral.
Speaker 0: And if I could just ask that you tell us what a big button is. But actually, let me just go to Mr. Chan, our city attorney. I do try to keep him happy, or Mr. Rasch or both of you in tandem. Segments can be about crosswalks.
Speaker 1: So, yes.
Speaker 0: You know what that what you're talking about, it's the button you press to ask for the pedestrian crossing icon to come on. And so.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Status sufficiently related to the topic at hand?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes, I think so.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right.
Speaker 1: This is Michael. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes, Michael.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think it's relevant. It's relevant enough in this whole scheme of the transportation discussion. But I think it's appropriate question for for the best guy to answer.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you both. Okay. I just want to make sure. So. So tell us I mean, my my description was a little brief that when we when we hear the term big button, what does that mean?
Speaker 1: Yes. Really, it's a pedestrian push button that you'll see at signalized intersections and at some particular locations. The pedestrian is actually required to push the button in order for the green walk symbol to come up. And that's referred sometimes as a garden, as a possible tree in response to something very complex. Here's the first one is this referral is really the first component of the referral is really looking at the lane with some crosswalks and some bollards. There will be a separate response coming back to look at what is termed intersection access equity, which is a broader term between the relationship and the priorities between cars, bikes and pedestrians . We will be coming back. Transportation engineer Daniel Mira and I leading that referral at some point in the future. There's a separate question more related to the COVID 19 response, and we are looking into exactly where in the city the number of instances where pedestrians are required to push the button prior to cross. And we're looking to get that information gathered by either end of this week or early next week to have ready that make up for making it better.
Speaker 0: I appreciate that. My second.
Speaker 1: Question. You had a in your outstanding questions you asked us should crosswalks I think place intersection pairs of clubs. Can you kind of maybe talk about the pros and cons of of pairs versus clubs to help us provide input on that question? Right. I will go ahead to start on that. I might ask Rochelle to kind of add a little bit of context to that as well. We have a number of locations where for one reason or another, historically, there's only been a crosswalk on one side of the street. And what would what attend obliges a pedestrian to do is to walk. If they're just trying to go across that one leg without the crosswalk, they have to cross three sides of the road as opposed to going straight across. So the question, the desire, is it whenever possible to have them in pairs or quads? We're kind of speaking, soliciting your input on it. There are times I will say and it's not common, but there are some times where it is preferred from a traffic safety standpoint that you would only locate on one leg and not on all legs. But if there's no traffic safety consideration that's found, that's more of a general question. Would you prefer them in pairs? And we can't do anything to add.
Speaker 0: Hi, Michelle. Welcome. Hi. I know I don't have anything more to add. It's it's a matter of.
Speaker 1: Visibility of.
Speaker 0: Pedestrians.
Speaker 1: To motorists.
Speaker 0: By having more of the.
Speaker 1: Crosswalks straight. So to for.
Speaker 0: Rather than just to it's I think it's also a matter of.
Speaker 1: Signifying to the roadway.
Speaker 0: Users, all of the users that the street.
Speaker 1: Belongs to everyone to use. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. My time to run. So just be aware of that, and I'm done. Thank you. Oh.
Speaker 0: But, madam. Okay. You're running out of time. But, Madam Clerk, we make sure that you're timing the speakers, including us. So Larry's muted the. I'm sure she's nodding her head. There's the. Um. So any other council clerk. Staff reports. I see no hands.
Speaker 1: I have questions. Tony. Yeah. Can you hear me? I think things are going in and out.
Speaker 0: Oh, dear. I'm losing people here.
Speaker 1: Oh. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah. I can hear you, Jim. I don't see me at all. Oh, yes, you're right. I think she. I hear her, but I don't see her. Oh, I don't hear her. Sorry, Marilyn, I don't. The voices. Her face is back. Okay. Yes, yes. Same with me. Um. I only hear you, Jim. Is there anyone else? I'm here. Oh, okay. All right. Not not talking to. Yeah. Only I can hear you, too. Okay, so I go ahead and ask my questions. Okay. Okay. I'm going to ask you a question. Oh. I'll hold off on them and say something.
Speaker 0: I want to just be. Okay. That was that. You took it from there. Oh, I shouldn't. Yes, you are correct.
Speaker 1: Great. I can hear you merrily.
Speaker 0: And I'm sure the staff is. Yeah. I think staff is frantically. Working on it. It's appear that people are we're having some various bandwidth issues. So I'm getting. So you're lucky. Well, I see. And seeing if there's anything we can do about it. But if you end up losing both video and audio, I would suggest you put your video on mute and your audio will hopefully continue better. But we just think, okay, you want us to put our video on mute? Just if you run into bandwidth issues again. Okay. And I have I have a request, Laura. I actually think I should be watching this meeting in real time. But we should not have we should not have to email them to get their attention, especially after last night.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you. Please. Yep. Okay.
Speaker 1: It's like, you.
Speaker 0: Know, let's just hold for just a minute because I think the city clerk may be working on getting us a connection, but.
Speaker 1: Okay. Sounds good.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you. I hope that people establish. I think. Okay. But Laura. Yeah? I texted. I like them, and we're getting them in real time until I adjourn this meeting. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, I hear you. Yeah. Lightning is not going to strike twice. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so our next clarifying question is you Councilmember De.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you. I have several clarifying questions. The first is I received an email from a Web history business owner who was concerned about the placing on street parking as the lowest priority. What concerns and particularly he he felt that that would definitely affect small businesses, not just on Webster Street, but elsewhere. What kind of thoughts have been given to how this affects local small businesses on Webster Street or Park Street?
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, what was it that what what particular aspect was hit just.
Speaker 1: So at the very top of page three, that three of five at the very top, there's the first bullet point. And I think the second or third sentence says that the on street parking will be the lowest priority. So the question that I have is, in what ways has staff, you know, discussed among themselves as well as stakeholders, how this affects small businesses?
Speaker 0: Got it. Okay. And Mr. Thomas is going to address that.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I can hear you just fine.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it's a great question. I think it's we we have to be very clear here. What we're saying is we're not. This policy does not say we are going to run out and start removing a bunch of on street parking. We know on street parking is important. We know it's important in the business community. What this resolution is saying is if we are balancing a situation where we have an unsafe situation for a vulnerable user, like for pedestrians who might be walking to that same business or children biking to school and the we have to decide how to use a limited amount of space. The priority is going to go to making sure that we we, you know, we make that pitch that that. That location safe for the user, the most vulnerable user. And in this case, it is going to be the child going to school or the senior crossing the street. Obviously, we want to be able to provide for everybody's needs. We get it. We local businesses need parking. I think.
Speaker 0: In in.
Speaker 1: Cases like Webster Street, where we are looking at pedestrian safety.
Speaker 0: Issues.
Speaker 1: On Webster Street, if we have an intersection where we do not meet our our visibility needs, you know, the recent council policy that said we need 20 feet at at two daylight intersections. Yes, we're going to for example, that policy already establishes the priority. We remove the parking space to get the visibility for the pedestrian. But this doesn't mean that we just randomly go around the city and start pulling out parking just for the sake of pulling up parking. It's only where we need it to ensure that the other users are are safe. So this is not we will always try to preserve as much on street parking as we can. But if it's a tradeoff between a single parking space and preserving somebody's life, we're always with this policy says we're always going to air on the side of saving somebody's life. Okay, follow up question, which is separate.
Speaker 0: Coverage. Okay, great.
Speaker 1: Is it correct that the transportation element hasn't been updated since 2009 or. And so, if that's correct, what thought has been given to doing this kind of changes that are contemplated tonight within the context of the transportation element, as well as within the larger context of the general plan, updating the general plan as a whole in June and updating the general plan as a whole, one chapter, which is a transportation element, you're looking not just at traffic transportation issues, but in combination with a set of other issues housing, how you want your built environment, etc.. So I think I think I think that as the as the planner guy, I love that question. I think that's a great question. I completely agree with the the direction of that question, which is we have to make sure that all these documents are consistent and that they are comprehensive and consider all these different issues. So what this this you know, your staff under the direction of this city council is working on multiple fronts simultaneously. We have a complete rewrite of the general plan, load it up on the city's website today. The one chapter that we are probably the final chapter that we're updating is the transportation element. It will be up on the city website probably within two weeks. Meanwhile, we're doing an active transportation plan, which is the plan for bicycle and pedestrian planning update. Meanwhile, we're doing a Vision Zero plan which the council authorized. So all of this work is going on simultaneously. It was really the count this council that said, yeah, we and this goes back to the when you authorize the contract for the active transportation plan and when you did this September referral that this council said, yeah, we don't I mean, this is my words, not yours. But essentially this council said, don't wait. You know, we don't want to wait for a year and a half to see these plans start bringing some of these policies to us as soon as you can. And from that perspective, we love that approach because it is each of these opportunities come back to you with these policies are an opportunity for us to check in with you and and make sure that we're headed in the right direction. So if you adopt these policies tonight, some of these policies that are we are bringing to you now in this draft policy are also when you see the transportation element posted on the website in probably two weeks, you'll see these same policies there. Now, of course, tonight you say, hey, we don't want these policies, we don't like these policies. We don't support them more than we'll pull them right out of that draft transportation element. And as the taskforce says, if you if you adopt these policies tonight. You will see these policies not only in the transportation and also in the upcoming active transportation plan. So where we're doing it all at once and we agree it all has to be coordinated. So the general plan looks at and updates the policies in the general plan around climate change, around transportation, around land use and housing, around economic development. So it's all being coordinated together. I think it's the right way to do it. It's a big job, but it's the council's up for it. Staff is certainly ready and putting you in position to take action on all these plans. The one wrinkle in all of this has been COVID 19. We can't we're not scheduling any public hearings other than these council meetings at this point on the general plan. We're going to wait. We're putting stuff up on the website, but, you know, we're not holding big public meetings on the general plan update. So until things settle down with the COVID 19. I have one more question, but I can wait.
Speaker 0: You want to wait until after we hear the public comments.
Speaker 1: Or if other council members have questions?
Speaker 0: Okay. Any clarifying questions before we go to our public speakers? Okay. Councilmember Desai, if you have another clarifying question and you appear to be the only councilmember. Before we go to public comment. So I do.
Speaker 1: Ask. I do. Mike, I sent an email last week and there was a pretty strong statement in the staff report that correlated narrow streets with safety. And the question that I sent was if there was any academic research to back that up, because when I read the the when I read the article in the the staff report , I thought that was a very strong statement in that and that that some kind of.
Speaker 0: Data is there. Is your question is there academic research behind it? Because this is clarifying questions.
Speaker 1: Well, what, you know, I guess did in addition to Marketo, which is a stakeholder organization, did you find academic research to support that claim?
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Thomas.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Well, Nextel is a national organization of transportation professionals that set guidelines that are followed by cities around the country. And they've done a lot of research on the relationship. And there is quite a bit I don't have the study at my fingertips, but we can certainly provide them. There's there's a lot of research. Let me hand it off to Brian Maguire, if it's okay with you, Mayor, to help out with it.
Speaker 0: Is that okay with Brian? You're ready for that?
Speaker 1: Sure. Yeah. Brian McGuire. Just just to jump in and add that the standards that Maxo uses and that we're trying to adopt here are based off of several like FH subway research and people, you know.
Speaker 0: Tell us that. Why don't you tell us what that acronym stands for, for this insiders?
Speaker 1: So to answer the question, yes, the data is used in study by academics to study like Federal Highway Administration type data and other resources to develop these standards. So they are are definitely academic, you know, academically valid studies and and data driven standards. And that's okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. So seeing that further clarifying questions, I am going to go to public comment. So, madam, quickly, you call first or read our first comment, I guess. Yes, I can read the first comment. I think there are 545 comments now, so we still get 3 minutes each. The first one is from Linda Astbury, West Alameda Business Association. Please note that within the WAPA Business District we value our customers that prefer bicycling from there for their form of transportation. However, on street parking is a critical element in the preservation of local business. The agenda item in question six May 20, 2070 761. That parking identified as the lowest priority, suggests the business district and the local businesses are a low priority, particularly when we will be Post-Coronavirus times. Business revenues will be down to reduce street parking hits businesses even more. To reduce parking would be a large hit for small businesses in the area. Parking preservation should be noted as a priority, not as a dismissed item. Okay. Okay. That was one. Okay. You did that in less than 3 minutes. Okay. Yes. Next is RN and I'm going to apologize for the at you. Very, I believe. Madam Mayor, council members and city staff as commercial and residential property owners in Alameda, we would like to express our deep concerns of providing vision and or plan language within the resolution item six eight, which may and will be utilized to eliminate on street parking. The city utilized similar language, a vision and or a plan to place the current plans being developed involving the arterial roads on Central Avenue and Webster Street and its intersection in development at an approximate cost of $12 million. The outcome of this language and idea they will push traffic away from the business district and toward the city owned developing property at the old Naval Air Station by lane reduction or on street parking elimination on the arterial roads of Alameda without any serious development consideration as to removal of on street parking and its effects on homeowners , businesses and the business districts as a large mistake during any time the business community and property owners who have contributed investment dollars, tax dollars, sweat, blood and tears seem to be being left out of consideration by the elimination of on street parking without as much as a study as to what each parking spot lost equates to within a business district or on a non residential street. Parking lost means lost to home values, lost to business, which means lost staff and loss of our lives. The return on investment is what Mom and Pops are counting on in their retirement and from their prop real property investment, presenting parking as the lowest priority. Denigrates the business district's small businesses, which rely on local parking in each and every real property owner. Hurting the financial position of property owners does not do anyone any good. You must protect on street parking so residents, businesses and the business districts can survive long term in a business shutdown like we have now more than ever on street parking. Preservation needs to occur and needs to be a high consideration. Having on street parking saves businesses, saves lives and save cities. And the next speaker is Jay Lucy. Madam Mayor, council members and city staff as longtime property owners in Alameda. We are surprised that this item is before the council at this time. The perspective of parking preservation for on street parking remains the same as with the Webster Street and Central Avenue intersection. Within the best business district on street parking is critical. A critical element in the preservation of local businesses. Resolution item six eight presents that on street parking be noted as the lowest priority, suggesting the business districts and the local businesses are a low priority. Business districts are critical to the city, the residents and real property owners. It would make a lot of sense for the City Council and its staff to openly discuss this topic with the city's business associations, local businesses and property owners on an upcoming agenda. On street parking, preservation should be noted as a priority. Hurting the financial position of businesses and property owners only denigrates the city the council must protect on street parking so residents, businesses and the business districts can thrive. Let's preserve on street parking for the future. And the new speaker is Jim Strelow, a lifelong resident. Deaths and injuries are just statistics. Accidents happen. We need to drill down into fault factors. Was the pedestrian or bicyclist or the driver distracted e.g. cell phone? Or both of them was accident caused by poor lighting, fog or dark clothing? Worn was either person under the influence travel lane width narrower than ten foot road lanes can lead to more head on collisions, which would send crashed vehicles into straight bike lanes, making bicycling more dangerous instead of less dangerous. Delivery trucks and moving vans on narrower streets create an even more hazardous passing situation, meaning three and a half feet. To clear a bike, a six and a half foot wide, average vehicle width means zero inches as vehicles pass each other on the roadway. How safe is that on the streets now? All Alameda streets are straight. Not all Alameda streets are straight. Streets that curb half to allow for a truck's slept width where a truck travels inside the curve or outside the curve of a roadway. Are you allowing for the AFC? T o's slept with wit pass recommendations. The Transportation Commission was concerned about enforcement, police, understaffed and policy versus guiding principles. Where the Commission argued against the details of ten foot lane width and using bollards since your policy policy just. Should just be general strategies. There is no mention anywhere for of safety for the evacuation of the island. Narrowing lanes reduces the width of many streets necessary for the safe evacuation of the island in an emergency for convenience. A very limited few bicyclists versus the necessary safety of a majority population in Alameda are misguided priorities. Is the port in the policy is accepting these priorities necessarily prioritizes the preservation of on street parking. Adoption of this resolution will result in less space in the public right of way for the short and long term storage of private vehicles, taking away parking spaces from businesses at a time when businesses need all the help they need, all the business that they can muster is again the wrong priority for this city. Thank you. Thank you. And one more comment, right? Yes, that's the last one. And this is from Suzy Hofstetter. Mayor as the Ashraf City Council members. My name is Susie Hofstetter. Hofstetter and I am both a constituent and advocacy manager with Bike Eastbay. I have already submitted comments to you via email and I'd like to add a comment for the public meeting to repeat my many thanks to our excellent staff team in transportation, planning and public works for developing excellent standards for transportation safety in our city. As Mr. Thomas said, we have had an unfortunate sequence of tragic crashes on our streets in the past few months. The standards you are reviewing today are the first step in a more robust revamp of our standard designs that will take place during the process of the Vision Zero Action Plan and Active Transportation Plan. The standards ensure that new projects coming online during re paving and redevelopment will be as safe as possible, reducing traffic speeds and making our city safer for the most vulnerable road users. Thank you in advance for your support of street safety. And that is the last. Thank you. That's what I said. I just want to I have a clarifying question about some of those comments, especially from the business community. Mr. THOMAS I've attended a few of the Labor West Alameda Business Association board meetings probably then this week and this week this year, but last year and all of the ones I attended, you were also there. Have you made it a point to attend business association meetings to talk about these plans?
Speaker 1: Well, we've been we've been meeting with we've been talking to business associations, various groups around the city about Vision Zero, about and about specific plans. And I think that's where there seems to be some misunderstanding here. This is an overall policy. This is a policy establishing what the city will do when we have a specific situation where we're trying to balance the needs in a specific location, space needs. This is not a policy that is saying, hey, we're going to go and start taking out all the on street parking in the business districts. Of course, we're not going to do that. This is when we do a project in the business districts. We always involve them. We've been working with the labor, the West Alameda Business Association for years on the Central Avenue Project. Rozelle met with them today about the active transportation plan and future plans for Webster Street to make it more bicycle friendly. This is, you know, I guess I'm I'm a little bit. So I think there's this misconception. I mean, I guess no. Have we have we gone to the business and said, hey, what's more important, a parking space or the life of a child? No, we have not, because we think we know what their answer would be. It's of course, the life of the child is more important.
Speaker 0: And I don't want to belabor the point and we'll get into the council discussion. And by the way, Mr. McGuire, could I say I love the cat rocking back and forth cat and they should be safe on the streets, too. But I just and you have done your outreach to the business communities for years, and that outreach continues.
Speaker 1: So this is. Yes, I.
Speaker 0: Wanted to confirm. So with that, we've had our public comment period and we didn't receive any further public comment. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Public comment. Okay. So then public comment is now closed and we will open the discussion and entertainment of the the this resolution. So who would like to start? Council member delegate. I see your hand that.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Your muted. Did I see your hand? But I didn't. I didn't. I didn't raise my hand. But I'm happy to say that that lovely blue background, a three off a little death. I'm Mai Mai. I'm calling in from my son's playroom so I can. I can simultaneously mom and participate in the meeting my son had. That's what we do. Yeah. So, yeah, I mean, I want to thank staff for their work on this. This has been a priority of the council as we've been talking about it for some time. I know that there's been a lot of outreach and a lot of conversation, both with the public and among the council at our publicly notice meetings. I did want to just say, you know, again, from a perspective of a mom and somebody who routinely walk the west end of our need, especially down Webster Street and in the surrounding areas, you know, the return on investment of removing a parking space to save a life is. Huge. It's preserving the safety of pedestrians. And we have a farmers market that draws in a lot of people that walk over there and a lot of people that walk to the businesses on Webster Street. And I want to make sure that, you know, everybody who's walking and biking over there, especially now that we have the the bikeway that's going to be crossing out and needed across our new trail, that that we really are making our streets as safe as possible. And so there really isn't a price you can put on saving a life and making it safer. And so if that means removing a parking spot from a corner so that we can make sure that there's better visibility, I think that that's a just an easy, easy fix and something that that really doesn't take a lot of thought on my end other than let's do it and let's get that done. I hear what the businesses are saying. I think that, you know, one of the things that's come out in this during the shelter orders is that we're seeing a lot more delivery and then takeout and pickup. And I think perhaps some of what we need isn't for potentially long term parking, but we need more, you know, kind of short term parking zones in our business district so that people that are picking up and doing the food delivery have a place to kind of pull in safely rather than double parked, pick up the food and go. But I also think that one thing that is coming out of all of this is that many, many of us are now walking or biking to go pick up our takeout food and enjoying the outdoors on the way over. Obviously, masks and following social distancing protocols. But I think we all need to evolve and I think traffic safety doesn't stop just because we're in a shelter order. In fact, we've we did have we've had a few bike versus vehicle or vehicle versus bike accidents. One was a fatality and that was during the shelter order. And I think we need to keep that in mind. And so I think that it absolutely makes sense that we continue forward with implementing what's safe. But I'm looking forward to supporting staff recommendations tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember and Councilmember Data.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you very much. I will have to say that I'm very troubled at the direction that this this item is going, in the sense of how we're linking traffic safety issues with, you know, changes to the physical environment. Um, you know, I'm not a traffic planner or a transit planner, but I did go to Berkeley's City of Regional Planning School to get my master's of city and regional planning from Cal. And I think one of the basic things that you always learn is when it comes to safety, you want to incorporate the three, the three E's, which is basically taking into account, you know, educating people kind of change the culture of traffic and the way in which people use the roads. So there's education. E And then there's also the engineering. E which is, you know, altering the streetscape in the, you know, perhaps in the manner that we're doing so right now. But then the third E would be enforcement. This is all very basic. And the thing that's concerning me about the trajectory of a discussion is we're we're really going overboard, in my opinion, on just emphasize emphasizing engineering aspects to all of this. I mean, if we really care. If we really care about the the the tragic statistics about, you know, two deaths per year and that, you know, one death or any death whatsoever is tragic. If we really care about the increase in society of pedestrian safety issues or basic life issues, and we can't just look at this from an engineering lens. We also have to certainly look at it, you know, from a from an enforcement position. Leading up to this this evening last week, I had asked city staff to give me some data on on traffic on citations for traffic speed violations. So, you know, speeding tickets, basically. So I asked for 20 years worth of data from the year 2000 each year until the year 2019. And I also asked for data on the number of traffic police officers, police officers in dealing with traffic. The interesting thing, though, is that. Over the course of those 12 years of those 20 years of the course of those 20 years, in 12 of those years, we had five or more traffic officers. And when we had five or more traffic officers, on average in those 12 years, they had citations. They generated citations of roughly 2300 speeding citations. Now, right now, I believe the number of traffic officers, we're down to three and four. And when you look at the average for those years, over the 20 years as well, of the 20 years we had 12 years where we had five traffic officers or more. The balance eight years we had five less than five traffic officers. And when you look at the amount of speeding citations on average in those eight years, we generated basically 1500 speeding violations per year. I mean, that's obvious. You have more you have more traffic officers. You catch more people who are speeding. It's obvious. It's very basic. And I think we're overemphasizing the engineering aspect of this. And as a and to me, as alarming as the fatality statistics are, as alarming as the as the pedestrian accidents are. To me, that's crying out for an emphasis or looking at this item with a lens, especially of enforcement, when you have five officers or more, if you generate on average 23,000, 2300 traffic speed citations a year, when you have less than five, 1500, that's a 55% difference. And and and it does go back to the very first question that I asked about, you know, why aren't we looking at this within the context of our general plan and within the context of our transportation element? Within the general plan? Because I think when you look at things like what we're dealing with tonight, you can't just look at it in isolation. You can't just look at it, you know, with the the lens of an engineer. There has to be an education component. There has to be an enforcement component. And finally, there has to be certainly an engineering component. But I think tonight we're looking at a document that's just too heavy on the engineering. I want to close on this much on this note. You know, I think one of the reasons why you're hearing a lot of concerns about Webster Street is we have to remember that Webster Street lost a lot of parking. They lost a lot of street parking because of the the bull belts that we've created. And they're wonderful. People use them, especially the one in front of West Cafe, the one in front of, you know, the other places on Webster Street. But also, we've also created those bus extensions. And so Webster Street does feel especially hard hit. So I think that's why they're they're clamoring right now. And, you know, the concern about the Central Avenue Webster Street bike project, certainly let's not kid ourselves necessarily is an issue here. I just want to end by summarizing. I think this is way too heavy on the engineering view of things. I think we need to look at it more holistically. As you're taught in basic, you know, city planning school, we need to look at how engineering enforcement and in education come together to bring down those fatality numbers that we're talking about. So it will be very hard for me to support this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. And I've seen that I have not had his agenda, but he has his hand up. So your next vice mayor.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. I well, I appreciate the the comments that have come before me. I have to say, I'm a little flabbergasted in the. Okay. Sorry. Everybody just froze for a second. In in in the transportation, planning and world, it is very well understood that the environment and the design of the environment is the number one thing that we can do to make sure that we have safe streets, that that is what actually pushes the behavior. And when you're finally getting to the point of of enforcing behavior, it means you've designed the streets badly. And now we're penalizing people for behaving the way that we've encouraged them to do it. So. Well, I appreciate the comments and I appreciate the educational background of Councilmember Dessau. I would say his basic planning tenets that that he outlined represent more of an old school perception of how this is done and that the folks coming out of Cal and UCLA and University of Texas and and MIT and whatnot would would beg to differ. Today, I'm going to move forward. Again, I want to reflect I understand the concerns that we've heard from from Ms.. Astbury and onwards and and folks. And I think Mr. Thomas did a fine job of explaining that this is not an attack on parking. This is a win. There is a tradeoff to be made in something that is unsafe and people dying and and a parking space. We're going to choose protecting the residents and the safety of our residents. And I think that that is consistent with the policies and plans that we've put in place over the last 18 months. I think it's consistent with the policy and the planning that's been done in the last three or four years by the majority of the city council. And so I think this is a continuation of it. I think we have a very solid transportation element and that these these policies, as they're moving forward, are just a continuation of that. And I see no reason why we can't move forward. I want to thank so I'm excited. I will be supporting this. I do have one minor change. There were there were some questions in here. I also just wanted to we've received this as a part of this item, a number of comments asking about so streets. And I wanted to thank staff for circulating the map with the pilot, the two street pilot that's going around excited to see that we are moving forward with that concept. I want to really call out that in my mind, the pilot is a scheme, it's a short term pilot so that we're.
Speaker 0: Going to stay on topic.
Speaker 1: I understand. I'm also going to talk about traffic safety just for a few seconds. So I do want to make sure that that that the pilot really is our short term first step and that it leads to a more city wide, brighter place. I want to make sure back to back to the letters we got that as we're considering the safety impacts, including future projects like the Slow Streets that we're building, networks that will support our businesses as we come out of the time of COVID and maintain our social distancing. I want to highlight and concur with Councilmember Ody. A number of our cities are really moving forward with the intersection access in the time of COVID, COVID at a time when we don't want to be touching public infrastructure, people are turning their the pedestrian buttons off at their intersections. I see no reason why we can't be doing that. I don't think it should take a council direction. I think we can just start now where where activation is not required. We should just turn these things off. The council or the staff ask stuff five questions. And so on the question of intersections, I think Mr. Wheeler did a just fabulous job of explaining why we would want to have all of the crosswalks painted. It's because it signals that you're allowed to be there. Right now we have designed again back to design. We've designed a network where people who are in their cars actually think that that pedestrians have to be channeled is, as the question puts it, to a specific place where they are allowed to cross in any way, whether they're crossing that or isn't paint is there is thereby illegal and it basically inhibits people walking, it makes it less safe and it and it causes confusion. So I think that the pairs is very important. I understand that there's concern about the cost of extra paint and the wear and tear. And that's that is very real. I think that use of zebra striped crosswalks without the perpendicular bars has been shown in some cities to be one way to at least reduce the impact of those cross costs, because a lot of the cars actually travel between the bars and so there's less wear and tear on the actual paint. On the question of balancing safety versus areas where we want to create safety, you know, I think that our staff think through the active transportation program as well, can look at some sort of balance. Right. You're never going to be able to say it's just one thing. We're not going to do it. We're not going to say only high crash areas and we're not going to create safe places around schools so that they become high crash areas. I think that we can find a way to do a 7525 split or something like that whereby we can reflect that safety is our priority, but that there are also generators like schools, parks, business districts, etc., where safety, safety improvements are very important, not just from a safety aspect, but also from a encouraging people to use the space aspect. On the question of speed, obviously we want to be smart and data driven, but we also want to make sure that we don't plan ourselves into inactivity. And I think that, you know, I will continue to push for us to be tactical in our ways of implementing quick and effective things. That may not be the perfect solution, but they get us 95% or 90% of the way there while we're doing the data work in the background. And I say all of this with great respect and appreciation for the the the small but mighty staff that we have working on here. And I know that everybody is working very hard. And so my words are not that anything is being done wrong. But if you ask the question, should we do more now or should we plan to do more sometime later? You know, the answer is, of course, yes. And then lastly, the question about bollards and I think this is not just about bollards. Bollards can be ugly. I think it's unfortunate that people drive illegally and require us to put bollards up so that we can make sure they don't park in places that they are not supposed to , that they turn slow enough that they don't run over people, etc.. But at the end of the day, much like the trade off between a parking space and safety, I think that it's very important for us to get to safety and that concerns about ugly people think everything is ugly when it's new. The bollards are just a new piece of infrastructure and we will get used to them and their garish yellow, pink, gray and purple colors. And sometimes, I mean, 15 years ago, if 15 years from now, they'll look like the the trash cans we put out every night. I remember when that changeover happened in Alameda about 15 years ago and people flipped out about the garish trash cans. What happened to the metal? You never rarely hear that concern anymore so quickly. Yeah. Again, I want to thank staff. This is a fabulous staff report. I really appreciate it. The one change I would like to propose is in the final voyage of the first. Now, therefore, be it resolved that separated bike lanes should be provided instead of unprotected standard bicycle lanes.
Speaker 0: And when you do not swipe left. Hey, John.
Speaker 1: I'm on paper. I can't tell you.
Speaker 0: Well, could you count because it's a five page reserve, so maybe. Okay, when you say so sorry.
Speaker 1: Yeah, hopefully we're going to run out of time, but I think it's about time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Page three to look for the page. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm going to go with page three of the resolution.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: And fourth. Fifth, pull it down to two.
Speaker 0: Okay. Separated bike lanes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, separated bike lanes. Okay. So where it says separated bicycle lanes should be provided instead of unprotected standard bicycle lanes. When feasible, I would change that too, unless not feasible. I think that language needs to say that we should assume we're doing it unless we can prove that it's not as opposed to making the decision now, they don't seem feasible. And then we move on. I know it's it's just a little tweak, but I think that the goal here is to basically say we want the highest level of safety and encouragement and that that becomes a meaningful just reminder as people are thinking about the policy that I look forward to supporting this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And I would add that, Jody, before I go to you, I just wanted to ask Mr. Thomas if you could just comment on the vice mayor's suggestion. Is there is that is it feasible to change when feasible to less invisible? And just go ahead and mute yourself so we can hear your lovely voice.
Speaker 1: Yes, it's fine.
Speaker 0: It's.
Speaker 1: It's fine. Okay. Do you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes, I did. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So keep that in mind, Counsel, and then we'll go to Councilman Brody.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I want to thank staff for all their hard work on this. And I'm going to adopt a lot of what the vice mayor said. So I'm not going to take the whole 8 minutes or 9 minutes that I have. You know, I appreciate that they took this referral and ran with it. And, you know, I've been reading the updates from the city manager and at this time, you know, still working. Everyone's working really hard, but, you know, you're still working on your your area, working remotely and able to produce some high quality output. So I appreciate that. Just quickly on the questions. All right. The you know, I asked the question about the pairs versus Clark because, you know, there's really not my my area of expertize. So I'll defer to the engineering folks when it comes to that. And I would agree with the vice mayor that, you know, the more across work opportunities we have, the better. And, you know, if we can even have some of those X ones where the whole intersection is shut down, you know, that's even more the better and the limited resources and where to prioritize. You know, again, I'm kind of going to defer to staff on that. I know that every time we have an accident, you know, there's a lot of clamoring and the squeaky wheel and so on and so forth. But, you know, sometimes we're told by our our professional staff that, you know, well, this is the first time that's happened there, and there are other areas that need more priority. So, you know, I'm happy to defer to you. You know, I do think there is around school, though, our high priorities there is around parks in the areas, you know, in our business districts where we have, you know, the most pedestrian traffic. So as far as I mean, you know, I don't think ugly, you know, they serve a purpose. Well, I think it's I believe when people run over them and, you know, they're not replaced or we put one there and it gets destroyed and we don't go back and fix it. So, you know, the more we could do on there to help change behavior, the better. I appreciate the hierarchy. You know, it's not that we're saying that parking is a low priority. We're basically saying that life, especially children's lives, are a high priority. And it's interesting that we're having this discussion. At the same time, the national discussion is about, you know, do we reopen the economy at the risk of hundreds of thousands of lives or do we keep everyone safe and make that our priority and then, you know, open when it's safe? So, you know, just kind of food for thought. You know, I think when we had a big discussion on parking and bike lanes, you know, I think it was the Central Avenue traffic. And if I remember correctly and those that were there can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we took out one parking space on Central. It could have been two and it was on the eastbound side, so it wasn't even anywhere near going towards the business district. So I'm glad that we're to codify these these priorities. You know, there's always a risk that some, you know, road councilmember in the future may, you know, behind the scenes try to kill projects and you know now that it's codified and and also staff gets you know an idea on how to write their staff reports and our council gets an idea on, you know, what the priorities are. We won't have that lingering like we did with Central Avenue before. So I know that we've talked about the three E's and, you know, when the vice mayor and I had a town hall or what it just seems like forever ago, it was only like maybe two months, you know, we added the enactment. E because, you know, some of these solutions need an act in the state legislation. But on the engineering side, I think that we kind of under emphasized engineering, and that was the message that we kept hearing from residents across the city, you know, whether it be on websites or whether it be on LinkedIn, whether it be on Bay Farm, whether it be on, you know, Park Street or Otis, you know, we haven't done enough engineering. So and I also caution, you know, enforcement is such human capital intensive activity and we continue to ask more of our police department with, you know, fewer or fewer resources for reasons that pretty much are outside our control. So I think we have to be cognizant of that. But see, and, you know, I know there was some concern about the lack of traffic, but I think there are solutions that the engineers could look at, you know, try to cut off people from going or stop people from going from cutting around. And, you know, I remember that that the discussion was, well, if you put this bike lane in on Central, then you're only going to have maybe like a minute or two delay. So I mean, to me, a minute or two delay, whether you're going to make a left hand turn or right hand turn, I think is is totally acceptable if it means that you're going to save somebody's life. And we're just going back to the engineering. I mean, there are little things we do that impact that reduce the need for enforcement. I mean, I'll say a stoplight is one of them. And the speed bumps, you know, it's kind of a moderate example. You know, that's a that's an engineering tool that, you know, if it is deployed, right. People are not going to speed. I mean you can go to. Extreme and say, you know, every time that a stoplight comes up, you're going to put a pretty foot barrier and then nobody will ever go through the stoplight. Right. But, you know, that's not feasible. But the point is that fine line and a balance between enforcement and engineering and we need both. But, you know, I just think we're under engineered right now. So lastly, I think this also ties in with our goal. You know, we want to make a more pedestrian friendly design in this district. I mean, that is, as the vice mayor said, you know, that's what the experts that are coming out of school now say you want to do before San Francisco shut down Market Street. You know, this is the trend, Sixth Street or Fourth Street in Berkeley. And these are the places that we kind of want to emulate, you know, not where we have cars rushing down our business thoroughfares, you know, 80 miles an hour. And the last point, I can't even read my writing. Oh, it's also about, you know, the current thinking. Now, there's a lot of ink spilled about how poorly designed our streets are, whether they're in California, generally, the Bay Area or Alameda. So, I mean, the sooner we can go about it, fix that and, you know, undo the bad engineering and put in good engineering I'm all for and I appreciate all the hard work staff has done and I appreciate my colleagues for prioritizing this. And I'm glad that, you know, for once we're complaining about a problem, but actually coming up with a solution. And that's what I love about this council.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Mr. Oteh. Okay. And to that, I'm going to take my comments next. And again, thank you to staff all of you who have contributed to this report. And this is is a very important topic and near and dear to my heart. And I'm going to start with the topic of speed and slowing down drivers. One of the things I've noticed now in Alameda that we do have less traffic on our streets because most businesses are closed, the schools are closed, the people are driving faster. They're driving faster than the 25 mile per hour speed limit. I've talked to our police chief, Paul O'Leary. He confirms that if the officers are out and see you, you can count on a citation. But in the meantime, and I say this every chance I get, more people are out walking because although we are physically distancing and we're sheltering in place except to go out for those essential activities, getting some fresh air and exercise are essential activities. Take your mask with you. I would suggest wearing it because you may run into other people closer than six feet away. But get out and and walk. Explore the city. We're flat, you know, take a different route every time you go out. But my husband and I try and walk in the early evenings and we're very careful crossing streets because and we carry a flashlight if it's starting to get dark because drivers are going fast. So this is not a good thing. And by the way, speaking of the restrictions from COVID 19, I do appreciate staff bringing this forward to us. There are things that are important and just can't wait and traffic, safety and the lives of our residents are certainly among them. So I want to also ask or just inquire to take this under consideration, to go after as much grant funding as possible for for these projects. And I know your office always does your department. Mr. THOMAS As far as the concerns from the business folks that we heard from, I was a little surprised because I have been at some of those meetings where Mr. Thomas is there and answering questions and presenting, and I know he's doing it at our business associations around town, so that's great to go out and inform people. It doesn't mean you get by it. It doesn't mean that everybody agrees with you that the fact that someone disagrees is one data point that needs to be considered. You weigh all the factors, and I and I look to the professionals who are informing this this decision or helping us make informed decisions. I did not study traffic engineering. I'm not an engineer, but I went to UC Davis. And one of the things I loved about Davis, besides the fact that it's an all bicycle campus, your professors will be riding alongside of you, that the whole city is bright as a bike, bicycle, friendly city. The bike lanes are wide enough in one direction for two people to ride side by side and have a conversation. And drivers understand there's bikes all over the place and they they stop. And so we can learn a lot of things. But I think good design and all of the inspired thinking that went into this report are so important. And as far as the enforcement piece, of course it's important. And of course, our police department takes that seriously. That's a reality, as in Councilmember De. Alluded to this. We only have a certain number of patrol officers out on any given shift, and that is the reality. And as with everything we do as a council, we play the hand we're dealt. We can aspire to have more officers, but we also deal with the reality on the ground that the workshop that was organized by Vice Mayor Knox played in Councilmember O.D. and noticed is a public meeting so others could attend. And I did. It was very impressive. We had our city engineer, Scott Wickstrom in, and Dana Emery, our traffic engineer, Miss Wheeler presented and the police officers. Oh, I'm just going blank on his name. Tall. Yes, there are many of them tall. Their his grandiosity. And it was such an informed decision, good audience participation. I think one of the maybe last public forums we had that the police were definitely on top of this, but they could also use the help with the good design to be able to to help keep people safe. But but but we are seeing how cars are speeding with these wide open thoroughfares that are they're finding right now. So so we do need to protect our the safety of all and and the accessibility of our streets to all. And I am looking forward to opening Alameda up again for business. It'll be gradual. As the governor said last week in his press conference, the new normal will be anything but. And so to our Planning and Transportation Department, I want you to be thinking about maybe some new ways that you haven't even contemplated yet, because, A, we don't know exactly what things are going to look like. But the governor certainly told us that, you know, restaurants, for instance, they're going to be removing tables because they'll need to do some physical distance. It's not just a matter of flipping a light switch and we go back to the way we were. It's going to be a gradual process. So think about, you know, new ways of of maybe dealing with all that. But I do hope that one of the things that will come out is always the silver lining and the fact that we've been sheltering in place, but getting out for some exercise. And I'm seeing lots of walking and I hope people will keep that up. It's a great habit. It's a healthy habit. You know, discover your city. Don't just walk down the same streets, try, try different ones. And I think that will also impact and benefit our business districts. And I will say that Webster City I mean, I do go to Webster Street and have coffee and shop and whatnot. Usually I'm on my bike, but when I sometimes I'm in my car, I always find parking at the municipal lot. I will say quickly that I know during the farmer's market days that's that's used as a farm, as part of the farmer's market. But I always find parking maybe not in front of the business that I'm going to, but down a side street, it's healthy to walk a little away from your car. And I know for people who are disabled and need to park right there, we've got those spots, too. And let's see really quickly, I wanted to ask two quick questions. One of Mr. Wikström, which is about the so-called big buttons. I thought I saw an email, I think, from you that said, the reason we can't just go and flip a switch in and be done with them has to do with some of the the equipment we're dealing with. Is that is that accurate? Mr. Wickstrom.
Speaker 1: That is correct. I think it's been brought before the council when Dani presented in February that we have a very old system. If you look at our aggregate, 87 intersections with a variety of controllers and not all of them are easily programable to just quickly remove where buttons are being attached. So we have to look at intersection by intersection. Another consideration that we also keep in mind is some of those intersections are programed for what's called audible pedestrian signals. The status and accessibility component for someone blind that we also want to keep those active. So they hear here there's some signage, things that could be done to improve that so that people know they don't have to do that. We are we're looking into really trying to catalog our entire system and then trying to attack it systematically.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you for that. And by the way, for anybody out there wanting to cross the street, don't touch it with your hands. Use your elbow. That will activate it. And and then last question is for you, Mr. Thomas, on the Central Avenue Project. I was under the impression that we were still waiting on Caltrans. But remind us, where are we on the Central Avenue project?
Speaker 1: Thank you for asking. We just met about it today. We will be we are refining the design with our consultants. We hope to be back to the council with those final design refinements, including the final design for the portion that goes by Webster Street Transportation Commission and May Council in June. That will then set us up for the final step with Caltrans. That then puts us in the construction drawings. If things go very well and we can go sort of everything goes as, you know, full speed. We would hope to start construction next calendar year, 2021. But it's a it's a big it's a big step. I mean, it's just a big, complicated, expensive project. The money for the public, just to the public as we have the money ready for us to spend on the construction. So it's just about getting through the design process with Caltrans, we hope in the near term to start construction on the Clement bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements from Grand to Broadway for the Cross Army Trail. That project is ahead of Clement. And then the project that is we're hoping to that's even ahead of that will be the bicycle pedestrian improvements for Otis. So the council has set up a whole series of of actual, you know, projects to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. Central is just the biggest, most complicated of the three that we're working on right now. And just as an example, all three of those have had extensive public process. So just to reassure the business community, if we're doing anything in your business district, you will be seeing a lot of us before we start changing any on street parking. So that's I hope that is.
Speaker 0: What it is. Yes, it does. Mr. De Soto, you have 12 seconds. What would you like to tell us?
Speaker 1: Weekly Vice Mayor Knox White called my views on the three E's and traffic safety as old school. Actually, it's not. All you need to do is Google three E's in traffic safety. And I, in fact, came out with a I found a study put.
Speaker 0: Out by.
Speaker 1: Time.
Speaker 0: Next year, your time is up. Well, thank you. And thank you for your take you all for your comments. And and this is this is a good, lively discussion. I appreciate it. Okay. With that, what we are being asked to do is to vote in a resolution. Vice Mayor. And I thought you had your hand up.
Speaker 1: I'd like to make a motion.
Speaker 0: My right. What's that motion?
Speaker 1: I'd like to move approval of the staff recommendation. With apologies for my lack of clarity to Councilmember De Saag, I meant the his views on the.
Speaker 0: Unemployed of.
Speaker 1: Engineering. I just wanted to apologize.
Speaker 0: And you can take that off line through the motions.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: We always strive, by the way, not to be personal. I'm sure it was meant with this. No, we're okay. Okay, great. Okay. We're okay. And so what was that modification with.
Speaker 1: The modification of the bullet separated, changing as discussed when feasible to unless not feasible where the under the separated bicycle lanes to shall be provided bullet tried it.
Speaker 0: Okay, we have that motion. Do we have a segment? Okay, we have 2 seconds. That's a force. So our I think it's thought councilmember village hand at first that at the thank you there'll be more opportunities. Okay. Could we have that roll call vote please. Councilmember de Cut.
Speaker 1: Three. Not one? No.
Speaker 0: Not slate.
Speaker 1: I with an e0di with enthusiasm. Oh, good. That was good.
Speaker 0: Fellow. I may or as the Ashcroft that's I with for it that's already. That carries I five eyes. All right, well, now I want to take care of your math to find out why you might not want to do as. I was getting too excited, too easy. All right. Okay. So that is that takes care of item six. A item six be has been continued to. Our next meeting on May 10th. Let me pull my counsel really quickly. People, do you want to take a quick break now? Do you want to do another? What do we have? We've got four more. Do we have four more items? Yes. Yes. Everybody. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 1: I was saying five more items.
Speaker 0: Okay. Five more items. Thank you. And has them restaurants. Yeah. No, it's for. It's for. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I didn't remember from my pile. Apologies.
Speaker 0: Okay. So to have a break or not to have a break. Is that? Keep moving, Mr. Eddie.
Speaker 1: Yes. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'd prefer to take of if we could.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. He's hungry. Hi. Sorry I'm not serving food tonight, but there's good takeout support. Alameda business is okay. So much for that commercial. Okay, our next item, Madam Cook. Introduction of ordinance amending the Municipal Code Chapter 30 Development Regulations to modify Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations to implement and comply with State Law and make other administrative, technical and clarifying amendments pertaining to appeals and youth center definition as recommended by the Planning Board. Thank you. And who is that? You, Mr. De? This is L.A..
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Adoption of Resolution Establishing Policies on Street Width, Lane Width, Crosswalks and Bulb-Outs to Promote Safe, Livable Streets and Environmentally Sustainable Transportation Choices; and
Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff on Tools for Improving Safety at Intersections. (Planning, Building and Transportation 4227287) [Not heard on March 17, 2020]
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_04222020_2020-7866
|
Speaker 0: and clarifying amendments pertaining to appeals and youth center definition as recommended by the Planning Board. Thank you. And who is that? You, Mr. De? This is L.A..
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 0: Hi. Yes, I can hear you and see you. Good evening.
Speaker 1: Great. Nice to see you all. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor and members of the City Council. This is Valentine City Planner with.
Speaker 0: The Planning.
Speaker 1: Building and Transportation Department. So this is an ordinance to amend Chapter 30 of the municipal code, otherwise known as the zoning ordinance, specifically the amendments pertaining to accessory dwelling units or more commonly known by its acronym. And the purpose of the amendments is to bring Alameda and new regulations into compliance with the new state laws. Eddie is referring to backyard cottages for those who aren't familiar and granted units or second units that California law allows by rights when associated with a primary show unit. These units are accessory to the main house, and state law prohibits cities from applying any sort of density rules to use or otherwise try to limit the number of abuse in their city.
Speaker 0: In 2019, the state.
Speaker 1: Passed a number of new laws that standardize many requirements for any use in California. These laws are in effect as of January 1st of 2020. The new requirements mainly pertain to zoning standards such as height limit, minimum unit size, building setbacks. The laws also allow 80 use now on multifamily lots, as well as making way for greener, more efficient use. Overall staff. Definitely the changes in the law make it easier and more economical for Alameda residents to build, and new staff has already begun implementing the new requirements as mandated under state law. The Planning Board held a public hearing on February 10th and recalled City Council approved the ordinance. The ordinance also includes two very minor cleanup.
Speaker 0: Amendments related to appeals in.
Speaker 1: The definition of use centers. These cleanup amendments are administrative in nature, as described in the staff report, so I won't go into detail unless the council has specific questions tonight. Staff is recommending that you approve this ordinance, but with a slight modification, which is to omit.
Speaker 0: A.
Speaker 1: New provision identified as subsection J on page ten of the ordinance published on the agenda tonight. And just for me to explain, this provision allows you to be sold separately from the main dwelling by a nonprofit to a low income buyer. This is not a mandate by the state. And on the surface, sounds like a good idea. But after consulting with the city attorney, we believe this matter raises some larger policy questions that warrant further study. So we ask the council to omit subsection K on page ten if there's a motion to approve this ordinance tonight. That was my staff report, and I am here for question. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Tiny. And then, quick. Do we have any speakers on this one? We do not have any public comment on this one. Public comment. And so any clarifying questions of Mr. Ty, Mr. Otis. Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly. I mean, do we I remember when we first tweeted a couple of years back, there was a fear that there'd be a mad rush of ideas. If you know, can you tell us how many we've had in the last couple of years? If not, it's fine. Right. We actually do have we have been tracking very closely. We since 2017, which is the last update to the ordinance, we have seen 30 to 80 use construct in Alameda. So meaning the definition of pass inspections, about half of those are really in basements that are basement conversion, very hidden and the remaining half are backyard cottages, conversion of existing garages. And the average size has really been under 600 square feet. I think comedians are taking advantage of opportunities to create units for extended family or rental opportunities with the least cost. Thanks. 32 total, not 32 per year, right? 32 total since 2017. And the city has approved 120 applications to date. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That was all your question. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. Let me know when you're done. Okay. Any other clarifying questions? Council. Okay. Well, then council comments. I I'm going to actually lead with comments because this is a topic near and dear to my heart. This year I am the co-chair of the League of California Cities Statewide Policy Committee on Housing, Community and Economic Development. My colleague, Councilmember Vella, sits on the committee and we have worked very hard over these last couple of years to promote more building, especially of housing that is affordable, whether designated affordable or affordable by design because of its smaller size, and also to work to remove some of the roadblocks that were in place in some cities that made it difficult to do something that shouldn't be so terribly complicated. And so what I can say is that the housing crisis in our state is not going away, not because of the COVID 19 pandemic or any other reason. And in fact, it has really highlighted for those of us elected officials who are being given mandates by our governor and by our county public health officers to go into encampments and get people out of them, because it's just a place where the virus can grow and flourish. And we're scrambling to find hotel rooms. The governor's working with Motel six in the South Bay to do that. And at the end of the day, we need more housing. People should not live unsheltered. They should not be sleeping under our overpasses or in the bushes. And I mean, it's a complicated a complicated topic, but we need to to pick the low hanging fruit. And ideas are certainly one of them. And I also want to just note that until last year, I was a member of the Casa Compact CASA Combat Practice, a suite of very aggressive housing protection bills. And so I was one of the committee that oversaw the recommendations to the legislature. And I want to say it was maybe a planner from San Mateo County had brought to us a really nice booklet like a how to that San Mateo County does either San Mateo County or the city of San Mateo. I think it's the county. But anyway, so if you came to the counter and said, hey, I think and I want to do an ad for you in my back yard, you would get this or that. You can probably download it from the website and it's it's a how to and it makes it simple and easy. Do we have anything similar to that or anything in the works? Mr. Tanner. Mr. Thomas, whoever wants to answer. By the way, I'll just note for the record, when I'm writing my notes and I'm identifying who spoke. I just put your initials. But when I've got Alan Tie and Andrew Thomas, I'm going to have to write someone's name out. But it's okay. Which of my eighties would like to go this year? Yes, thank you. That helps.
Speaker 1: I will go to that one. Mm, yes. I think one of our next steps is really to focus on developing collateral material and doing some outreach. So, you know, some of the ideas that we've had might even include working with the building department and building inspectors to do maybe a community workshop or something that would be very informative, that would let residents understand the entire process from the initial application to some to think about the construction. So we've seen other cities successfully do that, and that's something that we would certainly love to model.
Speaker 0: Oh, that sounds great to me. Did you want to add anything, Mr. Thomas? Yeah, this is good. Okay. Yeah. Great idea. I'm all for that. Okay. That's all for me. Who else wants to speak or make a motion or what have you? As I said earlier. That's right. And then you. Councilmember de. Sure.
Speaker 1: I'd love to move approval of this. I will say really quickly that I did listen to the planning board discussion on this, as is very frequently the case. They had a fantastic discussion about it as some really good, tough, clarifying questions, and I think it was very well vetted. I really appreciate. And it's always a testament to the work of Mr. Ty on this issue, how well this comes forward. I really am very grateful at that. So I'm very happy to. Tim, if approval.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you for the comments. And we've got a motion and we have a second councilmember. Dave, thank you. Had your hand out.
Speaker 1: Yes, thank you. Just quickly, I appreciate the modification that had been raised with regard to I think it was item J of the item. But for me, the larger concern is still there. And I think you you all your staff especially know where I'll be coming from. This is a larger concern about Measure a Chapter 26 of our city charter Part three. I'm I'm not sure how the ACTU really is aligned with with our city charter chapters 26 item three. It might be and might not be, I don't know. I mean, maybe it is state law, as some might say, you know, trumps everything. But so for tonight, I, you know, I'll need just to look at this a little bit further. So tonight I'll just I'll just abstain on this and then I'll come to a decision next time we have the ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. David. So I don't want to leave the audience with any mis interpretations or misimpressions. So if someone want to step in and talk about it can be one of the lawyers or Mr. Thomas, you'd be in a good position to sit here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let me just just for the audience and giving this and we certainly respect member Dave Dog's position and need to think through our interpretation or interpretation of you know, state law. You know we are our ability as a city to pass local rules and regulations and laws is confined by the limits imposed upon us by the state of California. As a member of the state of California, as a city within the state, we we have our laws must comply with state laws. And the state has been, at least from the stats perspective and our interpretation of state law, and this is supported by our communications with the State Department of Housing Human Development, which we, we communicate with them on a regular basis. In fact, they they pointed to our ordinance selling this to too modest. He didn't tell you about that our how the state has requested to use our new ordinance and amendment as a model for other cities. But there are there are conflicts between the city charter and and and new state law around housing and and abuse. Absolutely. I think the voters, you know, state law and the laws around second units that we have today in California are not the same that we had in 1972 when the measure was passed in 1991. It was then further added to in our charter. So it's not the first time we've run into these conflicts with the charter around these these kinds of housing issues. In this case, it's pretty clear to us, with the exception of that section J, which which Alan mentioned, the state law is very clear for all cities that you , the accessory dwelling unit, cannot be considered when considering whether you're violating the the density limit imposed on a particular piece of property. So essentially, under state law, a second unit doesn't count towards the density. And I think that's the provision that Councilmember de Song was referring to the one unit per 2000 square feet of land with density standard in our charter. Under state law, you cannot treat accessory dwelling unit as a as an additional unit. It's accessory to the main unit. I'll just leave it at that. But that's just for the public, just sort of how that plays out.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I will also note that the governor, certainly before he became consumed with leading our effort to fight COVID 19 and doing a spectacular job in our in our state, he had had said that housing is his priority. He is very well aware of the crisis, the housing crisis we have in this in this state and has even taken a city or two to court over some of their housing laws. So I want to make that clear, too. And then if I could just go back to the makers of our motion, both Mayor and Council Member Odie, you were making the motion with the request about S.J. Inc, correct?
Speaker 1: Yes. I'm sorry. I should have been more explicit in my.
Speaker 0: ED just to make sure. Okay, perfect. And then, Councilmember, do you had your hand up?
Speaker 1: Well of because I agree with everything you said except for the part where you serve on the committee, because I don't. But everything else I agreed with committee as a you can take a video of that minute because it seems every couple of months you have to repeat yourself on that.
Speaker 0: And also, I just want to extend my congratulations to Mr. Ty for. I had heard that about the the ordinance being used as a as a model. And that's and we're very proud of you. So congratulations on that. And so right back to you. So anybody else want to comment or should we vote? But. Okay. Let's take a vote then. Councilor Vella, that's not. I think we should vote. Do you think we should vote? I agree. All right. Now I'm quick with your roll call. Vote, please. Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 1: Exiting.
Speaker 0: Next site.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 0: Odie.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 0: Bella. I may as the enthusiastic I that carries by four eyes one abstention. Thank you. So, item six. Thanks, everybody. Staff who was on this one? Item six has been withdrawn and we move to item six e introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager or designee to execute a 12 month amendment to the lease with Pacific Pinball Museum. 501 C3 Nonprofit organization with the option of for one year extensions for Building 169 Suite 121 located at 1680 Viking Street at Alameda Point. And the thing is that. Mr. Levitt, you're presenting it. Who's presenting. And then that's here and go.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 30 (Development Regulations) to Modify Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations to Implement and Comply with State Law and Make Other Administrative, Technical, and Clarifying Amendments pertaining to Appeals and Youth Centers Definition, as Recommended by the Planning Board. (Planning, Building and Transportation 481005)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_04222020_2020-7849
|
Speaker 0: Whitman's request to waive conflicts of interest in connection with his legal representation of the City of Alameda and the housing authority of the City of Alameda. And is that you, Mr. Roush, or it.
Speaker 1: Is, Madam Chair.
Speaker 0: Great. Take it away. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Marin Counsel Michael Roush on behalf of the City Attorney's Office in Alameda. This is an item where our office is requesting a direction from the city council as to whether or not to waive a conflict of interest between the. GOLDMAN I'm sorry. GOLDFARB The law firm and the city and the city of Alameda. It just comes up rarely. But it happened here because that firm happens to represent the housing authority on a number of different issues, including some discussions we are going to have with the housing authority about an amendment to the Housing Services Agreement, but they also represent the Housing Authority and some other matters as well from time to time. And in addition, the firm also represents or has contracted with the city to provide legal advice and assistance with respect to a number of housing projects that the city is involved in. So because under the professional rules of responsibility, there is the actual conflict between what the firm might provide to the housing authority on the housing authority matters and the advice that they would be providing to the city. On what I call the transactional matters, we're requesting the Council to consider whether to grant a waiver of conflict as a practical matter. Different attorneys are involved on the housing authority side versus the city side, and the firm has certainly has agreed to and will set up an ethical wall so that there isn't any conflict. There's no inter relationship or interface between the attorneys providing assistance on the city side and the attorneys providing assistance on the housing authority side. So the matters before you and we'll be glad to answer any questions regarding this matter.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Roush. And do we have any public comment on this item? There are no public comments on this. Okay. So, Counselor, any clarifying questions? No clarifying question. Any discussion, Mr. Modi?
Speaker 1: Oh, thank you, sir. I had one. So is there a similar waiver signed by the Housing Authority? The goal from the answer is yes. There would be a conflict both ways. I mean, a conflict way or both ways.
Speaker 0: And and this is Debbie Porter. And I just like Debbie say that this ties in sort of high housing authority board of commissioners last Wednesday approved the their way their approval of the.
Speaker 1: Conflict.
Speaker 0: Waiver. So the board of commissioners has already taken action on this item. Thank you. Okay. That's good to know. Mr. Eddie, back to you.
Speaker 1: All right, Doctor. Thank you.
Speaker 0: That's it. Okay. And if I might note, I believe we've lost John. Oh, we've lost John. That's. You're right. Texted me or anything, so I'm not sure what happened. Okay. Let me text him really quickly. Oh, he's coming back. He's back. He's coming back. He's on his way back. There he is. Okay. Okay. Welcome back, Mr. Knox. Can you hear us?
Speaker 1: I can. I lost the audio, so I will and we will continue.
Speaker 0: All right. So did you hear Mr. Roche's discussion? No. That you've read this staff report?
Speaker 1: I have, yes.
Speaker 0: Do you have any questions and clarifying questions? Any comments?
Speaker 1: I do not.
Speaker 0: So Mr. Potter is joining us and she let us know that last week the Housing Authority Board voted to waive the contract from their side and. Okay. So any other questions, comments, or do I have a motion? Someone raise your hand and we can proceed. Did you decide?
Speaker 1: Yes. I'd like to move. Staff recommendation.
Speaker 0: All right. We have a motion to have a second. That's guys getting heavy. Is anyone going to second this?
Speaker 1: I will second it for discussion. And like I'd like to I quite honestly, after reading the staff report, was hoping to hear from my more legally minded council member colleagues about pros and cons of this a little bit.
Speaker 0: You wanted to hear from me, legal advice from your colleagues rather than the city attorney? I just wanted to hear from other council members.
Speaker 1: Yeah. To hear from other.
Speaker 0: As I can hear you and of L.A.. Yeah. Okay. Um, I. I've discussed this with the city attorney's office, and I am satisfied with the procedures put in place. So, Councilor Verity, did you want to add anything further?
Speaker 1: Pneumonia.
Speaker 0: Huh? Either of you. Councilmember Vela. So I get the article while I understand that there can be different attorneys involved. I'm just wary. There's a number of different law firms that are available that we work with and that are available to help on various issues. And because of the types of issues that we're going to be in talks with the housing authority on, I think, you know, I'm not comfortable with this waiver at this time. Well, this isn't to say that I think that anyone involved would be asking acting unethically, but I am concerned about providing a waiver. And if there is an issue in the talks that we're having coming up, just the fact that the same firm is involved. I think there's a number of other firms that we have on retainer and that we can work with. And I would hope that we can.
Speaker 1: Work with one of those.
Speaker 0: Instead. Thank you. Do Mr. Roush or Mr. even want to address? Do you think Mr. San want to? I don't know if we still have Mr. Sand with us, but Mr. Ash, do you want to.
Speaker 1: Just address that? So, Madam Chair, it's even said. I just want to tell you that I'm still on. I'm just not on audio.
Speaker 0: You're not on video.
Speaker 1: And I hope I get clarification. I'm sorry I'm not on video. Is that council member that was just just.
Speaker 0: Mr.. Sorry date time. I'm sorry. I, I completely sympathize. And then maybe your voice.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right. We're going to hire Devin as our outside counsel for that. But I just want to make sure I heard Councilmember Avella correctly, which is that Councilmember Valley's preference is that the city engage different counsel. It was asked was that the gist of the comment?
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's basically I'm not comfortable with the waiver just because I would hope that with with all of the parties involved, just the appearance of it. I think with the discussions that we're going to be undertaking, I would hope that we could engage different attorneys rather than attorneys from the same firm.
Speaker 1: I do want to let the counsel know that if the counsel does decline the waiver, what is more likely to happen is that the housing authority would engage different counsel, and that's probably practically what likely would happen. But we don't.
Speaker 0: Know about you. And why is that? Mr.. Mr.. SPENCER Whoa.
Speaker 1: Whoa, whoa. Because at this moment, Goldfarb is providing very, very limited services to the city. On the other hand, their services are ongoing with the city. They have advised Alameda Point for many years, and so their knowledge is fairly valuable. On the other hand, we don't have immediate need for Goldfarb to do any specific work right away. On the other hand, I think the housing authority needs. Housing Authority needs. GOLDFARB to sort of be engaged right away. So I think decline of the conflict we have at this moment will probably result in Goldfarb being hired and not being hired by the Housing Authority. I'm, of course, just speculating. I don't know what exactly they would do, but that's my understanding. I'm going to limit myself, and I apologize.
Speaker 0: For that so that I don't apologize for that. That's great. Okay. So that was that was helpful to know. And just really, I think you had had your hand up, correct?
Speaker 1: Oh, thank you, Madam Mayor. It was nice to get to see little, little children at our meetings or at least hear them. So I.
Speaker 0: Appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm kind of a I'm not ready to support this now. That doesn't mean I couldn't in the future, but I know that the city manager is working on a response to a referral that's probably taking a lower priority now. And, you know, I'm just not I'm not quite comfortable with it. So I'm going to abstain on this one and vote no. But I'm not ready to vote yes. Yes.
Speaker 0: Um, let me and Mr. Levitt, please.
Speaker 1: And Debbie Debbie Potter might want to comment on this, but one of the reasons it's coming to you at this point is because those meetings that Councilmember Odie is referring to of what we're trying to move forward with and do I don't know if you call mediation, but trying to work through a series of meetings with ourselves , the Housing Authority and Feeds and the Renters Coalition with with all of those parties. One of the reasons that this is coming to you is because the housing authority, at least in one meeting, what to say, maybe not in that particular set of meetings, but another meeting had one of their attorneys there. And so that's part of what I think brought this to the urgency. And so that's what they held up, not necessarily just the mediation process, but some other things that we're working with the housing authority on that maybe Debbie Debbie could expand on this because I'm not sure what would occur under a normal circumstance. I. I could see the hesitancy and in doing a waving, I'm doing this action. But in this because this is their main attorney, it does create a little bit more of a dilemma for us.
Speaker 0: Okay. Sounds like it.
Speaker 1: I'll let you go ahead.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Thank you, Eric. Thank you. Yeah. Just to clarify a few items. Goldfarb is the general counsel for the Housing Authority. So Goldfarb, the attorney who serves as general counsel, is different, obviously, than the Goldfarb attorney who works with the city. So the housing authority has an ongoing day to day relationship with Goldfarb as their general counsel. We are currently taking off negotiations on the rent increase, not the rent increase, the rent program and the contract with the Housing Authority, which will be coming to council in June for the new three year contract of what staff will be bringing to council for its consideration. We are also bringing an amendment to the Staffing Services Agreement that we have with the Housing Authority, where we anticipate recommending to the City Council that we bring the CDBG and home programs back into the city to be administered by city staff. And those two agreements are really what brought this conflict waiver request forward to the council, because the housing authority would like to engage its firm on this work. We would be using our in-house attorney, Michael Ralph. He's working with me on both of those housing services agreements. And however, our work with Karen Peterman of Goldfarb is.
Speaker 1: Integral.
Speaker 0: To the work we do at that site. As Michael Walsh noted, all the transactional work we have done at site A has been done with the support of Karen Tiedemann as outside counsel. So clearly we had staff strongly value our relationship with Goldfarb, and we do also recognize that Goldfarb served a different attorney, served as general counsel for the housing authority. And from that perspective, we would like to maintain those relationships and feel that some firewalls and some of the other things that have been proposed may be adequate to ensure those.
Speaker 1: Relationships go.
Speaker 0: The way they need to be done for the ethics that the attorneys have to abide by. So that's more of a context of how we work with Goldfarb and how the housing authority works with Goldfarb, and how we will be working with the Housing Authority over the next several months on some some agreements.
Speaker 1: Between the city and the Housing.
Speaker 0: Authority. Thank you, Mr. Potter. So I'm going to ask if either of my colleagues, Councilmember Avella or Councilmember Ody, give you a minute, Mr. Northway, who expressed that they weren't ready to support this at this time. If there were a time when you might be ready to consider a waiver, if I was understanding your remarks correctly, what would it take to do so? Because what I'm hearing is this might delay the process, but maybe it's worth the delay that that councilmember I think you're probably giving it some thought any any any suggestions. And you can also take a pass. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but. You've got to get an analytical mind. Yeah. I guess my concern is just because of the types of conversations that we're going to be engaged in, I just don't want there to be any. Yeah. And I understand we would be having.
Speaker 1: Our our.
Speaker 0: In-House attorney, Michael Roush, representing us. I just I'm wary of kind of giving having a waiver at all, putting a question or, you know, any sort of cloud of uncertainty around the talks or whether or not something could be worked out. I just want everything to be done in a in, you know, in a way that that seems.
Speaker 1: Above.
Speaker 0: Board. And I understand the relationship with with both the housing authority and with the city. And it probably is because at one point the housing authority and the city were also one entity, you know. And so I could just. And we lost Mr.. Not quite again but but I'm so there I mean are there any criteria if you were to lay down. I don't I Goldfarb is a fairly large firm, I believe. And and are these attorneys both working out of the same office or physical form? Has to go far, has more than one office, I'm reasonably sure. Do we know that they're both here out of the Oakland. Yeah. They would both be out of they're both out of the same office in Oakland. Okay. Okay. So I mean, if you at some point or maybe I misunderstood you, but were there criteria that there should be no communication? I mean, professionally speaking, that would mean that would be the case if you were two attorneys working on opposite sides of a case. Um, I, you know, I'd never practice in a big firm. My husband does. And, and, you know, conflicts come up, and sometimes they get waived and sometimes they don't. But. Okay, and I know both. Mr. Knox. Vice Mayor, have we lost you? Well, when. When we get the Vice-Chair back, I will call on him. Then this. Jody, I think you had your hand up as well, did you?
Speaker 1: Yeah, sure. But I can wait till our colleague returns.
Speaker 0: Well, since you had your hand up and you're here.
Speaker 1: All right, let's try to answer your question. I think when what I think could be potentially delicate negotiations over some of these take backs and all of these issues that the city manager is working on, I think when those get resolved and I thought I heard there was some other, you know, I don't know, links, big issues with the, you know, service agreement and, you know, different policy decisions the council was made that the housing authority disagreed with. So I just like to make sure all those get ironed out before. Before I'd be willing to entertain this. So, I mean, it's not a no forever, but it's not a yes right now.
Speaker 0: Okay. But it seems that that's a no to having the housing authority use this attorney while they're trying to iron out these issues. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: That's my concern.
Speaker 0: All right. So what what would that time what would that look like? I mean, I guess Miss Potter or Mr. Levitt, you'd need to go back to the housing authority and see how long they think it will take them to engage new attorneys, for those attorneys to be brought up to speed on this. And so we could just push whatever the item is out as far as long as it takes.
Speaker 1: I would be one. Oh, Mr..
Speaker 0: Levitt. Mr. LEVITT Yes.
Speaker 1: I would probably want to defer initially to Michael Roche or even to see what their thoughts are, because this is the first time I've probably experienced where we had an occasion where I work or had an attorney that was the same firm that was the main representative for another entity we were negotiating with.
Speaker 0: Okay. And I think either Devin or even Shan would like to speak.
Speaker 1: For Madam Chair. So my understanding is that if the counsel does not grant the waiver or is not inclined to grant the waiver at the moment, the housing authority, I believe, would engage special counsel for this particular set of negotiations without having to disengage their general counsel generally on all matters. So they probably would engage special counsel from a different law firm just for these sets of negotiations, much like the city attorney's office might, for a matter that require special expertize.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No, I assume. Believe. Hold that. Well, do they you think they have another firm on tap that they'll just turn to and that that firm will be brought up to speed readily on the on these issues? Or maybe we don't ask.
Speaker 1: That's a hard that's a that's a hard question to answer. I, I can't imagine that this would be that complicated to be brought up to speed on because these are these are fairly routine contract negotiations. You know, I think if it were me, I think I'd probably be able to be brought up to speed reasonably quickly. But it's obviously would take a little more, you know, a little bit of time to be brought up.
Speaker 0: That you're exceptional. Look at the multitasking you're doing right now. All right.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 0: Go ahead. I I do think Devin wants to speak to us, though, so don't don't stifle that. Tell us. Did did you, Mr. Ten, did you finish your remarks? Mr. Ash has his hand up.
Speaker 1: I did okay. Yes. Thanks, Major. Yeah. The only issue and maybe that we can speak to it better than I can is the timing issue with respect to the two agreements that we have with the housing authority and whether there is anything particularly time sensitive about the the staffing agreement on the matter. I know that is scheduled to come back from the council in June, but I'm not sure as much about the other agreement, which I think has the more difficult issues to resolve. So maybe Debbie can speak to the timing on both of those because she's a little more on top of that than I am.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Potter. Yes. Thank you. So both of us, we're anticipating bringing both the new contract for the rent program in June, as well as the amended Staffing Services Agreement. And I do agree with the city attorney that they should be relatively straightforward documents and agreements. And I would hope that if the waiver is not granted, the housing authority would be able to retain special counsel quickly and we could continue on. That would be the hope. And Mr.. You mentioned that the Housing Authority Board met last week. When are they going to meet again, if you know. They need monthly. So they need but the second one, I believe it's the second Wednesday of the month. So they would meet and then in May next month they would have a meeting. Okay. And that should give enough time to prepare the staff report and all those things. To get it to June. Yeah. Oh, the contacts and whatnot. Yes, I would I would anticipate that we would work with them and they they have been flexible in the past. If a special meeting is warranted or needed, they have been able to accommodate that in the past. Okay. All right. Okay. So I'm a little concerned that we've lost a vice mayor. Is anybody in communication? And I haven't heard back from him. I'm sorry. I he said he would turn his video off if he was having bandwidth issues, but then I asked if his audio is still working. And maybe. Oh. Do you know what? He's texted me that he had to go to address an urgent work issue. And it will come back if he can. So that. Yeah. Sorry. Something just blew up at work. Not literally. That was a figure of speech to.
Speaker 1: Come back and go to Sarah.
Speaker 0: Oh, we could do that. He may not be back before the end of the meeting, but is it? Well, let's see. We don't have the full council. We do have a majority. I don't think you know Mr. not quite indicated. Seem to be hesitating. I don't want to speak for him but I didn't think he was supportive and well one of the city attorneys wanted to suggest what we should what we should do. And this one.
Speaker 1: This is this is Mr. Roush. What I would suggest is that why don't we just continue this item for the moment, see if we have Mr. Henry on the line and we can take up the Hunter issue or that agenda item, and then let's see where we are with respect to the conflict issue, if that would please the Council.
Speaker 0: Sure. And given the fact that I don't think you were going to get a waiver out of this counsel at all. I mean, what would be the harm of just. We're trying the issue or do we need a determination?
Speaker 1: Well, I guess I wasn't quite sure where the vice mayor was on it, and I'm not sure I heard from Councilmember de Saag either. So I'm not sure where the where the most might be. Maybe I misheard.
Speaker 0: I think he indicated his his agreement. But that's okay. We can do that. Let's just let's continue this either until we finish the items that we skipped. Item six S And then if the Vice Mayor is able to rejoin us when we finish that item and the rest of the agenda, we'll hear it. If not, we'll have to continue it. Okay. All right. So right now, we're we're going to adjourn this meeting. Not this meeting agenda item or just ask to be set aside. We're taking the next round. Okay, next item.
Speaker 1: Meeting's for you.
Speaker 0: So we're going back to the previous item, which was six F introduction of ordinance, amending the municipal code by amending Section 2019 Commission on Disabilities to change the number of members to seven and change the name to the Commission on Persons with Disabilities.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Provide Direction to the City Attorney to Consent, Modify or Reject Law Firm Goldfarb Lipman’s Request to Waive Conflicts of Interest In Connection with Goldfarb’s Legal Representation of the City of Alameda and the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. (City Attorney)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_03032020_2020-7738
|
Speaker 1: Project is not subject to the Surplus Land Act as amended and directs staff to include a $350,000 appropriation for the reshaped Project Backbone Infrastructure designed in the mid-year budget.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Good to see you voted indeed.
Speaker 6: Good meeting. Now good meeting, too, right?
Speaker 0: But we hope so. Well, we'll see.
Speaker 6: Council members, mayor, I am Debbie Potter, the city's development director. And I'm before you this evening seeking authorization to issue an RFQ for the West Midway Project. And just to kind of reintroduce everyone to the West Midway Project, it is an approximate 33 acre site located out at Alameda Point. It is referred to or we look at it as two parcels. The first parcel, which is outlined in blue, we call the reshaped parcel. The second parcel outlined in red is the market rate parcel. Currently, that almost 33 acre property has the homeless, that Alameda point homeless accommodation, which is, among other things, 200 units of housing for formerly homeless people. And the proposal for the West Midway Development is to consolidate the Alameda Point homeless accommodation onto the 9.7 acre reshaped parcel and then free up the balance of the almost 23 acres for a market rate developer who would come in and develop up to 291 residential units, mixed use other commercial uses, and provide the backbone infrastructure that is required for the ultimate redevelopment of the reshaped parcel. So that is the West Midway Project. So quick little overview and then I'm going to go.
Speaker 1: To the presentation. Okay. I just have to say.
Speaker 6: I realize the map would be helpful after I put the PowerPoint together. So I'm.
Speaker 0: Not about. Got it right. Now let's go to at.
Speaker 1: This mask is tricky, okay, because you can't get the out.
Speaker 0: But it's a nice photo.
Speaker 1: Now they're going to see the second you got it. Sorry about that.
Speaker 6: So the city's the city council's vision. In the city's vision for the West Midway Project started when the City Council approved a disposition and development agreement with the collaborating partners and the collaborative, where the collaborating partners consist of Alameda Point, Collaborative Operation Dignity and Building Futures with Women and Children and the Collaborating Partners. Nonprofit development partner Mid-Penn that DDA was approved in July of 2018. So shortly after the DDA was approved, the city issued an RFQ to identify and select a developer for the balance of the West Midway property. We received seven proposals in September of 2018. In February of last year, the Council selected two finalist developers. And then, unfortunately, through the balance of 2019, both finalists developers withdrew from consideration as the developer for the West Midway property at around the same time that the second developer withdrew from consideration. The governor signed a 1486, which was an amendment to the State Surplus Lands Act, and that amendment that HB 1486 went into effect on January 1st of this year. And the new Surplus Lands Act, as amended, requires staff to analyze each of our property dispositions to make a determination about whether or not the proposed disposition is either . The new law does not apply to it. The disposition is exempt from the law or the law applies to the proposed property disposition. Staff has determined that the Surplus Lands Act as amended, does not apply to this proposed disposition because the city had entered into a legally binding agreement prior to September 30th of 2019. And we anticipate that the property disposition will be completed by December 31st of 2022. At the same time that the developer withdrew from consideration, the second finalist developer, the collaborating partners, started talking among themselves and looking at potential ways to develop the reshaped property essentially on their own without a market rate master developer to partner with them , as was contemplated and is contemplated in the DDA and the collaborating partners, they looked at potential grants that were available and other strategies, and ultimately the collaborating partners concluded that the best option was to restart the developer's solicitation process that they really needed that that partner, as was envisioned in the development of the West Midway property. And they communicated their their request to staff that we recommend a restart of the development solicitation, the developer solicitation process at the same time that the collaborating partners were looking at their ability to go it alone. Staff also began to look at ways we might recommend to the City Council that the City Council could play a role , or the city could play a role in being a catalyst to the Reshape project, because staff recognizes that the ability to launch the Reshape project is of high importance to the city to be able to produce the 267 new housing units for formerly homeless people. And so staff looked at three different options that are discussed in more detail in the staff report. But we looked at the idea of demolishing the commissary, which is a big building out on the West Midway footprint. We looked at some secondary site preparation work that could be undertaken once that commissary was demolished. And then we looked at the possibility of funding the design. Phase one backbone infrastructure and staff has recommended and is recommending that the Council appropriate $350,000 to fund the design of the Phase one backbone infrastructure. And we're recommending that because that that activity has the longest lead time. It's it could be up to one and a half years to design that backbone infrastructure. And that is because of East Bay Mud's pace of work. And we are thinking if we could start on that Phase one backbone infrastructure and get that underway on a parallel track with the. Solicitation for the market rate developer in the negotiations. Then we will be that much further along when we're ready to get going with the the master developer. So that that is our recommendation. And then just to reiterate, when the city clerk just read a few minutes ago, we do have four recommendations that we are seeking from the council this evening. The first is to direct staff to conduct a four week RFQ solicitation process to designate approved real estate negotiators for the project, to make a finding that the Surplus Lands Act does not apply to the the proposed disposition and as I said, direct staff to include a $350,000 appropriation for the backbone infrastructure design in the mid-year budget. And with that, I am concluding my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions, certainly.
Speaker 0: And Madame, quick to have any public speakers on the side.
Speaker 1: We have two.
Speaker 0: Okay. So before we go to our public speakers, do we have any clarifying questions of Miss Potter? Let's start with Councilmember de SAC.
Speaker 12: Several questions first. What thought has Steph given to having whatever developer is interested in the market rate portion funding the $350,000?
Speaker 6: Well, if the city council does not appropriate the funds this evening as part of the midyear, then that would be an obligation of the market rate developer to undertake that design work. And that work then would not start until the developer is selected in the end and then a DDA are negotiated. So the idea is to jump start or be the catalyst. There is also an opportunity to structure this as as a loan that would be repaid by the developer once the developer is selected. Um, that that that is an option.
Speaker 12: Another question. Um, I can't quite recall, but what were the plans for the commissary building in the various documents that we've dealt with over the past years?
Speaker 6: It needs to be demolished.
Speaker 12: Mm hmm. Okay.
Speaker 0: And I have a the city manager would like to say a few words. Mr. Levitt.
Speaker 9: If I could just add to the first question to answer the first question. That was the concept is that we could put from the general fund as a loan. Then when you're doing the development agreement with whoever the developer is that's chosen that you could always choose at that time whether or not you would forgive the loan or whether you would apply that to the development agreement at that time.
Speaker 0: You answered one of my questions with that response. Thank you. Councilmember Desai Anything further from you? Councilor Brody.
Speaker 3: Thank you. That was one of my questions, too. So can we just quickly go through the timeline? So just hypothetically, we passed this today, you know, in the RF, RF queue goes out tomorrow.
Speaker 6: It will go out no later than Monday.
Speaker 3: So Monday, that's the ninth. So then they have.
Speaker 6: Four.
Speaker 3: More weeks on our first week in April. And then how long before we get some type of there's I assume there's gonna be a staff recommendation, right.
Speaker 6: Right. What we anticipate is receiving proposals. Depending on the number of proposals that we receive, we will either short list or interview all of the, um, the developers who respond depending on the number. And then we would come back to council with a recommendation.
Speaker 3: And then do we have an estimate on when that would be?
Speaker 6: I think we are anticipating that we could be back to council with a recommendation at the first meeting in June.
Speaker 3: June. So. Okay. I'm not sure what day that is, but it's the first meeting just that's about 90 days, right? Yes. Okay. So and then hypothetically, just bear with me. If we did decide or decided not to declare the project exempt from the Surplus Lands Act, I mean, what is the timeline on that one?
Speaker 0: Oh, it is.
Speaker 3: I mean, so we would have to decide tomorrow.
Speaker 6: So under the Surplus Lands Act, if you are if you are a property disposition that is required to meet the the notice requirements and then potentially the negotiating requirements, you have to publish a notice that is out for 60 days. And then if interest is expressed, you have a minimum 90 day negotiation period.
Speaker 3: If someone expresses interest rate, that's correct. So if 60 days goes by and nobody expressed interest, then we've complied with the Surplus Lands Act. That's correct. Okay. So, I mean, it seems to me that, you know, whether we do one or the other, we're still going to get something in front of the council right about the same time. The only risk of.
Speaker 6: Not I don't know that I would make the assumption that we wouldn't receive any interest. I believe OECD's list as it stands today is over 400 interested parties. And so I don't I don't know that we would assume that it would be 60 days and no expression of interest.
Speaker 3: I mean, has anyone been knocking on our door to build 100% affordable at this point or so?
Speaker 0: We're in clarifying questions of the staff report.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 6: As I would say that nonprofit housing organizations have not been afforded this automatic opportunity in the past. And so it's expanded a new opportunity forum for organizations.
Speaker 3: And then and Mr. said, you can stop the questioning when you feel appropriate. But so if, say, we did declare that it was exempt and then somebody disagreed with that, you know what? What happens then? I mean, who has standing to file some type of action?
Speaker 0: This is our city attorney even, said Mr. Shen.
Speaker 7: Yes. So if the a disagreement can come from a number of places. So for instance, if you proceed on this project that essentially any moment any party could come out and indicate to you that this property is subject to the Surplus Lands Act and ask that you comply. That includes the Attorney General. It includes private interested parties like third party housing developers. It includes HPD. And so it's difficult to predict at what precise moment, because as soon as the city proceeds down to take the exemption, it is at least theoretically possible that someone would take that position, as Ms.. Potter indicated, that given that we have an exemption that staff has felt pretty comfortable relying on and because that there is not a significant number of affordable actually is the other way around because this project is developing a significant number of affordable housing, it is relatively less likely, not impossible that affordable housing to offer would nonetheless come in challenge because we are already developing a ton of affordable housing on this project.
Speaker 3: And so the the universe of potential challengers is state agencies and then affordable housing developers.
Speaker 7: And local agencies. So for example, the school district in theory, could or the parks district. All right. Local agencies having jurisdiction could. In theory, though, I believe we have heard no such challenge thus far.
Speaker 3: And then is there a deadline like at what point will that challenge be moot or a statute expire?
Speaker 7: It will be for quite some time because your development process is long. You're not signing any deals for quite some time. You're currently just going out for RFP, which technically doesn't even trigger the Surplus Lands Act. So it will be quite some time before a statute is triggered.
Speaker 3: I guess I was trying to understand at what point in this process will we know that if we did an exemption, that we're not at risk of having it challenged?
Speaker 7: I think it becomes less risky once we commence negotiations. And so and and and conclude the negotiations the council votes in 90 days passes, but a lot could happen. And this law is so new, it's difficult to determine exactly when no challenge could be filed. But because this is so early and and again, to emphasize the RFP process is exempt from the Surplus Lands Act. So you're you're taking an action tonight that that doesn't necessarily implicate the Surplus Lands Act.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Anything further and further clarify questions, if I. We're not quite.
Speaker 8: Yeah. So if we move forward with an RFQ tonight and we're going to be back in June, can you talk to me about what is the process for staff selection? What is the criteria you're is being used? And will staff be coming back with a recommendation or just. You know, a list of potential people for the council, too.
Speaker 6: So we staff anticipate that we would evaluate proposals, that we get back the, you know, consistent with the way we evaluate development proposals generally. We typically have a rubric that we use that looks at, you know, the experience of the team, what the very high level description of the projects that's being proposed, the ability for the team to finance the project, any experience on prior military basis, affordable housing development. So we have rubric and I imagine that we will probably hew pretty closely to the evaluation criteria we looked at the first time.
Speaker 8: Around with that rubric be included in the RFQ so people know what, what is what, what they should be speaking to.
Speaker 6: The RFQ typically talks about what your talks about, what you are required to submit by way of your experience, your financing, that kind of thing. And it's noted that that you will be evaluated, I believe, the points that are evaluated, but I don't think the rubric per se is include the.
Speaker 8: Points for each thing is.
Speaker 6: I think. So we will double check.
Speaker 8: I think that would be good. Okay.
Speaker 6: And then it's our intention as staff to come back with a recommendation. Yes. Based on our evaluation process.
Speaker 8: Okay, perfect. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Anything further, Councilmember de SAC.
Speaker 12: Yes. On the RFQ criteria, does staff contemplate tonight or some other time getting input from the city council as to some of the qualifications different Council members might have want to see in prospective respondents stuff?
Speaker 6: So if if the council recalls the first time we went through the RFQ process, we had a subcommittee that council members Odie and Datadog were part of, and that subcommittee developed some subsequent questions, and those are the responses to those questions. Didn't see the light of day the first time around because the development teams withdrew, but we took some of those questions that had already been formulated and put them into this revised and updated RFQ. So some of the questions that the subcommittee had developed, we've added to the RFQ and are asking for those responses upfront to those questions.
Speaker 12: Can you give us a flavor as to two or three of those questions for the public?
Speaker 6: And I believe.
Speaker 5: That because you've forgotten.
Speaker 6: So one of that one of the questions that the subcommittee was interested in learning more about was the sort of kind of the social justice and social enterprise aspects of the developers experience and what the developer was proposing that that it might want to do to better integrate or ensure proper and full integration of the reshaped parcel with the market rate parcel. So that's a concept that we captured in the RFQ this time around.
Speaker 0: Okay. Anything further before we go to our public speakers? Okay. That's ever public speakers.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Potter.
Speaker 1: Abby, Pat Lurie and Doug Biggs. Good evening, Madam Mayor.
Speaker 4: Council members Abby Lurie with.
Speaker 6: Mid-Penn Housing Corporation.
Speaker 4: And we're honored to be partnering with Alameda Point Collaborative Building Futures with women and Children in Operation Dignity to make reshape a reality. I think everybody knows that we're in a time of unprecedented housing crisis in the Bay Area, and there's an unprecedented amount of funding available at the state level right now to to for affordable housing and to address the homelessness crisis. And so we're really poised and ready to leverage these resources and bring them to Alameda so that we can realize the vision for high quality service, enriched, stable housing for the individuals and families who have experienced homelessness. But to do this, we need the new infrastructure and we need the new community that will come along with that. And this, as Seth mentioned, we've explored a lot of different ways to try to make this work. And, you know, this is this seems like the way that will get us there the fastest. I know there's been some setbacks, and we're we're hopeful that we can work together with staff to expedite the RFP process and are looking forward to their decision moving forward as quickly as possible. And, you know.
Speaker 6: I'll just have it again, the.
Speaker 4: Importance of the infrastructure. We you know, we're thinking, I know a little bit short term of just we need the the backbone infrastructure to support the new housing and and hope that that's taken into account in terms of the financial capacity, the phasing, how a market rate developer is going to be able to do that because it's it's complicated. There's a lot to do out there, as you all know. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our next speaker is Ted Biggs. Mr. Biggs.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name's Doug Biggs. I'm the executive director of the Alameda Point Collaborative. We're here tonight to speak in support of the staff recommendations on moving forward. We've been at this since 2008, so another four weeks is okay with us. Another year is not we. We do need to keep our foot on the gas pedal. As Abby pointed out, you know, we're at the highest crisis we've ever been, but there's also funding opportunities coming down the road that we don't want to miss. We would look to see the RFP strengthened a little bit with both some of the scoring criteria clearly called out so that people know what they're they're being assessed on. And some additional questions on the capability to do the job. You know, probing questions around how they propose to do phasing, maybe some additional financial. We're not, quite frankly, really interested in seeing a glossy, you know, vision of what they want to create out there. We want to see how they're going to get their shovels in the ground and make the infrastructure work. So we'd like to focus on that. We would ask that the collaborative partners be allowed to, once the applications in, to review them and provide opinions to staff on, you know, aspects of how we think they would work well with with our project and our design, we clearly.
Speaker 2: Want to leave the final decision.
Speaker 3: To the staff, as it should be for for making recommendations. We also strongly support the allocation of 350,000 to jumpstart the project. We believe it will provide reassurance to potential applicants that the city is serious about making this happen. And we think putting the money in now to do some of the infrastructure planning will benefit us and benefit us in the long term as far.
Speaker 2: As being able to move forward.
Speaker 3: Regarding the Surplus Lands Act, I mean we have a lot of partners that are in other jurisdictions that are dealing with the same issue. This one clearly to us doesn't seem to apply with that. And the we believe the exemption is is totally appropriate.
Speaker 2: We would be concerned if you did go forward.
Speaker 3: Even though you don't need to, that at the end of the 60, 90 days, whatever, we still don't have a market rate developer that can build infrastructure, and that's what we need out there. So we would encourage you to adopt the staff recommendations and move forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Bass. And that's all our public speakers. Thank you. Okay. So now we go to council discussion. Who wants to start? I'm vice mayor.
Speaker 8: That's why I met your council member. Avella didn't have any questions.
Speaker 0: I'll call the speaker. Thank you. Do you want to cede your time to. Are you even ready to speak yet? Maybe later. Catch your breath.
Speaker 8: Okay. So I did scroll through here. There doesn't seem to be any criteria in the RFQ, so I'm going to say I am supportive of moving forward with this RFQ. I will share that. I'm a little frustrated that we lost our last developer in September. I feel like if the recommendation was to move forward with a revamped but very similar RFQ, that we probably could have done that in October of last year. And we are sitting here losing fact. We've lost five months, and I'd like to see movement on this as fast as possible. I think since last January, we've made very clear that this is a very important project and getting out there and supporting reshape is very important. That said, I know that we ask a lot of our staff and I want to acknowledge that as well. But I really want to signal that I think housing has been for this council, if not the number one or one of the top two issues for the council. And and this is one of the opportunities where we have where the city has the opportunity to actually help move that forward. I would like also to I support that I support all four of the staff recommendations, including the funding to move forward. But I'd like to see a phase two plan for how the city can help move this forward. Outside of the funding, some of the planning around the backbone infrastructure, the $350,000, I think that's a good start, but I don't want to get caught flat footed if we go into negotiations with yet another developer and they drop out. I want to I want to know what it would at least take. Give us the opportunity to know what it was going to take for the city to move forward and meet what I would say our 20 year promises on the Reshape project out there. Yeah. Beyond that, I'm ready to vote to move forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Who wants to go next? Okay. Okay. Councilmember de.
Speaker 12: SAC. Well, thank you. It would have been great if Alameda Point Partners was able to move forward with this project, but unfortunately, they dropped out as had another interested party. So here we are and I think we need to move forward. And I the thing that I see in this project as a unique opportunity to not just build, uh, market rate housing, which is obviously going to be a critical part of that. This whole project is critical because that's what's going to help pay for the infrastructure, particularly for the, uh, the Alameda Point Community. Alameda Point Collaborative part of the project. But, but I think when we go about trying to find the right developer to build the market rate portion, you know, I just don't want to have another developer whose vision is your typical, uh, kind of, you know, affluent type of housing that we've done that already with Bayport. And quite frankly, we've done that already with other parts of Alameda landing when it comes to the residential. That's why when Councilmember Odie and I were sitting at us as a subcommittee on the previous go around, that's why one of the things that I was really interested in looking at for when developers came forward with developers who had some kind of open mindedness to working with looking at the project through a social justice lens. I myself am not an expert in social justice, so. So I won't pretend to know that. But I do believe that it is an important lens, not just because, you know, it's good in and of itself, but because it will make the market component, I believe, work with the Alameda Point Collaborative component because they're right next to each other. So as people build, you know, a new community, whether it's the residential part of the new community, or if there's going to be a jobs oriented component to the new community out there that we're bringing in developers who have kind of this open minded view of things, you know, who are willing to work with, you know, people who are who have proven themselves in social justice work, whether it's the Green Lighting Institute or whether it's Insite Community Center for Community Economic Development, or whether it's Angela Blackwell's Oregon Organization. So so I appreciate staff, including that aspect in this upcoming RFQ, because hopefully that will make it richer in terms of who comes to us. And they will clearly understand what our expectations are. We we don't want to redo Bayport when it comes to the market rate site. We want someone who has a more broader view of things.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Desai, Councilor Brody.
Speaker 3: Sure. Thank you. I don't really have too much more to add on the points that my colleagues had mentioned. It's already too late, so we don't need to beat that that horse anymore. I'm concerned about the Surplus Lands Act. I mean, I. I see more of a downside to saying there's an exemption that may later get overruled than actually complying with the law. And, you know, following through the process that I don't think they can I think they can be done in parallel. But I would be in the minority there. I'd like to see us do the math on infrastructure design as structured in such some type of loan, whether it's a loan from the base reuse fund or whether it's something we expect the developer to repay. And I'd even like us to go, you know, one step forward and demolish the commissary if if with the same type of financial arrangement. If that's something that council's interesting because I think I heard that the site prep actually is going to happen after the commissary. Right. So I don't know if we have to make that decision today.
Speaker 9: I would I would agree with that. Right.
Speaker 3: So, I mean, that's kind of where I am. I just like to hopefully we'll we'll get a good staff recommendation because I think last time it was kind of left up to us. So we depend on on your expertize and analysis, and I look forward to that hearing.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Vela So apologies for having to step out of the meeting. I have wear a number of different hats and one of them is being a mom and my baby is not well tonight, so hopefully I won't have to step out again. But I was listening to the Q&A and the presentation. Um, and I, uh, a couple of things. One, I am concerned about the State's Surplus Lands Act and the just in general what this could potentially do if there's some sort of legal challenge which which I think could happen. And I it would have been nice had we known ahead of time that we could have gotten legislative clarity through like a legislative journal question, that sort of thing. But obviously, that time has passed. I still think this might be something where we should still attempt to get legislative clean up on this one item, even if we're moving forward as staff proposes with the exemption. I think getting some sort of legislative clarity, even if it's after the fact, would be helpful. So I hope that we're still pursuing that, even though we're moving forward on this, which I've been told we're looking at legislative clarity. And so I take staff at their word. The other, the other recommendations in terms of the, uh, the demo of the commissary, I'm fine moving forward with that. After the site preparation, I'd like to see the site preparation done. I agree with Councilmember Ody that it should come out of, I would hope, base reuse. I would hope that it's a loan or something that we can negotiate. Those terms can be left up to staff. And I'm fine with the RFQ.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Vela. So I am also anxious to see this project move forward. We cannot overstate the need to address our housing crisis in our city and the Bay Area throughout our state. The reason I'm not as concerned about the Surplus Lands Act is that on page two of the staff report, report is the very impressive statistic that the Collective West Midway Project would include 558 units, of which 48% are affordable to very low and low income households. That's a huge percentage. I mean, certainly there are places in the state that are doing 100% affordable. But I just again, I still looking for that crystal ball, but I don't see the state stepping in to disrupt something like that. In fact, whenever I've talked about what we're doing at Alameda Point and usually the statistic is 25% affordable and that in itself is pretty impressive. But the other things that do concern me is, as the vice mayor and others have mentioned, we've lost a lot of time. And I feel that time is of the essence and probably even more so going forward. I think it would be hard to escape the fact that we're in the middle of some very uncertain times with this corona virus pandemic, which has had a huge impact on the stock market. That impacts as a city. You know, our investments are held in securities. And and I think, you know, anyone in the construction industry is going to look at what that means to their portfolio, the cost of supplies wherever they get their supplies from. And so I do think we need to move with all deliberate speed. And while I appreciate the proposals that the staff brought forward, I am wondering what council would think of being maybe even a little more aggressive. So we know that I'm just pulling up an email I sent to Ms.. Potter earlier today that we know that we have had interest from two other developers who were not selected. That is right here. Okay. So my question to staff was, what about instead of going back for a full irf p that we actually asked the asked for updated r f Qs because this is our queue rather than our fee. But whichever it is from the folks who have expressed interest up till now that that we considered could tell us Brookfield and then CEI was a part of Jamestown, I believe, and came with an unsolicited offer. And I, I just wonder, I mean, we could certainly go back out to the market, do we? And I think, Councilmember ODA, you actually were getting at this question. Have we seen a lot of interest expressed from others? I mean, I think someone who comes to the city just on their own volition without a solicitation is worth at least considering based on the criteria. So I would like to hear my colleagues thoughts about that and maybe just moving forward, assuming the parties are still interested. But I think it even says in the report that they are. And I also know that I heard Mr. Biggs from Alameda Point Collaborative mentioned that they would like to somehow be involved in the selection process . I'm assuming, Miss Potter, that are two interviews take place and you have an interview panel. And will that include who would that include? Come on, back up. Thank you.
Speaker 6: So we welcome the collaborating partners participation and when we on our first go around, they have an opportunity to meet with the four finalists and provide staff with their their feedback and their impressions, which went into kind of the calculus as we evaluated the proposals.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 4: Could could we here? I was just asking the city attorney for some clarity on whether or not the process that you've proposed, because I actually had asked previously the same question of staff and was it was told a different answer. But I just got an answer from the city attorney that it is possible.
Speaker 0: So I didn't get an answer at all. So let's compare notes.
Speaker 4: If we could hear from the city attorney, I think that that would.
Speaker 0: Be helpful for Mr. Sharon.
Speaker 7: So I think the question that was asked is that does this exemption of the Surplus Lands Act that staff is proposing to take require that we run an RFP? The answer is no. The the Council may recall that there was a previously published staff report that indicated that an RFP is required, and at that time, that staff report was relying on a different exemption. Having considered further, we believe that this exemption is a more sound exemption to rely on and under this one, an RFP not explicitly required under the Surplus Lands Act.
Speaker 0: Okay. Ms.. Potter And then Ms.. Vela.
Speaker 6: I was just going to say that that however, the staff recommendation continues to be the same, which is to go out to an RFQ for the next four weeks and obviously encourage folks who have previously responded to update, refine, modify their submittal. And it's just an opportunity to continue that and make sure that we've done a thorough outreach to developers who may be potentially.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I think we all understood the recommendations of the staff report. What and again, I just we might turn up that heretofore undiscovered developer or we might find ourselves marching for more weeks into an uncertain economic future and maybe even reducing our chances of putting together a viable package. I don't and again, you know, this is just everybody's basing their thoughts on their best calculations. But I would like a discussion of the of this proposal. It sounds like Councilmember Fellow once again. And we if you couldn't tell we have not discussed this, but what you had your hand up, please.
Speaker 4: So, Madam Chair, thank you for raising this suggestion. I think that it addresses the concern about another delay. I do know that I at least I don't have any reason to believe that the other two developers that had submitted proposals that don't have an interest, at least that that hasn't been conveyed to me. I think the opposite's been conveyed that that they did have an interest and I guess my concern is why are we redoing an RFP and wasting more time when we had four proposals? Could those proposals be more developed or nuanced? I think they I think that they they could. But I also think that some of them were open ended enough that it'd be interesting to see what they come up with. My other concern would be, you know, we've we did go out for proposals and nobody else submitted and so are we just going out and casting another net, which is going to take up more time? And that's my concern. So I'm I'm perfectly happy to move forward with your proposed suggestion, with the clarification from our city attorney, that that is, in fact possible, because I was under an understanding that we were legally required to put out a second RFP or RFQ.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Levitt, did you want to add anything.
Speaker 9: I would recommend, even if you went to a, I guess, sort of a direct solicitation of the to development.
Speaker 0: See it, see CGI that came, as I said, came to the city unsolicited. I am.
Speaker 9: Yeah. So if you went to the three, I'd still give some time for them to respond, knowing what is occurred with the other two development, how they did not have the economics to be able to deal with this, that these could learn from that experience and build them over.
Speaker 0: Well, what I what I was proposing, and I think, Ms.. Vela, I think was in sending, is that we would ask for updated essentially responses to exactly what staff has put together. Is that. Well, is that what you're thinking of?
Speaker 4: I think if there's an we're asking basically for amended responses, updated or updated based off of the new information. I'm fine with that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. And otherwise, I would agree with all the staff recommendations. But the rest of the council. What do you think?
Speaker 3: Councilman Brody, thank you. So let me understand the proposal. It's to just limit the universe to the three that submitted it before. And then what would our deadline for them to update be?
Speaker 0: Well, I think if we were looking at it at four weeks, a four week window to respond, I would still do the four week window.
Speaker 3: I mean, I guess if we're going to take four weeks, no matter what, there may be somebody out there that might respond. I don't know. But. I mean, if you could say we're going to just do that in one week, then.
Speaker 0: Well, you know. Okay, that. Okay. Canterbury Council member I Vice Mayor Knox White Yeah.
Speaker 8: So I would be very uncomfortable adding in somebody who just voted in an unsolicited interest. I think it's one thing to say we had an RFP and we're not going to move forward with people who came through with that. But I think to add a third person, it's starting to get a little loose. And and to Councilmember Ortiz point, I think I don't see a scenario where we ask all of a sudden today, oh, now you've got a week to to submit information. It seems like like like it's going to be that useful. I think if we can get this done in, if we can do it. RFQ In four weeks, I've heard that there have been some other people that have at least expressed interest. If we end up with the same three, we've lost a week or two at the most. But we know we know that we've actually done the broad thing. And then I would like if we were to move forward with an RFQ, I would like to have a date certain that this is coming back at the first meeting of June with a recommendation from staff and that, you know, that would be a part of the recommendation. But it seems like we're kind of trying to we're playing with only a couple of weeks. And with that being the math, I think it would be beneficial to just go with the RFQ and see if there are a couple of other people. It would also give the that whether it's Brookfield or Catullus or OCI, now that I see ICICI, the opportunity to spend a little time here from the, you know, get the, the scoring criteria, which is not currently in the RFQ, etc., and really respond knowing that they're responding to what the city's looking for
Speaker 0: . So I will just note that I was also hearing several the council lament the fact that we've lost five months already. And I think, again, I do think time is of the essence. But to the point you raised about not wanting someone who came unsolicited to us who I think is actually doing some work elsewhere now, I made a point, but Mr. Chan, can you comment on that.
Speaker 7: On whether or not.
Speaker 0: We could also include CGI?
Speaker 7: The council has wide ranging latitude here, so the council could direct staff to do any number of things, whether it's an update, including an unsolicited bidder, to go out to get a new bid. You have wide ranging latitude here. As long as that the process is fair and gives all parties an opportunity in a reasonable time to respond if you were to do it.
Speaker 0: Okay. And by the way, I notice that in the the staff report, sometimes the term RFQ is used and sometimes the term RFP is used and there is a difference. And it's the RFP that has this pretty pictures and I don't think most of us are. But this is a request for qualifications, is it not correct? Yes. Ms.. Potter is nodding her head. Yes. Um, Councilmember Desai, Councilmember Odie, anything you want to add? Councilmember Desai One.
Speaker 12: Point that I would add is I understand Alameda Point collaborative desire to be closely involved in this, but I think we need to be mindful that, you know, they are they are potentially material beneficiaries of this whole process. So certainly we need to welcome their involvement, but we also need to, you know, make sure that everyone understands that, that this process is, you know, is transparent and fair in terms of the, uh, RFQ, whether it should be done on a select basis. The reality was that when I had voted for Alameda Point Partners, when we first did the go around actually was very close for me. It was very close between Alameda Point Partners and Catalist, and my working theory was basically that I believe in and continue to believe that entities who do good work for the city of Alameda are, you know, we should make no apologies in and acknowledging the good work that these entities had done. From my vantage point at the time, I thought, you know, so I had to wait very close to leave the good work that Alameda Point Partners had done with regard to site A and the different commitments that they had made contractually with those good works versus the good work that could tell us had done what they were putting together. Bay Port Along with Alameda Landing, I ultimately went with Alameda Point Partners because I certainly like their transit commitments, contractual commitments. So, you know, if Catullus is still interested in this project, I have no qualms and moving forward with them. I mean, there are proven entity. People know what they. In the city of Alameda and four, the city of Alameda. I'm not too sure about Brookfield, although I realize I think they're doing the project over there at, um, uh, Don Parker's old project.
Speaker 0: And just for clarification, and don't stop his time while I'm talking, please. We are not here tonight just to let you know about your plan. Okay.
Speaker 12: You're saying go for it to have us of a select entities as opposed to a broadly open RFQ process. And all I'm saying is, I think we have before us, you know, some entities that seem to be no and I don't know cei that well but I certainly know. Could tell us so. So if the argument is to have it to basically continue to the RFQ that we had started with several years ago by virtue of the fact that Al made a point, partners had dropped out and others had dropped out. I'm fine with that.
Speaker 0: Okay. And just for clarification, I mean, Councilmember, somebody asked the question, I don't think we get an answer, but are there other developers showing interest because we like to make an informed and it could be yes. No, you don't need to name the names. But Mr. Levitt, did you want to say something before him as far.
Speaker 9: As the three that expressly contact us, which are the three.
Speaker 0: That are listed in the staff report?
Speaker 6: Right. We as part of this process, we did reconfirm that the two other of the four finalists were still interested. That continues to be the case. Four finalists of the four finalists, Brookfield and Catullus, continue to be interested.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 6: Um, C.I. has provided an unsolicited proposal, and I actually have received several inquiries from developers who are interested potentially. And we have let them know that we are recommending to staff the RFQ process and to put their name on an interest list.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, that's new information. So and these are developers who never have applied before this project.
Speaker 6: As far as I know, in I, you know, a broker says I represent someone who's interested. You know, someone else calls and says, I'm interested. I don't I can't sit here and say that they're for sure real. And once they look at the RFQ, they're still going to continue to be interested. But we've had we've had expressions of interest.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Vela I guess my concern with this is the fact that that's that's not as solid as an actual response to our request. And we had a previous request out there. My concern is, are they hoping that our new RFQ is going to be giving them more things that they wouldn't have gotten before? And are we then kind of setting ourselves up for less? And that would be my concern with that. I also think that time is of the essence, and I'm wondering if we have that shortened process. You know, the vice mayor had asked could it come back by date certain in July. And I'm wondering, we already heard just sorry, June 1st week in June. I'm wondering if it couldn't come back even sooner than that, if we're talking about an update and just three, three, two or three groups. I you know, my concern with C.I. is that they didn't submit something early on if there was something that we liked about that package and therefore staff is trying to include them. I'd like to know, you know what? Let's put that on the record so that we can make sure that that's what we're going to get in the update. And I think it is I think the the updated RFQ that you've proposed already exemplifies some of the things that we're we're looking for. So I think that if, you know, if these other two are interested and want to be competitive, they're going to look at that and provide us with an update that answers it and either meets those meets those things or doesn't.
Speaker 0: And I would just add that I would be hard pressed to omit someone who specifically has come forward showing interest and I think has shared financial information, if I am correct.
Speaker 6: And to clarify, C.I. was initially part of the James team, right? That's and then James.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 6: Forward with AP. I think C.I. had a lesser role and then their proposal that they submitted was a reflection of some other thoughts and ideas they had separate from there.
Speaker 0: So they they were a part of the initial process, councilmember capacity.
Speaker 6: But yes.
Speaker 0: Sorry, did you have your hand up or you.
Speaker 3: I'll just say.
Speaker 0: Even if you did.
Speaker 3: I agree with the vice mayor that I'd like a date certain. So I guess the option is open it up to others and then we kind of start over, right? Or we take the three people that already did the RFP and ask them to update it and then.
Speaker 0: With a date certain.
Speaker 3: Also what the dates are. Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: And does that ultimately bias? A lot more time.
Speaker 0: I mean, I think I think it does. Councilor, finish what your thoughts are and then. Councilmember de. I see.
Speaker 3: Because now I understand the question solved.
Speaker 12: Yeah. You know now that you mentioned that C.I. has has was part of the original RFQ in some way, I'm satisfied that that, you know, they're not going to be this oddball, this outlier.
Speaker 0: Whereas when I was.
Speaker 12: Whereas Qatar and and the other entity had been intimately involved, um, just for history sake, this wouldn't be the first time that we had closed RFQ RFP process. When we did Bayport, it was started that in 1997, Bayport was actually not part of FISC. So we did the RFP process for the FISC in 1997. And then in February of 1997, we decided that we were going to we were going to include what turned out to be Bayport as part of the FISC RFP process. And but, but we had limited the, the respondents to the three entities who had responded to the FISC original FISC, which is our data landing, original FISC RFP and that was Catalist Lincoln Properties. And one name escapes me. So this wouldn't be the first time. And I think the product speaks for itself.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Vela I just.
Speaker 4: Like to make a motion. My motion would be that we direct staff to ask for an update from the three entities, the three developers that have previously submitted responses, and that we have this come back to us. I actually would like it to come back to us in May.
Speaker 0: Is that realistic? Ms.. Potter, where are you? Oh, there you are. And I will note that in the staff report, because it was one of the questions. And, Mr. Levitt, you have the floor in just a minute. But I had a question that it did say that the staff would be coming back with their recommendations by the end of the first quarter of 2020, maybe that month of fiscal year 2020.
Speaker 6: That was that. I thought I had changed that. That was a holdover.
Speaker 0: That was there.
Speaker 6: From the holdover from February. Okay. So it really is the second quarter. And I mean, we can absolutely strive for the second meeting in May. I'm just going to say that our internal with the package being published 12 days ahead in our internal process of being out with a staff report a month before internally is really what the constraint is for us. But we I understand the urgency with which the Council is approaching this and we will endeavor and do our darndest to be back at the second meeting of May. But that's our challenge, is really the lead times for this.
Speaker 0: I do understand the lead time. I just this these particular economic times were in make me really nervous, Mr. Leavitt.
Speaker 9: So I had actually been doing the math on here, and we hadn't had a chance to look at it or talk, obviously, because it's while you're talking.
Speaker 0: This is real.
Speaker 9: Time. So March 9th, if I was able get out March 9th based on the statement, which is a monday and you just did three weeks, you could get to March 30th, which then gives about a three week review to get it into the pack and process which gets you to the second meeting, a May.
Speaker 0: 2nd meeting in.
Speaker 9: May. But that would mean you have about a three week review process of the RFP, which means that Debbie is going to have to reorient some of her priorities, which definitely can happen. But I've heard you talk before at goal setting about we want to stick to deadlines. And when you give us an expectation, we want you to be able to meet it. That's a tight expectations.
Speaker 0: I appreciate that, too. I think we have a number of factors going on that there has been a bit of a delay getting to this point. But I feel like much of the heavy lifting has already been done because you've had this subcommittee you worked with to develop the RFQ. And so it's not as though you're starting from square one. And this council's priority, as I recall, is housing, housing and more housing. And so I you know, I give you credit for managing your staff, but I think this and it's just such an integral part of moving forward on our Alameda Point development. So I would like to see all deliberate speed put together toward this. So we and I'm looking the second May meeting is May 19th. Correct.
Speaker 9: And that would be Tuesday. Yeah. That'd be the third Tuesday persons.
Speaker 0: Which is it. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 12: I'll second if there's.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have a motions move by Councilmember Vela, seconded by Councilmember. So discussion. We're ready to vote and then the rest of the and everything else is just as proposed in the the the staff report, correct.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor. I, I didn't. And Councilmember Vice mayor and that's why.
Speaker 8: Can I ask a quick question? This is definitely coming back on the 19th of May.
Speaker 6: Um, that's the direction I've heard. So it will be back on the 19th of May. One way or the other? Yes.
Speaker 8: I mean, if we can't commit to that, then there's no point not moving forward with the RFQ. All right. Because the next meeting is the first meeting in June, which we've had.
Speaker 0: So you you're asking for a clarification question of whether it would come back in May. Mr..
Speaker 9: LEAVITT Well, we will re-orient priorities in committee development to make it May 19th. Um.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. Yes, I.
Speaker 0: Okay, so was that unanimous? All right. The motion passes, and thank you very much. Okay. She may need a break before we move on to our next item. Okay, then we are moving on. Thank you, everyone. We are moving on. Back now. We're going to go back to 6 a.m., so 6 a.m..
Speaker 1: And cementing the Ms. code by adding provisions to Section four, Dash 232 Firearms and Weapons of Article five, Firearms and Explosives of Chapter four, offenses and Public Safety requiring safe storage of firearms and enhancing enforcement provisions and introduction of ordinance. Amending the aluminum visible code by adding provisions to Section four. Dash 36 License requirements for Firearms and Munitions Dealers of Article five, Firearms and Explosives of Chapter four. Offenses and Public Safety requiring firearms dealers to provide video surveillance and enhancing enforcement provisions.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to: 1) Direct Staff to Conduct a Four-Week Request For Qualifications (RFQ) Solicitation Process for the Development of the West Midway Project; 2) Approve Debbie Potter, Community Development Director; Michelle Giles, Base Reuse Manager; Lisa N. Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; and Eric Levitt, City Manager, as Designated Real Property Negotiators for the West Midway Project; 3) Approve the Finding that the West Midway Project is not subject to the Surplus Lands Act as Amended; and 4) Direct Staff to Include a $350,000 Appropriation for the RESHAP Project Backbone Infrastructure Design in the Mid-Year Budget. (Community Development 819099)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_03032020_2020-7722
|
Speaker 1: Amending the aluminum visible code by adding provisions to Section four. Dash 36 License requirements for Firearms and Munitions Dealers of Article five, Firearms and Explosives of Chapter four. Offenses and Public Safety requiring firearms dealers to provide video surveillance and enhancing enforcement provisions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I believe you are assistant city attorney.
Speaker 12: Mr. Assistant, yet.
Speaker 0: Not Aziz Ansari, where two deputies, they say, didn't come to the city attorney. Right.
Speaker 12: Hopefully soon.
Speaker 0: All right. Good evening. Oh, I can't say we have to do labor negotiations in.
Speaker 5: Class.
Speaker 0: Where it happened. Session. So do your best.
Speaker 12: Thanks, Mayor. So good evening. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor and council members. My name is Monitor Hung. I'm a deputy U.S. attorney here at the city attorney's office. We're here this evening to discuss certain proposals for firearm safety. Previously on November 19th, 2019, Council did discuss various ideas for firearm safety and directed staff to bring back actions for potential adoption of the Council's high priority items from the November 19th meeting to our address today. Staff's recommendation this evening is to introduce for first reading two ordinances amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding provisions to require safe storage of firearms in the residence and to also require firearm dealers to provide video surveillance. During this process of evaluating the various possible firearm safety proposals, we've had discussions with many stakeholders, including various Alameda community groups as well as Big Five, and we appreciate their input and their efforts in promoting gun safety and helping Alameda become safer. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, one of the country's leading policy organizations dedicated to gun safety, has issued a letter supporting the two proposals before you today. And we appreciate that letter. I'd like to now discuss how these two draft ordinances are currently written. First is the safe storage ordinance, which aims to reduce wrongful, intentional and unintentional discharge of firearms, including suicides, and to help reduce stolen firearms. Specifically, it requires that firearms be stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock unless lawfully carried on the body of a person. We are mindful of the Supreme Court case of Heller v Chicago, which held that the Second Amendment protects the right to use the firearm within the home for self-defense. This ordinance allows for self-protection because its safe storage requirement does not apply when a firearm is lawfully carried on the person. One thing we'd like to note is that the ordinance applies to safe storage within the residence. If counsel would like to give direction regarding expansion or contraction of that. We are happy to take that direction. The ordinance does propose several possible penalties, including administrative citations, up to the maximum amount allowable under the code currently, as well as infractions or criminal prosecution. One item that I'd like to highlight is that the ordinance does have a safe harbor provision that protects gun owners from criminal prosecution under the section. If they do report lost or stolen guns within 24 hours from which they knew or should have known that the gun was missing. This safe harbor provision is intended to encourage prompt reporting of any lost or stolen guns. The second ordinance before you today is the firearm dealer video surveillance ordinance, which aims to deter and resolve any issues of straw purchases, which is where an individual purchases firearms on behalf of someone else who may be ineligible and which may lead to firearms being in the hands of unsafe individuals. This law may also help solve a deter other crimes such as theft or battery, which may occur on the premises of the firearm dealers. The ordinance specifically requires video surveillance of critical business areas such as where firearms and ammunitions are stored, sold or transferred or carried. It also requires that facial features of purchasers or transferees be recorded and stored. The ordinance does recommend that the does require that the video record at a rate of 15 frames per second and that images be stored for one year. And the ordinance also would require a conspicuous warning that the premises are being recorded so that people who are coming into the premises have fair warning. I'd also like to note that these two audits are only the first round of staff recommendations. We do have current efforts ongoing regarding organization of a community event, specifically a safety fair, which would be targeted towards not only gun safety but other general safety proposals. This feature is currently being discussed to be held some time in April, but it's very tentative and I think further discussions are ongoing between other staff departments and members of the community. So further updates may come and that day is obviously very flexible. We may move that. And I'd also like to to note that the council's high priority items, the other high priority items from the November 19th meeting, we are very much still considering them and evaluating them. That does include funding for gun violence, restraining order, education and outreach training initiatives regarding training, not only how to use firearms, but also how firearms and domestic violence and substance abuse and mental health issues are intertwined and requiring separate display and sales of firearms. And so these items do require additional time for evaluation, given that they do require more operations, administrative and resource considerations. And so we will further collaborate with other city departments and come back with further proposals. With that said, if you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer them.
Speaker 0: Thank you and Mr. Hang any questions of the staff report for grew as speakers Council member DASA.
Speaker 12: Thank you very much. You mentioned that you had obtained input from Big Five. Did Big Five give any comments with regard to the way in which weapons are store displayed? Particularly with regard to maybe having a designated area that's separate from. Did they comment on that at all? No, I can't remember. We have still to figure out how we should approach that. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I have a couple questions in the. The sales surveillance ordinance. It indicates that video surveillance would also be directed toward the parking lot of Big Five. So say I was pulling up to go out and buy a yoga mat, getting out of my car in the parking lot. I would be video surveilled for that.
Speaker 12: It's possible that audience is not so specific as to what extent the parking lot would be surveilled. But the way is currently worded, you know, subject to input from the chief of police, which the ordinance does allow for. It's very possible that pastor buys around the parking lot area may also be captured. And, of course, counsel can give further direction on that provision of the ordinance.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then how does the requirement of videotaping inside the store with facial features recorded? How does that work with, I think, another policy that this council has weighed in on about not wanting facial recognition technology used in our city. How do how do we square those two?
Speaker 12: Sure. I am not sure to what extent the previous decision was regarding general facial recognition. What I can say is that specifically this could be narrowly applied to only be at the premise of a firearms dealer and it would not apply elsewhere. Certainly, if council feels uncomfortable with that, also, we can generally just allow for facial recognition. That's right. Just for videotaping of the general premises and not be focused on the facial features during a transaction. One thing to know is that because of the way that straw purchases are done in order to help resolve and deter those crimes , it may be helpful to have the facial recognition. But of course, that's completely up to council.
Speaker 0: So it is big five and Alameda have some history of facilitating straw purchases.
Speaker 12: Not that we're aware of that. Of course, it's it's really difficult for us to to track that without having additional data and also looking further into it.
Speaker 0: I see. Okay. Any other questions? Clarifying questions. Mayor? No. You just saying. Yeah. Yeah, that is the question.
Speaker 8: Okay. You mentioned I know we received a letter from I think it was safe, safe Alameda with some requests. Did staff have a chance to look at those proposed changes? And, yes, we have.
Speaker 12: And so I believe safe Alameda did send several proposals. Um, so there are a few proposals to add a couple of additions to the preambles. But, um, perhaps it's best use of my time to, uh, and of course you can, we can discuss more that preamble if needed. But there are substantive changes include changing section four, dash 32.3 currently, which requires proposals to require safe storage of firearms in residents. Safe Element has proposed changing residents to premises such that this would also cover presumably commercial premises, and they have also proposed to require keeping firearms to also be unloaded when they're stored. Staff's staff believes that premises is a broadening of the ordinance as currently constructed because it would apply not only to the residence but also to commercial premises. Um, this may open the ordinance to further challenge, um, with regards to keeping the firearm unloaded while it's stored. We also believe that may significantly be open for challenge due to the Heller case that I previously mentioned, which does allow for firearms to be used for self-defense. And an argument I believe could be made that if the firearm was mandated to not only be locked and stored away or disabled with a trigger lock, but also unloaded , it could significantly hinder what the court has found to be the Second Amendment right. There has also been proposals from State Alameda to, uh, remove criminal penalties and to only have civil penalties. As previously mentioned, as currently worded. We are proposing the maximum civil penalties and the fines cannot be any higher than currently proposed. Of course, if council would not like to have criminal penalties, that's something that we can change. And as for the video surveillance, they also had a few other comments. Um, I think most primarily that they would like the currently as worded the audience requires that the camera system be triggered by a motion detector while during off business hours. They would like that to be a minimum requirement such that video surveillance could, um, at the discretion of the firearms dealer be on for the entirety of the day. They would also like for the images to be stored on the premises for longer than one year and also require offsite backup of the images and how they're stored. Um, and a proposal that, um, during the sales strike, during any period of, in operability of the video surveillance system, that the licensee shall not conduct any sales or transfers. And so looking at these, these are a little bit stronger than some of the other video surveillances that are currently out there and have withstood previous challenge. Um, I think, you know, it's certainly doable. I think whether or not to, to expand on certain of these requirements, whether or not it's advisable or whether or not it's operational, operationally feasible for the firearms dealers. I don't have a comment on that.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm Mr. Shin.
Speaker 7: Just to add to Mr. Hong's point, we on the issue of premises. We did look into it and we also had, even before receiving that, had a thought about what that means with respect to the regulation at issue. The proposal in front of you essentially just precludes folks from having arms about within their residences that are not either worn or safely stored. And this is consistent with regulations elsewhere. We recognize that there may be places that the council may want to slightly further regulate. For example, the locations right outside of the residence, for example, a garage where you may choose to include in the regulation, and further, you may even decide that arms should just not be stored in places where when people don't live in, because that is more risk when it comes to theft, because you may not go into it depending upon where you use your garage for or your storage facilities on your residential premises. So we do have language available to you if you're interested in further exploring that point, and we're happy to display it for you now or any other time.
Speaker 0: Mr. Shen how would you contemplate enforcing that sort of regulation?
Speaker 7: And so enforcement of this and this entire ordinance on safe storage is not going to be by police officers inspecting homes. It will be enforced by essentially self-reporting. And the enforcement mechanism will be one whereby there's not going to be a an overall regulatory scheme. I'm happy to defer to the police chief on any further comments on enforcement he likes to share. But I think the way we envision it is that it most likely would only occur when it's post hoc, where something has occurred and someone has reported it to the police and information is volunteered.
Speaker 0: But as I raised in a communication with your office this morning, if tragically and we hope it doesn't happen, but a teenager got hold of a gun inside their home and committed suicide. We wouldn't criminally prosecute or we would have discretion. I would hope not to criminally prosecute.
Speaker 5: The.
Speaker 0: Parents because I can't imagine you could punish them any more than had already occurred.
Speaker 12: Prosecutors have the right to exercise their discretion, not to prosecute any case.
Speaker 0: Did someone else Healesville or did you have your hand up or just. Okay, um, I'll just remind everyone that we're supposed to keep our hands away from our offenses for health reasons these days. Sorry, I was in a meeting yesterday where they told us we were all handling our faces and we were okay if we don't have any further clarifying questions from the Council. Thank you, Mr. Green. Let's go to our public speakers.
Speaker 1: We now have four Dave Breslow, Krystal Lo, Pilotto, Jonas Stockland and Kelly Co.
Speaker 2: Members of the council. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I'm Dave. You want to be sure to speak to that microphone? We've tried to, you know, hear you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm Dave Frost. I'm retired technical executive, primarily focused on the storage industry. I now teach firearms. I'm a firearms instructor and safety instructor. There are a number of heartburn issues that present themselves on this. First of all, I like the intent. All of us want a safer society. We just want things that work. And the issue that I have is that I don't believe this proposal has gotten the type of input and review that it really warrants. One is, I can't find anything in here that's really going to work. I wish that weren't the case. Our suicide rate in the country has gone up by a third. We've spent millions and millions on prevention, and it's not working. Safe storage isn't going to reduce suicides. We've seen this. The data is clear on this. It will prevent or discourage, I should say not prevent, but discourage children from getting access to certain children. But I hope you know that it's on YouTube. If anybody wants to look a six year old entering, unlocking a cable lock or gun lock, you can shoot a firearm with a trigger lock. Most cases, if there's a round in the chamber, the trigger lock has enough play in there. You can normally pop off one round. That's why I recommend cable locks. What I do recommend is that the council take a deep breath on this one. Direct staff to conduct some information, gathering session sessions and furthermore move forward on proposals that do make a difference. I've made two efforts to contact the police department today. One voicemail box was full and I didn't get a receipt. Answer from the chief. I don't believe that our police offer what many do, and that is provide free gun locks, free gun locks, safety training, all of these kinds of things. I'm aware of what the community service program offers, but I've looked at it and frankly, there are other programs that are free that are so much better . So what I would recommend is that we do a number of things and avail ourselves in the community to free things, also establish criteria. What is it that we're trying to accomplish our murder rate here? Homicide rate is very low. We had nothing. And the let's see, we had one of the most recent period, nothing before that one before that. Nothing to to zero. I mean, it's not going to get much better. I don't have data on gun thefts, but I don't see much in here that's going to make a difference, which is why I recommend that we move forward on those things that do. And I would love to work with staff on how to make this happen. And that includes grants most recently. The announcement I got was three weeks ago, over $400,000 was committed to various departments for this kind of thing. So the money is available.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm wondering with. Thank you. You may be seated, please, chief, for Larry, do you wish to comment at this time?
Speaker 2: This is kind of although.
Speaker 0: He didn't put it in the speaker slip, but he was referenced.
Speaker 9: So I just briefly would like to respond to the speaker last speaker's assertion that he did not get a response from the police department. He emailed me this afternoon at 1214. I replied with an extensive reply. 3 hours later, he may not have checked his email, but he has it. And in that email I informed him that the number he had called was not to the person that he was trying to reach. And I provided the correct number and answered all of his questions. So I'm sorry that he did not see that and misrepresented the fact that he did not receive a response today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And while you're up here, do you have any other comments about anything in the audience or to one to.
Speaker 9: Well, Mr. Sheen, I agree with him wholeheartedly that the enforcement piece is not going to be done by the police department. Uh, we we don't we're not going to be knocking on doors. And I mentioned this to the council when we talked about it a few months ago. The Fourth Amendment would prohibit us from just going into someone's home unless they gave us permission to do so. And that in all likelihood, if a gun was not safely stored and an event occurred as a result of that, it would not be known to us until after the fact. And then we would be pursuing whatever avenues, you know, whether criminal or administrative that would need to be taken. But we wouldn't know that until til after the event.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Anything? Council on South the chief. What? We have him up here. We can always come back. Thank you. And our next speaker is.
Speaker 1: Crystal Lo Parlato. And then join us again.
Speaker 4: Good evening, council members. My name is Krystal Abelardo. I'm a member of Safe Alameda. A community group started right here in Alameda. And I also volunteer as the California state legislative lead for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense. First, I want to applaud the Council for being proactive about gun safety and gun violence prevention. And also thank the city staff for the hard work that they've done on this already. Ordinances like these save lives and getting them enacted here is a core priority of our safe Alameda Group. We do want to raise, as noted, just a few potential provisions for your consideration, the first of which is really that we would like to see the criminal penalties eliminated from the safe storage ordinance. Criminal penalties and ordinances like this can have a disproportionately negative impact on people of color in terms of who is most likely to ultimately be charged and convicted within the criminal justice system. Disproportionate sentencing and the disproportionate impact that a criminal record can have on future opportunities for a person of color. We understand the desire to pass laws that have real teeth, but believe that desire can be balanced against the downstream consequences of a penalty provision like that. So it was excellent to be informed that the civil fines are already at the maximum allowable amount, so that that certainly can stay as as is from our perspective. We are aware that the Safe Harbor provision relies on criminal penalties as currently drafted as an alternative. We would be open to reduction of the civil penalties as the tool that incentivizes reporting of theft or loss. Instead of relying on criminal penalties as the ordinance is currently drafted. Additionally, as mentioned, we would love to see the Council consider expanding the scope of the safe storage ordinance to all premises instead of just residences. The basis for that is that when addressing the risks of a gun, getting into the wrong hands from theft or the risk of unintentional shootings, the same reasoning holds true for firearms that are not stored securely on a business premises. As for those in residential premises, and we'd like to see the ordinances scope expanded to reflect that to the extent legally possible. Of course, limited exceptions could be spelled out for premises controlled by law enforcement or other reasonable exceptions. And just briefly, with respect to the firearms dealer surveillance regulations, as mentioned, we have given city staff some feedback on those. But also want to separately note that we find Councilmember de Suggs idea of regulating the placement of firearms within a store to be very compelling, and we'd like to see the Council explore such a regulation. Thank you again for giving this issue the attention it deserves. And we do hope that, you know that members of the community strongly support these ordinances.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Stockton. Next.
Speaker 9: It. AVM, Jonathan Coughlin, a.
Speaker 2: Alameda resident, a parent, an.
Speaker 9: Attorney and a concerned citizen. Thank you, mayor and council members, for opportunity to address you. This is a complex issue, obviously, and not something that can only be addressed at the local level level. We need our our state and federal partners to also make some movement on that. And I would urge you, whatever you do, in addition to the local ordinances, we urge you to support, to urge our leaders in Sacramento and Washington to make some changes, we need big changes. One of which I would like to see is a change to the law that permits Californians to buy a new handgun every 30 days . This has got to be increasing the flow of firearms and into the into the hands of the wrong people. As to the measures before you today, I would say I urge you to support them. I'm a member of Safe Alameda and would echo the points made by the previous speaker. I would want to mention those a question about adding the unlocked provision. That is something that the Giffords folks support. And if you're concerned about litigation, they are you are spot on in terms of what is something that will survive a challenge. Previous speakers suggested the first speaker suggested that these measures would not make a difference. That speaker also did not suggest that there was any downside to these measures and the point that there would be no way would make the difference. L mean, it does have a low homicide rate, but if one.
Speaker 2: Locked firearm.
Speaker 9: Prevents a depressed teenager from getting access to that firearm, this is all worth it. That's all it takes. So I would urge you to support these ordinances. And we're looking as if Ahmed is looking to work with you, the city, further on additional measures, two of which come to mind. That might be up next. One would be liability insurance requirements for gun sellers, making sure there's sufficient liability insurance, and also an ordinance that would restrict the locations of for gun dealers to keep them in places that would be away from where our children congregate, away from parks, away from schools, some safe distance. So with that, I would say please support these audiences with the changes recommended by the previous speakers. And I thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Kelly Cope. And then we have Rodney Spooner.
Speaker 4: I wanted to thank our city council members and our city staff for addressing this issue in our community. I do or do I? My name is Kelly Copeman and I'm a Alameda resident and a parent and part of safe Alameda. I urge you to support this legislation with the recommendations that Krystal.
Speaker 6: Pilotto had.
Speaker 4: Recommended. We realize that gun violence is a complex issue and that along with suicide and unintentional injury, we hope that we can work with you on the underlying issues of gun violence and suicide and unintentional injury as well. There are there is supportive evidence that child access prevention laws do reduce all firearm safe self injuries, including suicide attempts among our youth. So there is evidence for that. And we do have a gun theft problem in the city of Alameda. There has been more than 220 guns stolen in the last ten years from homes. These are guns that are coming from our homes into the hands of criminals. We need to do better than that. And we hope that we can continue to work with you on this issue and the underlying issues. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Rodney Spooner.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is Rodney Spooner. Mr. Speaker, there. Good evening. Hello.
Speaker 3: My first time, so I'm a little nervous. First, I'd like to preface my remarks by saying that any loss of innocent life is a tragedy. Um, one in particular, that's. That's near and dear to me is the Kate Stanley, the daughter that was killed by an illegal alien. And I don't want, you know, my comments to be misinterpreted because I don't intend any disrespect to anybody. The first duty of government should be to protect the citizen. Each of you swore a sacred oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land. And as I'm sure the city attorney knows, that Madison versus Marbury. Marbury versus Madison. 1803. Um, any law statute ordinance that's repugnant to the Constitution is void. So the Second Amendment basically states in part that the right to keep and it's the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And I feel that this is an infringement. I feel, you know, the Second Amendment has been infringed quite a bit. And I got up off the couch to come to this meeting today. So in the ordinance, it does say that the gun, gun violence and gun injuries have a significant adverse effect on public health and safety. I don't disagree with that necessarily, but I disagree with the significant, um, it does have an adverse effect, but you know, define significant compared to what? Unsecured firearms raise the risk of injuries from wrongful.
Speaker 2: Firearm.
Speaker 3: Discharges and suicides. Accidental discharge. That plus the last. Whereas trigger locks and lock boxes do not prevent firearms from being easily accessed. Did not prevent firearms from being easily accessed in case of emergency. What is an emergency? Emergency is time is of the essence. And the fact is that I'm sure the officers here should be familiar with the Wheeler drill, which basically is a danger zone, 25, 21 feet. And to be able to cover that distance takes only like 1.5 seconds. So time is of the essence. Um.
Speaker 9: Looks like I'm I'm actually running out of time.
Speaker 2: The trigger locks on YouTube.
Speaker 3: There's any number of YouTube videos that, you know, tell you how to disable a lock and in, you know.
Speaker 2: A short time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Speed.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: And is that our last speaker? Okay. So we're going to close public comment and we will move back to council comment. Actually, I did have one clarifying question of from the staff report. There was this reference to and I think I actually mentioned it in my email, I asked you who is organizing the April 25th, 2020 Safety Fair? Because I believe two of us in the Council, I think Mr. Odie and I are both out of town that day, and I do think this is a topic that's of interest to the entire council.
Speaker 12: So I know there the city attorney's office has not actually been involved in organizing that. If I could ask, I believe Chief Roll, I already may have more information.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Welcome back.
Speaker 9: Mm hmm. Mayor and Council Members. The April 25th date is not etched in stone at all. We by we, I mean the police department. Uh, Jennifer Williams from the school board, Kelly Cope, who just spoke to you a few moments ago from Safe Alameda, Sarah Henry, McKayla Parker at the police department. We've had several meetings discussing the concept, the concept of having a community safety event and trying to have it far enough out that we can plan and have a have a decent event, but also work within various schedules in the school calendar and whatnot. We were looking at late April, but it's completely flexible. Everything in that event is in the preliminary stages.
Speaker 0: Okay, that's great that we, the Council all shares the same fabulous staff person who, as I tell Michelle Kirkman, she knows my schedule better than I do. So she's a great place to start for getting the council on board. And I would think that this is I would hope that the organizers would like the council there, too. So thank you for that clarification, but I appreciate it. Um, three things. Yes. Yes. Okay. Well, I want to clear that up. Okay. Councilman Brody, I'll start.
Speaker 3: Thank you. First of all, I want to thank everyone for speaking on this and the work of our staff and just to kind of I know Debbie did a nice review slide of of West Midway, so we didn't do a review slide. But to remind people when we talked about this idea, you know, last year there was a town hall that the mayor and then Vice Mayor Vella where we're attending on this issue. And then we brought it back to the council this year, I guess it was last year, but it was this term. You know, we had just experienced another school shooting. You know, we still hear daily incidents of, you know, accidental children dying and, you know, guns used in suicides. So that was the background for when we first talked about this. And, you know, I think I said something and I think everyone agreed that, you know, if the new norm is now these these shooter drills and telling kids they need to get bulletproof backpacks, I mean, that's just to me, not acceptable. So with that backdrop, we continued the work that was done with the first town hall, with the second town hall. And then we invited the district attorney to also come and share some of her information. And I don't know if you've had a chance to look at the report that her office put out. But, you know, when we talked about areas that we could focus on, you know, safe storage was the number one area, one, because it was something we could actually have an impact on. And two, because of the issues Mr. Schenn talked about, you know, there's a lot of preemption in this area. So, I mean, you look at the numbers in that DEA report and, you know, of the crime guns that are used in our county, 17% of them were legally purchased in our county. So to me, that's an astonishing number because people are always saying, well, you know, all these guns that people are using are not legal. Well, they were legal at one time. They were stolen and then they were used in a crime. So if there's a way that we could cut off the supply for bad people to get guns that were purchased legally, then I'm all for it. So that's why I think first the straw purchasing thing is going to make sure that every sale that's done in Alameda is done legally. I appreciate the the the suggestions of my councilmember colleague, Mr. de SOG, to move that. I mean, there are a lot of different products that we don't want our youth exposed to, and we put them in separate spaces magazines, videos, cigarets. Things like that. So I don't know why if a ten year old goes into a big five to buy a baseball mitt, you know that they should be exposed to a row of what looks like semiautomatic weapons. So, I mean, I I'm sympathetic to the fact that, you know, a lot of this stuff, like the police chief said, is after the fact. But, you know, so is the discussion on license plate readers. I mean, we wouldn't know if somebody should be tagged to have their car digging with a license plate reader until they've committed a crime. So I also appreciate the comments that were provided about criminalization, because we're not trying to criminalize the legal possession of firearms. What we are trying to do is to prevent those legal firearms from getting into the hands of people that shouldn't have them. So I think every responsible gun over a gun owner probably agrees with that statement, because the more that these guns get in the wrong hands, that the higher risk that someone else, not us, is going to do something about it. So I think we all should be in agreement on that. As far as the videotaping. You know, I think I remember if the police didn't come out with a thing wrong, but we did a ban on facial recognition software, which was automated facial recognition. The police still have the opportunity to look at a surveillance video and maybe look at a driver's license and do a manual compare. And I think that's what this type of situation would lead to, that if there's an audit to make sure that these are not straw purchases and that the right person is buying the gun that says they're buying it, you can do a compare and then you pass the audit and then every then everyone moves about their day. So I think I said the criminal penalty. I like the idea of the premises. I don't know to what extent we can do that because we kind of I thought when the suggestion came that it was about businesses, but then we talked about garages and curtilage and stuff like that. So I don't know if that's, you know, I don't know where that lies in the in the scheme of things. Maybe, maybe I'll just finish and then you can kind of of of talk about it. So and then, you know, Johnno in his comment, you know, if we could save an Alameda one kid from committing suicide by keeping a gun locked up for an extra 15 or 20 minutes or whatever. To me, that's worth it. And conversely, if we can save, you know, one kid from accidentally stumbling upon their mom or their dad's gun, that the mom or dad thought was hidden away. But kids find everything. They know where everything is. Trust me. Then to me that's worth it to. And I again would think that anyone who says they're responsible, law abiding, that these are the type of, you know, commonsense rules that they would want because, you know, nobody has I think the mayor said nobody wants, you know, a tragedy in Alameda and that those are the type of things that we're going to try to work on to prevent. I wish we could do more. You know, I don't think we should have criminal penalties if you violate this. But, you know, I think we should consider something like strict liability because if you're negligent in leaving your gun and letting it get stolen or lost, then and you don't report it, that's a problem. That is a crime. And then lastly, on the DIA's report, I think Kelly may have mentioned this. You know, the stats are in that report. I think it's 88 that guns were stolen in Alameda from 2012 to 2018. I don't I don't have the ten year number, but I added them up and it was 88. That's a lot that's a lot of guns that are in the stream that shouldn't be. And they were all presumably purchased legally and now they're, you know, not in the legal stream. So I'm happy to support these and I'm glad we were able to do something. I look forward to hearing my my colleagues comments and I hope we can incorporate some of those suggestions from safe Alameda.
Speaker 0: I'm going to constitutionally, Mr. Shinn to comment on some of the items Councilmember Odie raised.
Speaker 7: I believe Councilmember Ody had a specific question with respect to premises.
Speaker 0: In our premises.
Speaker 7: Or premises. So our recommendation is that not reach commercial at this time, but we do have language ready for you on all premises on residential. I'm going to ask Mr. Hong to at least load it so that if the Council's interested in looking at it and it's a fairly small change to the ordinance that we believe would satisfy some of your concerns and it might be a reasonable middle ground to take and I believe it's now on the screen. I'll just read it to the council. Essentially, we would change section four, dash three, 2.32 to indicate that no person shall keep a firearm within any residence or upon any residential premises unless the firearm is stored in a log container or disabled with a trigger lock within a residence. And. And the last part is important because. We're what we're regulating is that if you want to store a firearm on on a residential premises, whether it's a garage or a storage bin, you just can't do that. You have to leave it in the residence where people are living, where presumably there's more supervision.
Speaker 0: And then just for clarification, Mr. Chan. So the firearm under this section could be either stored in the locked container or disabled with a trigger lock?
Speaker 7: That's correct. In either case, it has to be inside the residence.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then to a point Councilmember Odie raised of, you know, 88 guns stolen and I think six years was the number. But if the owner of that firearm under this proposed ordinance were to report it as stolen to the police within 24 hours, then they don't have any liability. Correct.
Speaker 7: The safe harbor provision, as proposed, would absolve that owner of liability.
Speaker 0: Okay. So just trying to understand, how does that help us here, I guess, is the rationale that the quicker it's reported, the quicker it might be found. Because it's not it's still a stolen gun at the end of the day. And presumably someone you know is stealing it for ulterior motives.
Speaker 7: That's right. I think it really is to encourage reporting so that police officers can be made aware as quickly as possible, so that there is an opportunity it could be found. Or if there is a related crime that police is already investigating, then it would provide them with additional leads. It's a balance. It very much is like everything else about this legislation.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then another question about the ordinance. Who who reviews the surveillance video to make the chief of police.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: And the chief of police was was consulted on this ordinance, I take it. And here is the chief of police.
Speaker 3: Now he has something to say myself.
Speaker 9: Back up.
Speaker 0: Oh, come on, officer. We're having open mic night tonight.
Speaker 9: It's not going to be the chief of police. It will be the chief of police. Designee.
Speaker 0: Designee?
Speaker 9: Yes. Yeah. If we if we were to have an occasion to review a video, it would be somebody in our investigations division. And and and on the issue of a straw purchase, I just want to clarify, the straw purchase might be legitimate at the time of sale. It's it's that the person that legitimately buys the gun knowing that gives it to a person who's not eligible. So we wouldn't have we would have video of the person making the legal purchase. The straw purchase would be something that would be proven through an investigation away from that.
Speaker 0: Presumably didn't take place on camera, correct? Yeah.
Speaker 9: So just wanted to clarify that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 4: I just have a question actually for our chief. One of the proposals that was put forward by one of the speakers was providing storage units in private in private vehicles for our police officers. Is that is that something that we do already.
Speaker 9: For in their private vehicles? No. But I have a very specific restrict restrictive policy about how they store their guns, whether they're on or off duty. Thank you. So they're responsible for that.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 9: Yes.
Speaker 4: That was my that was my only question for you.
Speaker 0: At ease.
Speaker 4: I did have a question for the city attorney about storage units and safe storage of weapons and storage units. The reason I bring this up is a very good friend of mine from high school went through a very difficult period in her life and a lot of it was related to drug use. She's since been sober for over a decade and completely turned her life around. But she was somebody that was arrested ultimately on a number of gun charges and she stored her firearms that she was holding for, not her firearms, but for somebody else. And she was storing them in storage units. And it was very common for her to have storage units. And this was while she was committing a number of different crimes and kind of running with a not great group. And so I just was curious. Obviously, this language is written, wouldn't cover that. But is that something that we've looked at?
Speaker 0: And the question was about requiring and stored in a storage rental storage facility.
Speaker 4: I guess I have two questions. One is, could we prohibit guns being stored in a storage facility or is there a way to regulate that? Because oftentimes storage units are used to store these sorts of things and they're not locked up.
Speaker 7: And so if the question is, could we just preclude guns from being stored at all, or is it safely stored as in trigger locked or in a locked container? If the council's interested in regulating gun storage beyond residential premises, then I think our recommendation that you would continue to require safe storage instead of prohibiting storage altogether and prohibiting storage altogether is more legally challenging than you. Simply indicating that if you're going to be storing it in a commercial location, it still needs to be similarly safely stored, which is locked container or disabled with a trigger lock.
Speaker 4: Okay. And that's something we could pass the ordinance as written tonight and have staff look at the commercial storage aspect and come back to us at a later time.
Speaker 7: Absolutely. We'd be happy to take your direction.
Speaker 4: Okay. That would be my preference would would be to look at that and look at what the options could be. I think as a as a new mom, I'm learning all sorts of things. One of the things that I'm learning is I used to think my parents were overbearing and not very nice when they wouldn't let me just spend the night at people's houses. But, you know, now I'm thinking about things like, does the other family keep weapons in their house? And if they do, do they store them safely? Because it's not just about the kids in the house. It's also about the kids that come over to visit and how they might play together. And some of the saddest cases that I've worked on in my legal career involved youth that were playing with a firearm that was not stored safely. And so I think that that's you know, if we if we can prevent that or make it more difficult, I'm all for it. And if there's, you know, if this will do that, then I think that we need to take that step. It might not solve all of the cases, but I think it's a step forward in the right direction. I also think that, you know, in terms of preventing guns being stolen, you know, it's 88 reported stolen in that report. Those are the 88 guns that we we know were reported. And I think, obviously, we've you know, one of the some of the cases that come up, I also in my day job represent law enforcement. And some of the things that come up with them are where there's stolen weapons being used to commit a crime or children who have teens who have stolen the weapons from their parents or from the parents of a friend. And those those things come up often. And I trust that our police are working with I know that they coordinate with other law enforcement agencies. And so I would assume going back to the straw purchase scenario and that sort of thing, just as much as a straw purchase is going to be at issue. A lot of times what we see is these sorts of things where potentially a youth has actually stolen a weapon from another household. And that's why I think that the the report requiring the safe storage means that people are aware of where their firearms are kept. And I think you. Can't have one without the other, because if you don't require the safe storage, then they're not keeping tabs on their weapon. And if that happens, then they're not going to even know if the weapon is gone in order to report it being, you know, being not no longer in their possession. So I think we have to have both. We have had a number of forums on there, at least two forums on this. From a city perspective, I think this is a evolving area of law. And so I would anticipate that there's more, you know, as things develop, if there's additional laws that we become aware of that that pass constitutional muster. I look forward to hearing those, but I want to make sure that whatever we have is going to be enforceable and that we follow up on the enforcement, because otherwise it's just an empty promise to our community. And I don't want this to be one of those things that we don't follow up on.
Speaker 0: Other council comments. But as mayor.
Speaker 8: I want to thank the staff for bringing these two items forward. I will hope, hopefully at the end. I love to hear what's happening with the other 21 items that we asked and I would like to it sounds like, I guess another question, it sounds like staff is working with Big Five as our only gun seller right now on the concept that Councilmember de Sugg mentioned. So I was going to ask why that wasn't clear. If it sounds like those those issues are ongoing, but I think that that was something that we all unanimously supported when it was recommended. And I continue to to to support that. For me, I think almost everything has been said that that that I might say on the the proposed language, it's on the screen here. This would be my preference for moving forward. I think if the idea is that we want to, you know, hew very closely to our legal lines for making sure that people have access to legal firearms for personal safety reasons, keeping it to the residents makes sense. And if our goal is also to make sure that that there are eyes on these and they're not just lying around then and not keeping them, you know, in a, you know, often a shed somewhere where people might not look at them for four months or even notice that they're gone, probably seems like a pretty common sense and not over burden overburdening requirements. So my preference would be to make this one change here. I can go both ways on the criminal. I think that personally, if we were going to go forward with criminal penalties, I'd like some sort of annual reporting so we know what is happening with these with these so that we're at least keeping an eye on it to make sure that there aren't disparate impacts that we can identify. But if it's the will, the council to start off with those administrative penalties, I would be supportive of that as well. On the commercial language, after conversations with our city attorney on the issue this afternoon, I think it's very I do think it's very complicated. I'm very supportive of trying to figure out what that means. And I think the storage one is probably a clear line forward on how we do that. But so I can't support the moving residences to premises today just because I think it will get us into a place where it's incredibly complicated and we need some more thought on that. So but I think it's a fabulous job. I want to thank the city attorney's office for their work on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Design.
Speaker 12: Great. I'll just keep this brief saying that, you know, we're entering into new, new areas because this is what mothers and fathers of Alameda, children especially want us to to do. You know, everyone feels empathetic or sympathizes with what's going on nationally. And and I think what the staff has put together is some common sense first steps with regard to trying to do something a little little something here in Alameda with regard to stemming gun violence. So so thank you very much, staff. And also thank you very much to the residents and to those who are especially committed to this issue. The folks in the back especially. We thank you for all your input. I think we're following best practices, walking closely with what the the former congressman's outfit is, is is encouraging with regard to stemming gun violence. Of course, I would have loved to have seen language with regard to the way in which guns are displayed and sold within a retail establishment in Alameda, especially if there is a retail establishment that happens to sell soccer balls and tennis balls. Oh, and also there's all these guns all at one place. I think there is ways in which perhaps the city of Alameda can create some new new ground in terms of of regulating sales and as a councilmember. He had said, you know, we regulate. We certainly regulate the display of certain items like it's within our ordinance, I think is municipal code 30 dash dash nine, I think. So, you know, the as I call, you know, guns represent such a brute force that it's just not just, you know, there not any other athletic gear like like soccer balls or or soccer balls or tennis balls or tennis rackets. And so I think they really call out for for cities like Alameda to regulate the way in which they are displayed and sold. And so so I would love to see that. And hopefully maybe other cities will do that, you know, because like across the United States, you know, I think Wal-Mart sell guns elsewhere. So but I think, you know, we've got some great first steps. And I really thank the residents for coming out and being so passionate about this issue. I don't think we went overboard with regard to people's Second Amendment rights, but I think we did more than do nothing and sit on our hands. So I appreciate everyone's assistance in moving us along into new territories that that Alameda City Council is venturing into with regard to the type of ordinances that we're crafting.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 3: Oh, I spoke already.
Speaker 0: Oh, you already spoke. Okay. Okay. So mine is you did you started. I think he's don't.
Speaker 3: Let me go get.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Now okay. You've 2 minutes and 28 seconds so I'm in agreement generally speaking with my colleagues. And I do think everyone who's worked on this issue at the city attorney's office and in all who who brought forth this report, I my kids, my twins are now 28. But I do remember and I've spoken about this before, it's something our pediatrician talked about, you know, asking, do we have guns in the house? And and I'll share that. My husband is a former deputy sheriff when he was putting himself through law school. And I wasn't too aware of it. But he mentioned at one point when I was pregnant that, you know, I still got my service revolver. And I said, where it is, is in the dresser drawer. And I said, Oh, well, we're about to have two babies, so let's take care of that. So we had a neighbor on the street who was actually a police officer and we talked to him about it and he took it off our hands and disposed of it. So, I mean, we do want to keep our kids safe and there's so much that goes into that. And in a lot of ways it gets more complicated as they get older. But we certainly don't want, as Councilmember Vela noted, children inadvertently coming upon and an unlocked weapon. I would feel better if in the sales surveillance ordinance the language about surveillance cameras directed at the parking lot was not there. I'm with Councilmember de Saag. I would like staff to bring to us what's possible about where the guns are sold. And it shouldn't be right behind the counter where I'm going to bring my that I bring all my purchases to. You don't get the big five a lot. But they do have they do have things that I buy, but it shouldn't be right there. But I think it's a bit of an overreach to videotape people in a parking lot who could be there for a lot of different reasons. So that would be my ask. I don't know how the council feels about videotaping folks in the parking lot just because they're in the parking lot.
Speaker 4: I'm in agreement.
Speaker 0: You would agree with taking that language at parking lot language?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: I'm seeing nods of the head. The well, Councilman Brody, thank you.
Speaker 3: What was the what do we hope to benefit from from that type of surveillance? And that'll be the question I would have. Because I mean, I'll just elaborate. I mean, I would imagine that if we somehow had an ordinance that moved things to the back and then we could limit the surveillance to just that area. Sure. Cassandra, you know, you've been looking I the tennis racket.
Speaker 0: I think the parking lot would be outside. Right. And it's the parking lot that would be shared if I'm going to Bed, Bath and Beyond or Sushi House or.
Speaker 12: Right. So. So leave that with additional surveillance at the parking lot. It would potentially provide additional footage of any transfers, subsequent transfers outside of the store or how the guns are transferred into or out of a potential vehicle or anyone who's outside. Um, I think that's the general idea of just again, providing additional footage and making sure that people who are buying it are the ones who are actually making the purchase. And there's no one just simply waiting outside and, you know, taking a firearm right after.
Speaker 3: Do we know how often that happens? I mean.
Speaker 12: I don't have statistics. I can't remember. I think it's a current.
Speaker 3: Is that is that a solution in search of a problem?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Or is it something that happens? I mean, are people that dumb?
Speaker 9: Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. We get that key for the.
Speaker 9: Exterior surveillance or security cameras at the mall already at multiple locations. So filming people that are going to the grocery store. So.
Speaker 0: I mean, what's one more?
Speaker 9: I'm just saying I'm just saying that that that there are lots of retail establishments have exteriors, surveillance for security, not not specifically for guns.
Speaker 0: But thank you. And I appreciate that this particular ordinance is gonna get to the front of it. It's the, the, it's the sales surveillance ordinance. So specifically sales of guns surveillance ordinance. And I, I, you know, I get that we to if you think you're going about your business and no one's watching you, you would be wrong . But I just as an elected representative of the city of Alameda, I don't know that I want to suspect that everyone going into that parking lot, maybe conducting an illegal gun transaction. Councilmember Vella, did you want to add to that? I do. You see where it is, by the way?
Speaker 4: I'm looking at it on page four. Right. And I think my concern is we're also saying that they need to maintain that for a year.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 4: And and I you know, I know that there's other surveillance out there, but we're not we the city are not mandating that it be maintained for a certain period of time and basically made available for inspection, I think because the languages that it's made available upon request. So there's no subpoena needed. There's no, um, I'd be fine leaving it in if, if it was more than just law enforcement asking for it. Um. I just get out. I just get worried that we're we're now kind of requiring essentially. Requiring surveillance in a in a really public area.
Speaker 0: Very nice. Okay. So is a cause already?
Speaker 3: Well, I think there were. There's three other cities that have this. What do they do as far as exterior? I mean, we had this discussion on license plate readers and there was a comment that there was no expectation of privacy. When you like get in your car, drive over the bridge, you know. I guess the same would apply to going to the sporting goods store. But on the flip side, I mean, is this an excess?
Speaker 12: Sure. I just want to point out, um, so to your question, how many other cities require this? And this requirement does mirror others in several surrounding Bay Area cities, including San Francisco, Emeryville, Campbell and Pleasant Hill. So it's certainly not uncommon.
Speaker 3: We could always add this to later, right? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 0: So so are you agreeable with removing the parking lot designation at this time?
Speaker 5: Oh, yeah. Okay.
Speaker 3: What I'd like to see is Councilmember de Sung's idea, and then we just limit the videotaping to just this small, contained area.
Speaker 0: So are you doing. Are you making direction? Suggesting direction to staff? Yes, we both can, by the way.
Speaker 3: Well, I think we all have to, but I would be in favor of that. Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. You want to make an amended motion?
Speaker 3: I didn't make any motion, but.
Speaker 0: Well, I. Oh, no, that's true. There is no motion, I guess. But the staff report suggests that we we amend the municipal code and perhaps we want to do just a little further.
Speaker 3: With the vice mayor trying to.
Speaker 0: Talk about delegation. Would you like to try?
Speaker 8: I'd be happy.
Speaker 0: To. We'd be happy to.
Speaker 8: So I would like to move the ordinance with the following amendments removal of the criminal penalties, which I believe I heard a majority of this council saying.
Speaker 0: Okay, with that worked on.
Speaker 8: With the revised resident's residential language, limiting it just to a to a residence and with the removal of the parking lot video, I believe those were the three that we talked about. And then with a direction that we would like to see something come back with with what we'll call the Councilmember de SAG plan.
Speaker 0: And the commercial.
Speaker 4: And also to have them look at it.
Speaker 8: And the commercial district.
Speaker 0: And.
Speaker 7: Mr. Shen Yes, I wanted to get some clarification from the Council on Criminal Penalties. And the reason is that in both ordinances that where the criminal penalties live cover entire chapters. So for example, in the safe storage part of the ordinance, the criminal penalties cover existing law such as unlawful discharge of a firearm or brandishing or using a firearms. I My guess is that the Vice Mayor's motion is not to eliminate criminal penalties, penalties for those, but just for safe storage. Yes. And is the right. And so in the other ordinance, it also similarly covers, for example, folks who refuse to get a permit that's otherwise required.
Speaker 8: And the other ordinance is the stores.
Speaker 7: Correct. The stores.
Speaker 8: I'm only worried about. Oh, you.
Speaker 7: Only worry about this.
Speaker 8: Personally. I'm only home worried about the home safe storage.
Speaker 7: Got it. And one more clarification or maybe it's a slight recommendation is that there's also the safe harbor provision. And so if the council's intent is to remove the criminal penalties and the safe harbor ordinance I'm sorry, in the residential storage ordinance, my recommendation is that you also give the safe harbor for administrative penalties. Right now, the safe harbor is drafted so that you essentially don't get criminally prosecuted if you report within 24 hours. If you want to remove criminal penalties, we should replace criminal penalties with civil and administrative penalties and to continue to encourage reporting if that's the council's will.
Speaker 0: Okay, that sounds reasonable. I can see enough heads.
Speaker 8: Yes, that.
Speaker 5: Sorry.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we've had a motion. It's been clarified now. It's been set in motion by the vice mayor, seconded by Councilmember Desai. All in favor. I the motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Before we move on to item six, what are we on? See, we are going to take a quick ten minute break. Okay. Are we ready in the balcony yet? We're okay. We're going live. Okay, we're back. And we are on item six.
Speaker 1: Sea adoption, a resolution amending the fiscal year 20 1920 budget based on mid-year changes. Adoption resolution approving workforce changes for fiscal year 20 1920. An adoption resolution amending the salary schedule for the Management and Confidential Employees Association to add the classification of Sustainability and Resilience Manager the Army to Police Officers Association on sworn to add the classifications of lead parking technician and parking stations technician. The part time salary schedule. The classifications of law, fellow staff, counsel and special counsel for the City Attorney's Office and the Alameda City Employees Association to adjust the salary range for senior combination building inspector.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Provisions to Section 4-32 (Firearms and Weapons) of Article V (Firearms and Explosives) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety), Requiring Safe Storage of Firearms and Enhancing Enforcement Provisions; and
Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Provisions to Section 4-36 (License Requirements for Firearms and Munitions Dealers) of Article V (Firearms and Explosives) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety), Requiring Firearms Dealers to Provide Video Surveillance and Enhancing Enforcement Provisions. (City Attorney)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_02182020_2020-7674
|
Speaker 10: Okay. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Debbie Potter, the development director. And I am delighted to be here tonight to talk about the MRU with the East Bay Regional Park District for the Northwest Territory Regional Shoreline. And I'm even more delighted to have my coconspirator here, Amy Wooldridge, the Rec and Park Director. So I'm going to start and then I'm going to hand it off to her so that we're going to we're going to have to team you or whatever.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 10: So open space and parks have been a really important part of the redevelopment of Alameda Point going all the way back to the Community Reuse Plan, which was adopted back in 1996. We have always had a big emphasis on open space, access to the water, more park amenities for the community. And the Northwest Territory has been one of the most important open space features that has been in the mix since the beginning and pretty much since the outset. We have been working with the East Bay Regional Park District to construct and maintain the Northwest Territory. The city has a long standing relationship with the Park District, Crab Cove, Crown Beach and East Bay Regional Park District has also a long standing relationship with the VA, its immediate neighbor. So they make an excellent partner with the city on the development of the regional shoreline. And we are thrilled to say that after a long time of negotiating with the Park District, we have come up with an emoji that talks about what the components of the park are going to be, the shoreline and what are the main essentially the deal terms in the lease that will be negotiated over the next up to 12 months. We hope it won't take quite that long. And the Northwest Territory the the shoreline just high level. It is intended to be a passive park. It's 158 acres. It really emphasizes bicycle and pedestrian trails, viewing and seating. Habitat restoration is an important feature of the regional shoreline. The amenities are pretty basic, kind of reinforcing the idea that it is a passive park and then the VA. Just one of the things to add and acknowledges that the VA is planning on doing a visitor center on its property that is intended to serve both the regional shoreline and the wildlife reserve. So they've offered up that space and they've incorporated that in their plan, which will be a nice amenity and feature. So high level, that's what we're doing. And then I'm going to turn it over to Amy, who is going to talk more specifically about the components of the menu, and then we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mayor and Council. So what you have before you is the exhibit A from the memorandum of understanding that my view and highlighted is on the northwest corner of the Northwest Territories regional shoreline. Some of the main points of the memo you that you have before you. It's a no cost 66 year lease. This is a long term lease agreement because this is state tidelands. And so we can't actually convey the land to any organization. So that's why it's a long term lease. The intention is for this MRU to be a high level, high concept document so that we will use this as the guiding principle to then over, as Ms. Potter said, over the next 12 months, hopefully less negotiate the actual lease agreement that would then come back before you and the Park District's Board of Directors. This is for the Park District to design, construct and then operate and maintain the Northwest Territories regional shoreline within two years of execution of the lease. So potentially up to three years from now. The Park District would be required to develop a concept plan. That concept plan. It requires that there's is input from the Alameda community. We've I've already talked to them saying I can help them with organizing the Alameda community to provide their their input. And then also it would come to the Recreation and Parks Commission and ultimately to you as City Council for your input on that concept plan. Back in 2008, the voters approved measure WW the park district's bond to build and improve more parkland. 6.4 million of that at that time was allocated toward this project. So it really has been in the thoughts and in the works for quite a while, and that money in this milieu is clearly identified as is being put toward park development. Also in the most recent, recent in past years, Measure C and more recently Measure F, this park is also identified for the Park District to be putting dollars from those measures into maintenance for this park. However, this park will cost significantly more than 6.4 million to design and build and construct. So the menu also speaks to the city and the Parks District, working cooperatively to identify through grants and any other mechanisms to both constructive but also for maintenance dollars in terms of what the area is. It is 100 and x 158 acres of the Northwest Territories. In addition, there's a section of the San Francisco Bay Trail that goes along the regional sports complex that the city is required to build. But once constructed, then it will be as part of this lease will be turned over to the Park District to maintain it as they maintain other areas of betrayal. And the island also has the option term to construct and maintain the seasonal bay trail that goes from Northwest Territories around the southwest corner of Alameda Point and to Pave Park in this M.O., it details that the Parks District Park District is responsible for design and construction plans as well as for permits and to do the construction . And it's important to us that the community residents have an opportunity to see this what's out there sooner than than when it actually opens to the public as a full park. So there is interim access. The Park District most likely will be doing guided walks. So however often once or twice a month, they'll do guided walks out to Northwest Territories, to the community, can see it and experience it because it really is quite amazing out there in terms of shoreline stabilization with climate change and rising sea levels. This is was an important discussion point. The city is responsible for for the shoreline stabilization along the sports complex in that section of the Bay Trail, because that is part of it as identified in the master infrastructure plan for Alameda point will be a levy because it needs to protect that significant infrastructure of the sports complex. However, the Northwest Territories itself will be what's called resilient design, managed retreat. There's different names for it, but as sea level, it will be designed up front to acknowledge that as sea level rise and as the sea rises, that that that the Bay Trail and other aspects may be moved inward as the level rises. It will not have a formal levy around this shoreline park in terms of naming the park district retains that responsibility to name. However, they will be taking city feedback. They will also be considering names that that have a connection to Alameda and specific. The National Naval Air Station history. And in regards to lease revenues, that's something that's important to us. We have a number of of leases, leases out there and both short and long term uses. And so the city will be retaining that lease revenue until they actually are breaking ground for construction. So with that, the next steps are for this body to consider this this MRU. And then if approved, it was already approved by the the Park District Board of Directors on February 4th. So yours would be the final vote on this issue. And then we staff would be working on the negotiating the detailed lease agreement and bringing that to you within the next year. So with that, my partner and I are both available to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I feel like I'm under interrogation with that light shining in my eyes. I'll tell you anything. Okay. Thank you. Great presentation. Exciting project counsel. Do we have any clarifying questions from four staff on this report before we hear from the public speakers?
Speaker 4: I'm going to hold mine till later.
Speaker 0: Okay. So let's hear from. And how many public speakers did you say we had last year?
Speaker 2: Five. Five.
Speaker 0: Okay. So everyone gets up to 3 minutes. Okay.
Speaker 1: So we have Richard Bangert, Mary Spicer and Amy.
Speaker 2: Burns are the first three.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor, and staff members of the council. Thank you for moving this forward and please continue to do so. It's been a long time coming. I just have a couple of comments. I would hope that before we get to a year from now, before a year passes, that there is some sort of workshop check in on this IMO you process, let's say in the fall just so the public is apprized that we're not suddenly reaching an impasse because this is what happened with the wildlife refuge. There was there was essentially an understanding between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Navy to have a national wildlife refuge until there wasn't. And it was really because of a few people that couldn't come to an agreement. And the public had no input on that. The city had no input on that. It was just we woke up one day and found out that it was going to be given to the VA. Now, I have no problem with the veterans facilities being there. It is what it is. But I if this deal is not going to be consummated a year from now, I think the public has a right to weigh in because it's not like one of one of the parties is a private developer with proprietary financing information that they don't want to divulge. It's to public agencies that we both pay taxes to. So I hope that we could have a check in if maybe in the fall some workshop or an agenda item where we can weigh in and find out if things are going smoothly. One other thing I'd like to comment on is in the staff report, it said something about the public being able to go out during construction. I'd just like to acknowledge what the Navy has been doing for the past five years or so. And in effect, construction has been going on for about five years. And and it will continue this this year and perhaps a little into next year. And that involves about two thirds of this regional park area. And so some tens of millions of dollars have been or will be by the time they're done, put into re landscaping and re-engineering two thirds of this area, including a shoreline stabilization plan for everything essentially from about where the sports complex ends out around the tip. So that's also going to happen probably a year from now. So I think during the course of this, we should acknowledge what the Navy has done to bring it to where it is , because they could have done much less and still pass muster for safety, but they went beyond what they needed to do.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Boehner. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Mary Spicer, then Amy Barnes, then.
Speaker 2: Pat Lamborn. Hi, Mary and hello City Council. I just want to say, last time I spoke, you unanimously voted against the server farmer out there on insulin. And I wanted to say thank you so much for that. I spend a lot of time on the water out in the estuary and insulin on Killarney. These the paddle the outrigger team out there. And I also stand up paddle and I'm very familiar with the land and of the Northwest Territory from the water. And I'm really coming here to to just give a little bit of future input on potential potential things that I think might be important. Some of the teams are some of the teams out there are very excited and wanting to get into wanting to get involved in some of the park development ideas out there. One thing that we're really interested in is potentially having a landing spot on the Northwest Territories, not something where boats can park, but places where sups stand up paddlers and kayakers and people that go around the island all the time, a place that we could land there and really enjoy the nature out there. And I also organized large garbage cleanups at Jack London Aquatic Center. I call it I Heart Alameda Oakland Estuary and we pull out £2,000 of garbage every six months out of the shores of the estuary. And I really would love for the support to start to think of the garbage out there along the shoreline. There's so much garbage and also the garbage from the ferry parking lot that blows into the ocean, into the estuary that we end up cleaning up. I really would love for that to start to be if it could somehow be involved or some future thought on how we could start to clean up that garbage out there. And then also space for nature. I spend so much time paddling right in that area and I get knocked down all the time on my board because the boats go so quickly. And we've seen a lot of seals out there. My friend saw a big turtle out there once. We don't know how it got there, but I really think it's important that we make space for nature. With all the park development and all the development that's going in at the base, that we really start to think about how many boats we're going to put out there, how are we going to manage wildlife and what the seals, the dolphins, the turtles, the fish need, as well as how we're going to develop a lot more potentially a lot more people using the water out there. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Then Pat Lamborn, then Irene Dieter.
Speaker 0: Is a recreation and Parks Commission member.
Speaker 2: Hello. Hello.
Speaker 0: And Miss Brian, going to pull the microphone down so we can hear you. Thanks.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 5: Uh. Right. Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft.
Speaker 2: Council members, staff and members of the public. My name is Amy Barnes.
Speaker 5: I grew up in.
Speaker 2: Alameda and now live on the West End with my family. I spent my career working on climate change, including serving most recently as a senior advisor to Governor Brown on the issue. And as Mayor Ashcraft mentioned, I also serve as a member of the Recreation and Parks Commission, although tonight I'm speaking in my personal capacity. So I'm here to speak to you this evening about the recommendation regarding the Memorandum of Understanding.
Speaker 9: With East Bay Regional Parks District on the Northwest.
Speaker 2: Territories M.O.. You first, I wanted to just.
Speaker 9: Acknowledge Amy Woolridge, our recreation and Parks Director for all of the incredible.
Speaker 2: Work she's put into this menu and for.
Speaker 9: Everything she does for our parks in general. We are so lucky to have her in Alameda.
Speaker 2: As you review this menu, I would like you to consider this context. Our planet's changing climate. Based on current projections and guidance from the state of California. All projects under development should assume 6.9 feet of sea level rise by 2100. That's in 80.
Speaker 9: Years.
Speaker 2: But my son, who's.
Speaker 9: Five, will still be alive.
Speaker 2: At that point. So not too far in the distant future. At these values for sea level rise, we can expect complete submersion of the.
Speaker 9: Northwest Territories.
Speaker 2: And the via lands previously proposed as the Wildlife Refuge at Alameda Point and possibly.
Speaker 9: More for the.
Speaker 2: Packets. You can see FIG. two on the handouts I provided. There's a map showing this level of inundation. These estimates don't include water.
Speaker 9: Table rise.
Speaker 2: Which will undoubtedly.
Speaker 9: Further exacerbate the.
Speaker 2: Situation. With this in mind, I've.
Speaker 9: Developed a proposal that the Northwest.
Speaker 2: Territories be turned into a first of its kind climatological adaptive.
Speaker 9: Park that would be returned.
Speaker 2: To wetlands and shallow bay as sea levels rise due to climate change. I've developed this idea in the proposal before you, which recommends that you designate the Northwest Territories Rewild Park. The idea of Rewild Park is, which is to return the land at the.
Speaker 9: Northwest Territories, which was historically either shallow bay or tidal mudflat to wetland. You can see FIG. one for a historical historical.
Speaker 2: Map of the point circa 1800. It will be rewild it and planted with salt, tolerant natives and other species that attract and support local wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. The restoration of wetlands in this area.
Speaker 9: Which is.
Speaker 2: Expected to be inundated from sea level rise due to climate change, will help with flood and.
Speaker 9: Storm surges protecting Alameda, particularly its West End residents. Like me.
Speaker 2: There are a number of additional environmental, public and equity related benefits.
Speaker 5: To the projects that are included in the proposal. But that would be too long to read.
Speaker 2: In my remaining 21 seconds. I realize at this point that it is too late to include language on this concept in the memo in front of you, but I would like to request that the Council convey this proposal alongside the signed MRU to the East Bay Regional Parks District. With your positive recommendation, I would then plan to present this proposal at the next East Bay Regional Parks District meeting and work closely with Amy to ensure the idea is integrated into plans moving forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Barnes. And our next speaker.
Speaker 5: Pat.
Speaker 1: Lamborn and Irene Dieter.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Good evening. Mr. Ashcroft. Vice Mayor. Vice Mayor. John Knox. White Oak. Changing cast of characters, council members. It's late. I'm here. Well, let's see. Who am I? I'm a resident of Alameda. Long term, I am, as you well know, a proponent of parks on our bay. I was recently elected to the. This is going to be a longer, long thing. Northern Alameda County Executive Committee of the Sierra Club. Right. Doesn't make an acronym. That's OC Sierra Club. Sierra Club endorses this. I think if there's anything that Aimee gets up and says, let's sign this memo, you. I would just say just. I agree with Amy. I can't tell you how excited I am to see that Amy has put forward to move forward on this East Bay Regional Park District wants to move forward on this tonight. Please agree and I enthusiastically ask you to sign this memo. You. It says a year we can achieve everything the previous speaker just said, but it will be a step towards that. We can spend $6.4 million, but if we don't sign the memo, you we can't even consider how to spend it. Right. And so I just think it's it's it would be so inspiring to the people of Alameda if you went forward with this. I've seen in the Sierra Club, every city's passed a climate, you know, a climate emergency resolution. Well, what have we done about it? We're starting to do some things, but that's about the future. But what have we done about the kind of inundation, sea level rise, etc.? This is positive. This would be a shoreline resilience approach. We can look at the kinds of things the previous speaker talked about. We can do other things. We'll do this in cooperation with the East Bay Regional Park District. And as Richard said, and, you know, what an advocate has been will include the public will go out there, will have guided visits, you'll have a voice in that . But we can't do it. If you don't sign the MOU, you please sign it. Say yes, sign it tonight. Um, and the last thing I'd say is there was this amazing article in the New York Times about and it compared us to Manila, you know, the whole San Francisco Bay in terms of sea level rise. It was a phenomenal article. There was nothing in there as amazing as as these kinds of actions in our area. So let's be let's be the first city to do it. And let's be in The New York Times next year or the year thereafter.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Irene Peter.
Speaker 5: Hello. Council and mayor. I am Irene Dieter and I am a member of the East Bay Regional Park District's Advisory Committee. The Park Advisory Committee was appointed by Director Ellen Corbett, and I am here to wholeheartedly support you signing the menu tonight. This has been a long time coming. I have personally been lobbying each of you for this moment and lobbied your predecessors. So for the last decade we have been trying to get a park out on the Northwest Territories and it is becoming real and it is exciting. And I encourage you to sign the menu this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This beaver.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Um. Okay, counsel comments. So, to the left, Councilmember Violet. We'll move right.
Speaker 5: Along. Okay.
Speaker 9: I just want to keep this brief. I intend to support this tonight, and I think that this has been a long time coming. I know that this council, as well as previous councils, have spent a lot of time on this. I want to thank Amy for all of her work. I think a lot of times there's we all know how much work you do, Amy, but there's a lot of work that you don't get credit for that you spend a lot of time on. And navigating between two agencies takes a lot. And so thank you so much for for putting in the time and making sure that this is going to become a reality for Alameda. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor next week.
Speaker 7: Great. Thank you. I'll be brief as well. It's been a long time going. One of the first projects I got involved with when I moved here in 2001 was fighting against the golf course in the convention center, at least ensuring that we had access, public access to the to the edge of this property, enough that my father in law still thinks I hate golf. So I will be enthusiastically supporting this as well as I just want to give a shout out to Miss Barnes and her proposal. Well, we won't be hearing that or talking about it tonight. I really appreciated the thoughtfulness of it and it looks like a great plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 6: Well, thank you. This is going to be absolutely beautiful project overall and I really look forward to the Bay Trail extending southward outside of the area that we're discussing tonight, the bay trail particularly extending in the part of alameda that is San Francisco County. Um, that area is absolutely beautiful. I haven't been there since I think December 1996, but I remember when Captain Dodge was driving me around there, um, being able to see just the panoramic of the whole day with San Francisco in the distance. Um. This is going to be a beautiful project. And I all of Alameda will be proud about this. I like the idea of that was mentioned of allowing. Paddleboards or stand up boards at park places. That's a great idea. I guess I just want to end by saying when I look at the visual of the Northwest Territories, it really looks like a piece of the puzzle that is called Alameda Point. And more and more now, so much of those pieces of Alameda Point are falling into place and we're able to see it coming and achieving the vision that we had way back when. So thank you for the staff for bringing us here. And let's move forward with our M.O.. You with the East Bay Regional Park.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Odie. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll. Before I do my comments, I will move approval of the item. Just so we get that table. I do want to thank Amy and our staff, and I think our city manager actually worked on this as well because we we've kind of had a logjam. I appreciate everything that the community has done to push this forward. It's been ten years, right? I mean, I can't vote for this today without just giving a shout out to one of my former colleagues, Mr. Matt Arrestee, who, you know, when we were walking around town five years ago, he said that $6.4 million is not worth what it was when Measure WW passed. Well, here we are five years later and it's worth even less. So I'm glad we're finally getting this done. Just a few quick notes. I would like to, you know, make sure we have a check in if if we run into snags. And these are two public agencies. So there's in my mind, no need to have, you know, discussions outside of public view because it's all taxpayer money. And I think I shared a concern with the city manager about the use of rodent sites. So hopefully those things will be fleshed out in the you. But this is this is an amazing project. And to follow up on Mr. De Socks comment, I'm glad that we're now spending some time and some effort and input filling in the pieces because these pieces of the puzzle where we have parks, whether it's up in the Northwest Territories or down in the deep park, are just as critical as, you know, site B, inside A and Main Street. So I do see actively and finally happy to say that we're getting this moving after ten years. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, council members for your comments. I too am very enthusiastic about this project and Mr. Bangert, when he spoke, mentioned the Navy and the work they're doing. I thought you were maybe going to talk about the tours that they give, because once a year the Navy, along with the RB is Restoration Advisory Board. The RAB does this amazing bus tour out all around to the areas that they've most recently cleaned up and the public can attend. It's anyone remember what tablet month is in July, so let's see if we can post that notice on the city's website closer in time to July, because I've gone for the last few years. The views are amazing and it really gives you a sense, and especially we've gone from year to year just to see how much has been accomplished. I did want to clear up one thing, though, that there was a statement made that someone woke up one day and the land had been given to the VA, the Veterans Administration . So just to keep things in perspective, we're a city, much as I would love to tell the federal government what to do. And I wouldn't I love to tell them a few things these days, but the pecking order just doesn't work that way. This is federal property. Yeah. Some of it's been conveyed to the city, but first and foremost, the feds get to do Fed the Fed transfers, and that's how the VA got the area they have. But that said, we're a Navy town, a former Navy town. We had a military presence here for many years. We're still a Coast Guard city. There will be an adjacent to the Northwest Territories, two very needed resources a vet, a VA clinic, and also a columbarium. And we are very excited that just a week or two ago in the president's budget, I know I didn't think I'd be excited about anything. But in the president's budget was a request for the majority of the funding that it will take to build the VA clinic where we have the funding in place for the Columbarium that I get asked all the time by veterans and their families, When are we going to see this VA clinic? The last time I was in D.C., I met with the VA. Everybody was waiting for this budget, the current budget, and we were really hopeful. But lo and behold, the money was there. But I like to look at it is as we can all coexist. I think for veterans who are out there accessing the clinic, this is a very tranquil, peaceful. You just don't get more beautiful views than that. So there's there's room for all of us. And the only thing I don't think we're wanting to modify anything in this memo you but I think maybe in the least negotiation is when we want to make sure the road and rodenticide is like something that kills.
Speaker 4: Well yeah. The concern was that if you use that to kill the burrowing rodents, that then the wildlife would eat those and be poisoned. And we don't want to.
Speaker 0: So, so and again, because the the regional parks district has already signed the memo, you we don't want to been in the lease negotiation. It's just a lease term, not a lease to turn. Right. But anyway, the and then the one item that I want to include in the lease. Yeah. And yeah. We've got to vet. It was a joke, a little inside joke. Okay, my and my ask this is important to people opening restrooms. There is. Because I emailed with staff today and said, okay, I get we're going to have restrooms, but who's building them? Where does it say. Well, it could be the VA or it could be the East Bay Regional Park District. By the time the lease comes around, I want to have specifics, please, about who's building the restroom facilities. But otherwise, I think this is really exciting. Bless you. And so we have before us a motion to authorize the city manager to execute an MRU with the East Bay Regional Parks District related to the Northwest Territories regional shoreline. It's been moved and seconded. So all in favor.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Any opposed? Any abstentions? Of course not. The motion passes unanimously. Good work, everybody. Thank you. You know, we're going to save time. We've it's almost it's after nine and we just finished our first item and we've now separated B and C. So with that, thank you, everybody, for coming out and speaking. Could we have item six B, please.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to review the Planning and Building Code Enforcement Program in response to the City Council's November 19, 2019 referral and provide direction on potential future changes to the existing enforcement program.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Related to the Northwest Territories Regional Shoreline at Alameda Point, and to Approve the Finding that the Northwest Territories Regional Park Disposition is Exempt from the Surplus Lands Act, as Amended, as the Property is Proposed to be Leased to Another Local Agency (EBRPD) for the Agency’s Use and Because It is Located on Public Trust Lands. (Recreation 280 and Community Development 216)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_02182020_2020-7626
|
Speaker 1: Recommendation to review the Planning and Building Code Enforcement Program in response to the City Council's November 19, 2019 referral and provide direction on potential future changes to the existing enforcement program.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. Tom.
Speaker 3: Members of the Council, Andrew Thomas Planning Building and Transportation Director. As Laura said very quickly, this is a response to a November referral. The Council asked that we look at the city's code enforcement program. The referral included some suggestions and thoughts about how things might be changed. This has been a helpful process for us. We we took the last month or so to sort of do a sort of a self-evaluation. We hope that we did a good job describing the program for you in our staff report. And we've sort of laid it out as in sort of three areas where this is where you might take the opportunity to make adjustments to this program. If you see fit the three basic areas that we sort of looked at that you might want to make adjustments is in the priority system, which was originally adopted by council . This is how we prioritize these cases, how we in terms of addressing them. The second area is budget, budget for resources and staffing.
Speaker 0: Mr. Thomas, can you just tell us when were those priorities adopted?
Speaker 3: They were originally adopted in 1999. They have been back before. Later councils. Later councils haven't changed them. But look, every council is a little bit different. We are in very different times in 2020 than we were in 29, 1999. So it's absolutely up for discussion and it's I think it's healthy that we are having this conversation about those priorities budget first in terms of just how many, how much resources you want to put into the program. And then a third area that we tried to think through and the referrals just sort of let us down this road is is there a way to sort of reorganize all of the city's code enforcement programs? So with that, what I'm going to do is turn it over to Greg McFadden, um, our long time building official and assistant planning building and transportation director. He's been overseeing this program for many years and can really, I think, do the best job of taking you through the slides. And then we will be available to answer any questions or take your direction.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. McFadden.
Speaker 3: Mr. Thomas Eliasberg Code Enforcement Department was established in 1997. Originally it was in the police department. In 1999 it was transferred under the building department and building official. Let's see. Currently, the code enforcement division is made up of four full time employees overseen by the building official. We have a senior code enforcement officer to code enforcement officers and a code enforcement tech. We are comparable with other city surrounding cities with one officer for 26,000 residents. Code punishment stats the past six months. Which is the first time sorry. This is the first time in the last five years code enforcement has been fully staffed. We've reduced the outstanding code enforcement caseload from 1100 cases to just over 600 cases over the past five years. Our monthly average of cases has been 23. Received two cases. Refer. This would be graffiti or something on the public right of way. We refer to a different department. Six cases determined to be invalid and 20 cases that are. We've gained compliance through permits or other methods, so the code enforcement priorities were established just over 20 years ago. Just before I became the building official here, the then City Council, including Councilmember de SOG, approved our code enforcement priority list. There are four categories high priority, which we follow up on within 48 hours. Medium priority, which we get to within five working days, low priority, 14 to 30 days and secondary priorities. We follow up as we can get to them. So briefly, the priority cases are high, priority are illegal units, housing code violations, illegal occupancy, and dangerous buildings. Medium cases. We have work without permits, abandoned vehicles on private property, vacant buildings and graffiti. Low priority cases. We have garbage, illegal signs and litter. And then we get to the secondary categories which are noise use, permit violations, illegal parking on private property and fences. So code complaint processing. Code enforcement is a complaint based system. We don't go out looking for code violations. We take in the complaints. One of the premises we deal with when we're dealing with a code enforcement action is we need to determine everything we do. At some point, we have to defend in court or at a hearing. So we're there's a lot of process and detail that goes into it so that we can defend what we've done. Each case is entered into the permit tracking system, is prioritized for the council priorities. Initial assessment is done by the code enforcement staff through drive by inspections, photos taken permit history, and then they determine whether the complaint is valid or invalid prior to any scheduled inspection or notice of violation. Administrative Citation or Legal Action Staff does exhaustive research, sends letters, makes phone calls, has meetings at the counter attempting to gain compliance. All notices, violation citations. Legal notices are sent both regular mail and certified mail and are currently recorded with the county. So that's a little history. So potential changes we've looked at in doing this review. The first one would be review the priorities, possibly change them, leave them alone. Those are no additional resources and that can be accomplished immediately. The second is provide more resources, more staff. Again, currently we have one officer per 2600 residents. The cost of adding additional staff one full time code enforcement officer is about $114,000. One supervising code enforcement officers about $174,000. And then there's a one time 40,000, $50,000 for a vehicle and for reconfiguring office space to provide space for that personnel. How would that additional staff be paid for? Currently, all code enforcement funding is paid for completely out of planning building fees. Fund 209. If we were to ask for additional resources, we could ask for money from the general fund, which again takes money from other city priorities. Increase planning and building permit fees, which would require a fee study. It increases the housing cost and correspondingly we would see reduced quality of materials to cover increased costs. We discourage investment and as we see a lot, when we raise fees too much, we get the result increase in work without permit. There could be an increase in the rent control programs we have certainly seen since the Rent Stabilization Ordinance have been passed an increase in complaints to code enforcement from tenants and property owners regarding those issues. So that could require that would also require a fee study. It would be additional financial burden to landlords. Currently, the rent control fees are being studied to help fund the prosecution unit in the city attorney's office. If council if council wish to pursue this option, we would look at a third general fund, a third plan in building, and a third rent. And we would come back to the council at mid-cycle. So the last item is sort of where this referral had sort of originally pointed us to, which is a reorganization and consolidation of of all code enforcement activities within the city. That would be planning building public works, base reuse community development all into a single consolidated division reporting to the planning, building and transportation director. Funding for the new division would come from a combination of sources, including planning, building fees, public work fees, rent stabilization fees and general fund. Some of the issues we have in implementing such a program is that current staff performing code enforcement duties outside of planning and building, that's just a small portion of their jobs. And so they're not. There would be an issue in how how would that work? There's also limited space in city hall to accommodate a consolidated division. Some of the pros of the reorganization. Consolidation had better coordination, increased efficiencies. Central point of contact for all code enforcement complaints. Some of the downsides are, again, limited space within City Hall to accommodate consolidated division staff outside of planning, building code enforcement or have other duties . A small portion of their job is the conversion of duties or doing an increased costs. If council wishes to pursue this option. We would come back to council at midyear. So as part of this review, we are we took a pretty deep look at it. And again, we've been doing this for a long time. So it's always good to be reminded to go back and take a look to see how you're doing things. When things three things came out of this was her improvements we're implementing currently initiating a monthly coordination meeting between the five departments. We're starting with the city attorney's office, starting and going to start to meet, ironed out how we want to do things, bring the other departments in so that we have a consolidated look whether whether we combine the departments are all having a consolidated look at how we're doing work, transparency, initiating a quarterly report on code enforcement activities for the city council in the public. And then I think this has to be the next item that we were joined in that enjoined is a streamlined administrative citation process. And then currently we are soliciting proposals for collection agencies to help collect unpaid citation fees. So inclusions code enforcement is not easy work, it is mundane, it is detail oriented. You go out to places where nobody wants you to be. Your code enforcement officer Linda Givens is in the room but can attest high places.
Speaker 0: Who are friendly.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of stuff out there. And again, nobody, nobody welcomes you with open arms when you come out for code complaint. If we do too much code enforcement, we get complaints. If we do too little code enforcement, we get complaints. So this referral is a good opportunity for us to take a look at staff. Again, there's always room for improvement. Any requested council changes to the priorities. Again, we could do that tomorrow. The other changes would either come back mid-cycle or mid year.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. City Manager Eric Levitt.
Speaker 11: Mayor and council members. I just want to add a little bit to it. First of all, I want to say that I want to congratulate Greg and the plane building and transportation director, because I think they've taken this and as he has mentioned, they've already started making changes even before you start to take action. So they're trying to at least start looking at it, start evaluating it. We see that there are priority changes at the council. We want more direction through this meeting, but I think they're trying to do that. Two big issues we're seeing probably the need to add one staff member, at least that's my view in talking with Andrew and probably sort of a working supervisor type position. But then the second issue is whether you want the more consolidated department that may take a phasing of first doing an addition in the department and then trying to figure out how you combine those resources if you want to have the larger consolidated division, because some of those functions are done by other departments, by staff that are doing other functions for those departments. So how do you take some taking them into this department would be problematic to those other departments. Not bringing the resources resources over could be a problematic thing. So that's those are a couple issues we would need to discuss through.
Speaker 0: Okay. And I know from reading the staff report that you do favor a consolidated approach, at least you were quoted as such in the step forward. So we'll come back to that. So thank you for your comments. Any other staff, Mr. Thomas, do you want to say. Okay. So do any public speakers on this went to public speakers. Council Do we have any clarifying questions before we hear public speakers here? Vice Mayor Not quite sure.
Speaker 7: Hi. Thank you for that report. Very helpful. Good to see you again. Also nice to see you, Mr. Evans. Appreciate how responsive both of you have been through the last year when I've had questions about about this issue. Thank you. My first question is when you are doing the comparison staff per population, per residents, does that include if we add a new supervisor, is the supervisor included in that? So because it seems like right now we are currently staffed about similar to other cities, if we add another, what happens if we add add the supervisor that's been recommended.
Speaker 3: That was we just first of all, let me preface this survey. I think one of the things we found out with surveys is every city does it. There's a lot of similarities, but it's a little tricky trying to figure out exactly how many officers. I think the what we did is we we did not count admin staff. So we have one person dedicated to admin and we didn't administrative services and we didn't try to compare that with the other cities, just officers, people just doing that work. So if you added, I think what the city manager described at the end, there was what we call a working supervisor, not somebody who just sits at a desk, but somebody who's supervising and out in the field. So that would increase our ratio. Okay. Relative to the other cities.
Speaker 7: Okay. For sure. And then my other question is, in a couple of places, you mentioned that throughout the city, not just in your department, the code enforcement officers are also doing other things. So in terms of the code enforcement officers, what proportion of their time in general understanding that's probably different in each division, are they actually doing code enforcement as opposed to these other duties?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I actually don't have that information. What we're talking about is primarily full time employees in public works who have do some of their job is enforcing city codes in the public right of way and other portions of their job might be maintaining streets and roads or things like that. So that's all we were. What we sort of struggled with with the consolidation was how do you bring primarily those people into a consolidated code enforcement division if in fact they have other jobs that they're doing and reporting to other managers for those jobs? That's what we struggled with with the consolidated.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Maybe don't go away. I think Councilmember Vella has a question.
Speaker 9: I have a few questions.
Speaker 0: You stay longer. Oh, he's handed over to Grady.
Speaker 9: So, Andrew, I in the staff report, we compared ourselves with the comparables that we looked at were San Leandro Hayward. Do those cities have separate code enforcement, consolidated units?
Speaker 3: No. Most of them had were organized very similar to what? How we were organized. So planning and building in forest planning and building codes, public works, public works codes or public right of way violations, I think. What? Was sort of struck me in on some of these when looking the other cities was some of them organize their selves around planning and building codes. Quality of life codes. You know, like we're going to dedicate a whole person to, you know, not, you know, life safety issues, but graffiti. Some of the things that are on your or your the council, the the existing priorities are very low things. They're not life safety. They're the low priority ones. Um, I think I forget what city is, but they dedicated entire.
Speaker 9: Person.
Speaker 3: Just to dealing with those codes and those types of. Mm.
Speaker 9: I'm on the lead abatement JPA and I do know that Berkeley has their own kind of way of doing things, but they have a code enforcement unit. They also have a health and safety and public public health department that works with that unit. You know, Emeryville is thinking about putting something on the ballot to create a new code enforcement officer. And the city of Oakland, which I saw we did a comparable with. They also are kind of amending how they're doing things. Is there a trend to change things that you've noticed or is it just those cities that are that are looking at it?
Speaker 3: I think I did not see a real trend among the various cities. What I did notice was that, um, all the cities, including Alameda, I think, were struggling with, um, just the new kinds of issues that we have to deal with. Um, you know, for all the right reasons, we're passing new kinds of laws that we just never did. I mean, I've been in this business for 30 years, like, you know, everything from, uh, you know, marijuana. We never dealt with that before. We never, you know, rent control was pretty rare when I lived in Berkeley. We dealt with rent control, but no other Bay Area city that I ever worked in dealt with the rent control issue. So I think we're struggling a little bit and all the cities are trying to figure out like, how do we do we deal with some of these newer issues and what's the best way to organize ourselves? And I think each city's kind of going a different direction and independent direction.
Speaker 9: Yeah. And to that end, I mean, I think that there's I what what I've been struggling with is there's the building side of things and the building codes which are very detailed. And then there's the health and safety aspect of things that might be outside of that realm. And you referenced some of them. So I was looking at our priority list. And the question I had is where does, you know, smoking violations fall within that priority list or mold or lead issues? Where do where do where do they fall in that list or the enforcement of the night sky ordinance that we have or ADA issues or Airbnb complaints or minimum wage violations or the straw ordinance that we have. I think there have been a lot of ordinances that this Council has, and the past council that I was on worked on, whether they were environmental concerns, health and safety concerns, accessibility concerns. And so where do they fall within that priority list? And do we need to give more direction about how those ordinances fit in with the overall goal of code enforcement or who who do those complaints go to?
Speaker 3: You know, I'm going to give you the short sort of dumb answer, and then I'm going to like try to give you more specificity because he is the one who actually has to he and Orlando, like, figure out, like, all right, we just got this complaint where is a fit in. And you're right, hold lots of new laws that weren't around in 1999 when this original list was put together. Um, but, and I think so for all the reasons you've mentioned, that's why we put the priorities first and foremost. Like it does feel like that list is worth taking another look at and maybe updating, reorganizing, um, the, you know, the short answer on things, you know, once again we're split up so smoking on the public right of way police is primarily dealing with that. One of the things that we and um and one of the other things that we've been talking about internally and Greg mentioned this idea of like, we're just going to improve our coordination and we don't need your direction to do that. We can start doing that already. But um, you know, the, we rely on the other departments, you know, like the nighttime inspections or nighttime complaints. We rely on the police department. Our department relies on them to help us go out and check that late night noise violation and those kinds of things. Craig, do you want to say anything more about how we try to fit new ordinances? Into the old priority system. A lot of them that you mentioned, LED abatement is certainly a life safety issue. It's tied to the building code. So we we address those and I think we've been pretty successful about with that. Orlando is, I believe, been given an award for lead abatement enforcement. So I'm very proud of them.
Speaker 9: But there's all the trainings.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: If Mr. Givens would like to add anything to the conversation, please, please come up.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: There are a couple of things that I would like to say specifically when it comes to lead and mold, we do consider those as very serious issues. Lead is an issue unto itself. Mold. On the other hand, we really treat a little bit differently because mold is more the symptom. The disease is water intrusion. So what we go after is from a code enforcement standpoint is we abate the water intrusion. Once you do that, then abating the mold is easy. If you simply attack the mold without addressing the water intrusion, the mold comes back every time. So we you know, we're we're a seaside community. We see a lot of mold. This is a very frequent this is something my team deals with on a daily, if not at least weekly basis. So so what we've learned through through through more than a bit of experience is that if you attack the disease, then the system takes care of itself. I think from at least in regards to prioritizing the other issues that you mentioned, we are working on trying to figure out how to incorporate those things. But the life safety issues, we're addressing those immediately. I hope that's helpful.
Speaker 0: That's very helpful. Thank you so much. Okay. Councilmember Vella, did you have your questions answered?
Speaker 9: One other one more question is, I noticed that we included in the in the potential budget that there would maybe need to be a car. Are there other tools? I know that there's do we have like all of the you know, from the the Healthy Homes Department, they have different there's new new technology for inspecting, you know , and finding mold, identifying it for and for finding moisture, I guess you could say, and identifying where the moisture is coming from. The led, you know, doing the on site led with the identification with the camera. Do we have those tools? Have we been trained in that?
Speaker 3: We have the tools where we are not trained on that little head stuff. We use the county to assist us with that. We work together with them. The 40 to $50000 that was in that line item was car office, computer. All the tools and code enforcement, surprisingly, doesn't need a lot of tools. Pen the red sticker that they put on people's houses and and just the research that they do. So there's not a lot other than the vehicle to get around.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Other clarifying questions before we go to our public speakers.
Speaker 6: I don't know if I have a question, but just a comment if that's okay.
Speaker 0: Oh. Well, yeah. We'll have a discussion after. Is it a quick comment? Go ahead. Okay.
Speaker 6: It seems to me that what we as a municipality are good at when it comes to code enforcement has to do with the built environment. And when you look at, you know, the priorities that were established back in 1999, you know, I'm sure they spoke to the very same built environment issues for, you know, that preceded for decades, 1999 but continue to 2020 2019 I think were Councilmember Vela is getting at is that there are and as planning director Thomas says there are these new areas though that that there are in need of code enforcement they're just not built environment related but more and more are there there is going to be kind of an intersection of social code enforcement and built environment code enforcement. For example, when you look at the the buildings underneath the overpass at on Webster Street, that's a code enforcement issue. But also it's obviously a social and health related issue that suggests not just, you know, kind of the built environment framework, but also kind of this social, you know, working with health care outreach workers and all that. So I think down the road as as a city, as we're meeting, these new challenges were requiring the city manager to come up with different ways of of reframing what it means, what code enforcement means. So I think that's I think that's where. Councilmember Vela is coming from in, and I certainly agree with that.
Speaker 0: So I need to just comment quickly on the Constitution way over passing the encampment, if you will, that is going into there. There are tricky enforcement issues because that is actually Caltrans property. And so our police department, Alameda police department cannot go and enforce anything. In fact, we have to wait for the California Highway Patrol, which is the enforcement arm of Caltrans. So that isn't so much a code enforcement issue. I agree that it's health and safety. We are working across jurisdictions, getting more responsiveness from Caltrans, which is a good thing. Still not as rapid as we would like. But I think as we speak in the last week, there was some enforcement action going on. And yes, it's but but that is not anything that the code enforcement folks would be dealing with just for the public listening to know. But we're on it. Okay. If that's all the council clarification, let's hear from our public speakers.
Speaker 1: Catherine, Pauline and Armando Grasso.
Speaker 5: Hi. I think this is really timely, as I mentioned earlier, now that renters are feeling a little bit more secure. They're bringing some.
Speaker 2: Very important.
Speaker 5: Habitability issues. I think there is a real need for education around this. Once you guys clarify it, I was very pleased that the city manager reached out and spoke with a number of tenants and myself about some of the issues that were coming up. And I began to discover how many categories there are. And after all these years, I didn't even know that noise is actually under a nuisance under enforcement. So technically it is a police department matter. But one of the people with us had had many very serious noise complaints. And the problem was, is the police department doesn't have the decimals or I'm sorry, what is the first decibel, a decibel meter? I put them both together and this tenant discovered that there actually is an app for that, that you can download it on your phone and if you're going to track and if there's sleep deprivation is it's a torture technique. I mean, you can't function if you're not sleeping. And there has to be a way to be able to track and to actually have what is the noise decibel? Is this truly a nuisance? Also, the issues around mold, the difficulty of that, certainly a health and safety issue. And yet people who have called the planning department have been told that it basically is extremely low and these are both health and safety issues if they get to a certain level. So I'm very pleased that this is coming forward. I think for both property owners and for tenants, it's going to be extremely helpful that once this is defined that there is an education effort. And also, I believe tracking because I believe there were far more complaints that were not referred or followed up on to other departments. There were far more than two that were referred to other departments. And so I'm a little bit concerned because tenants are being told we don't do that and it doesn't even seem like the information is being taken. So I think for their budget and especially if they want to hit the rent program for part of it, because we are getting a little more confident, we want buildings in Alameda to be maintained too. We want to be safe in our homes. So thank you for doing this work and we look forward to helping however we can.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is.
Speaker 1: Grassa.
Speaker 0: And Amanda. Amanda.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor. Council member. And we need Center Central de la Raza. Your city residents need the program. I'm asking for every everybody's well-being in this time and age and the rental crisis. Seriously, we all can really benefit from their services. They've helped many already mediate the rental situation, such as myself, and they offer valuable services. Please take in consideration what's best for our city's residents. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. With that, all of our public speakers. Okay. So with that, we will have concert council comments and deliberation. Let's start in the left, if I may, Councilor Brody.
Speaker 4: Okay. So you're right. What are you asking us today? And.
Speaker 0: Well, for the audience.
Speaker 4: What are you asking? I'm happy to be on the left.
Speaker 0: I was. I was thinking that ideologically as I speak.
Speaker 4: Fine. What are you asking for? US?
Speaker 0: Well, which is left and which is right.
Speaker 3: Oh, this was. Oh, yes. You asked us for kind of an opportunity to make adjustments. Okay. Sort of our look at our program, I think, um, you know, the city manager's recommendation is that we should add another person to the department. If you want to go that direction, we certainly can. We'll bring it back in the mid-year budget. Okay. That's sort of where it sort of sits as of now. But we we didn't want to just say, oh, yeah, hey, we need just more people solves the problems. And then we think it's this is really a multi there's many angles to this problem and priorities how we check in with you how we make sure that we're prioritizing things correctly given these new codes and new challenges, I think is very important. And we'd love to hear from you about that. Um, how do you want us to think about the budget issues moving forward, you know, the consolidation of all the various departments? I think the what we were basically saying is there is definitely room for improvement and coordination that's can be done without any major decisions from you. We've already started that process. Uh, the actual physical consolidation of all these different functions under one department is going to be a little just tricky, tricky and, you know, potentially expensive.
Speaker 4: Okay. Well, I, I, I do agree that I think you do need an extra person, and I like the idea that you guys proposed to do a third, a third and a third. And I think technically half of that third gets passed on to the tenants, right? So I mean, it's not all quote unquote burden on the landlord. I do want to say I appreciate that you proactively looked at at the process and took this as an opportunity. I know this. I know there's very few staff left, but we do throw a lot of work at you and a lot of things above and beyond the normal, normal day to day work that you have to do in addition to everything that we want done. So I do appreciate that. And I actually had to get a permit a couple of weeks ago. And I will say it was a very smooth and efficient process. And everyone down in that office was was super helpful and super friendly. So whatever you're doing there, keep doing it. Yeah, I think that's basically it. I know. As we do. As tenants do, become more comfortable making complaints. You know, we have to understand that those those issues will be repaired. And that's why I'm glad that I think it's in April, an updated CIP capital improvement program is coming to the council so we can make sure that, you know, landlords have the ability to actually make those repairs because I mean, like Katherine said and many of the landlords that have spoke, you know, we all want to make sure our housing stock is safe and compliant. So I just, you know, thank you for everything you've done and I appreciate all your work. Andrew, and making sure your department operates efficiently.
Speaker 3: The heavy lifting.
Speaker 4: That you're talking about. You make your boss look good.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Desai on my right, my right, your left.
Speaker 6: Well, thank you. You know, I think one of the things that is in the staff report is one of the things that's in the staff report is the point that that we don't as a city have a bulk of code enforcement issues. Um, so if, if that as the backdrop, I'm concerned of having one additional code enforcement dealing with what are perceived to be problems on the part of landlords in the city of Alameda. I mean, one part of the community might say that's the case, but maybe that's not the case. So I, I, I, you know, it's hard for me to, I just don't want us to be going after landlords just because someone says so. You know, the data has to speak and stand for itself. And it's it's not there right now, at least. Based upon my reading of the of the staff report. So I would be concerned about that. If there is there has to be a broader case to be made about the need for code enforcement, additional code enforcement. I'm willing to hear about it. But if the case is narrow with a narrow one in which, you know, it's all about going after small mom and pop landlords, then then I have a problem with that. So I just want to point that out.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Jason Weissman. That's why.
Speaker 7: I mean, I think it's a little problematic to start choosing who we're going to and going not going to go after based on who they are. Personally, I, I represent everybody. I'm a small mom and pop landlord. I'm doing a bad job and I'm not up to code. You should come in and find me. You know? So my biggest concern is I think there's been a good case here. This is the second meeting of the year in which, hey, let's hire a new person has been put before us. That was the parade two weeks ago or four weeks ago. Now here we are, another one. And we're marching our way up to the mid-cycle. And I still feel like we have some issues, whether it's homelessness and transportation and whatnot, that that before I'm going to be comfortable making a long term commitment to to new staffing, I want to I want to have that conversation a little bit more holistically. That said, you know, I kind of understanding where this issue came from and whatever else, right? The way I look at it, we had a, you know, a building of people who were dealing with a a I, I, you know, it's hard to say who was responsible. They filed nine complaints and they finally had somebody come out and then the complaint stopped. But it took nine complaints. The planning board made a decision that didn't make them happy. And the response for me in the city was, don't worry, you call and we'll take care of the complaints, except for the fact that we we don't we aren't responsive to noise complaints. Right. We we now have a I didn't know we had this list at the time. Noise complaints are the sometimes we drop by and check them out sort of thing. So, you know, to me, I think, you know, as we're having this conversation now, what I would say is I'm more than comfortable having a mid-cycle a conversation about this staffing position. Whether or not I'm going to support it or not is is completely up in the air for me. But I'm not saying I wouldn't support it, but I need to see it related to some of the other things we're talking about. I would really like us to have a meeting. I don't know if tonight is the night at quarter to ten. With everything else, we have to start identifying the priorities. I'm a little nervous that it's way too specific. I think Councilmember Vella did a great job of rolling out all the different, you know, kind of, you know, smoking and noise. And, you know, some of these things aren't on here, but they are clearly the types of things that make a place you live inhospitable. Right. So and that should be a priority whether you are renting or whether you are owning your your your your your place. So I you know, I would ask maybe if if we can bring back the priorities, maybe maybe if you kind of thinking about that frame, I don't know if they if that's a frame bringing that back, you know, I'd like more data. I well, I found it nearly unreadable. It looks like an old access database that maybe I've created in college and would print out for people. And then they'd say, I can't read that. I did appreciate trying to, you know, trying to understand what's going on. Summary data would be really, really good, you know, so that we know what kinds of things, you know, again, I the things that came up great to know about the staffing congratulations on being at full staffing. My team at work was at full staffing for the first time ever in seven years on January 2nd and was no longer at on January 18th. So I know how that goes is my point. Right. And it probably will be another seven years before I have everybody back. But, you know, when we're looking at like March 21st. Yes. A couple of these things are when you read them like, holy cow, this is bad, and yet it's been open for nine months. It would be good to kind of get the, you know, what are we closing, what's opened, who's been fined? Right. That's another thing we've heard is we're not writing a lot of citations, the lot of verbal and you know, maybe the first noise complaint is not a citation, but maybe the second or third one is. And so how can we tighten up those rules and start writing those citations? And we have a prosecutor who, you know, who can start helping with that. We have a collections agency. We've had some bad experience with collections agencies in the past and a really bad one about ten years ago. So let's make sure that we're dealing with somebody who's not a shakedown artist. But, you know, I thought that was a good one, but I think if we could maybe just get some between now in the mid-cycle, some monthly reports, what are the reports we're getting? What are the types of things what are happening to them while while we're talking about these priorities? I would that would be right where I would come in on this. But thank you. Good. Very helpful.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Vella.
Speaker 11: If I could just clarify one thing. We had talked initially about the midyear, but we probably will be moving to mid-cycle because we're talking March. We're talking about March to May. Well, we admit a mid-year march to May, but that way you can see it within all the priorities.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So soon. Yeah. Okay. Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 9: Okay. So this was my referral and I do know that there's a connection with kind of the mixed use complaints that happened, but this was also. The result of a number of complaints that I'd heard kind of across the board from constituents. And I want to recognize that code enforcement is not easy work, and there's a lot of different elements to it. I think we've been very focused on the building code enforcement aspect of this, and I think that there have been a number of things that have evolved. We have a lot more mixed use areas now, especially that are in development. And I think one thing that we may want to look at is are our processes in place in terms of our ordinances for those types of sites? Have we thought about different types of notification processes or things to actually help facilitate to prevent some of the issues that came up? Maybe that's a recommendation that could come back to us from staff, you know, in a follow up, as is how to deal specifically with mixed use areas in terms of zoning, I think that something that that seems to me needs to be developed and I'm glad that the steps have been taken since the referral. Working more in coordination, I think that there's a lot of the right hand not talking to the left hand. And I do think that a consolidated unit can help us get get through that. And there is going to be a transition period, but it's something that we really need to look at doing. And that's because I think that this needs to evolve from just the building code enforcement. There are a lot of other regulations on the books, and we're doing things with our Climate Action Plan. We're doing things with with some of our other codes. And if we aren't going to be enforcing them, it's going to be problematic because it's just going to be an ordinance in the book. And whether or not it's followed, I don't know. I think we need to. And what I would like to see is a process set in place. Who you know? Is there a single line that people can call for these code related issues? What is the process for getting back to people? Greg, I thought you did a great job of saying these are our high priorities, these are medium, these are low. I do think we need to have a council conversation about the priorities. I think that that document's hard to follow. I think we need a matrix of like just generally speaking, general categories. And then this is the timeline who will be responding in how much time and then tracking it. We need to know if this person has had one code enforcement complaint on this issue or multiple ones. And to the vice mayor's point, are we following up? Are we are we making sure and closing things out? There was there have been some big issues. And I know, Orlando, you you responded. There was a construction around a preschool where there was lead found and things like that. I mean, to me, if that person, you know, it took there was a whole process for that, that's great. But I think we also need to highlight when we do those big enforcement actions so that people know that this is not behavior that is tolerated here in Alameda. We do not we are not okay with you spreading, you know, lead paint in an area near a preschool, things like that. I think now that we have the the prosecutor's office in house, I would like to know what our plan is for for potentially moving things over to that office or letting them know once something has risen to a level of, look, this person is just not complying. I don't necessarily see this as a tenant landlord issue. I see this across the board. I see this in connection with our climate action and resiliency plan. I see this in connection with making sure we have dispensaries now in town, making sure there's a number of different issues that come up with that, making sure that we're our all of our buildings are ADA compliant, whether they're commercial or residential. And there are a lot of things that we've passed, and we're going to need a non-police code enforcement unit to really go out and and be accessible to people. I and I would like to see a proposal that has some sort of alternate workweek in it. I don't know if it's possible under the menu or a plan to have something in line for that where we could occasionally have somebody working. Or if there is somebody that's willing to work an alternate workweek, whether it's kind of later hours, weekend hours, because I do think that our code enforcement division is trained in a way to look at things differently than, say, police. And and I think that that aspect is going to be helpful in terms of actually facilitating conversation, communication and enforcement. And there's a lot of things that happen over the weekends and at nights. It would be hap it would be helpful to have somebody on an alternate workweek. So I'd like to see something along the lines of that. And then I do I you know, I am supportive of the fact that this is going to kind of take some cost to get started up. See, I have concerns or concerns about using see Click Fix if that's our I hope that we can develop some other way of tracking and reporting in I I'm supportive of this position but I do want to have it in the context and conversation of how does this work in with our other priorities? Because I do think it ties in to some of them, but I want to see that fleshed out a little more.
Speaker 0: So thank you all for your comments. Mr. Givens, really nice to see you. Thank you for your comments and all your good work for the city. So we're being asked to consider it suggested that we consider potential changes in the code enforcement program around three primary factors which are priorities, financial resources and or organization. I'll start with the organization last because on in our staff report, it's noted that the city manager is recommending that the code enforcement activities remain under the direction of the planning, building and transportation director, but that a separate division be created to provide autonomy to me, to recommend actions to the director, to focus more broadly on code enforcement issues. But also another option that could go along would be to consolidate code enforcement activities of the planning and building department, public works and base use in community development. And I think that makes a lot of sense because we definitely want to create user friendly systems so that one resident is not left to call several different numbers. It should be kind of one stop shopping. So how how to pay for it? Because financial resources is the other. Part of the equation. And I'm concerned with all the sources, quite frankly, and I'm glad we'll be talking about this in the the mid cycle or mid-year budget cycle, because if we're talking about let's see, there were increasing fees for well, it could come from the general fund. We could increase planning and building permit fees. And it was noted in the the report that the problem with that is if you make permit fees too costly, it's a disincentive to people improving their properties. Some people actually try to do work without a permit because it's so costly. So we have to be careful there that we don't defeat the very purpose we're trying to achieve and then increasing or providing rent control program fees. We're already there's a study fee study right now because we're looking at a portion of this fee to fund a previously approved prosecution unit within the city attorney's office. And again, if we impose ever steeper fees on our landlords, that's a disincentive for them to improve their properties. And we want good habitable rental properties. So I don't know the answer to that. We'll talk about it. When it comes to the budget, I do think that it is important for all the reasons that the council has articulated and staff has articulated, changing times. You need to change your priorities. From 1999, we're a different city, I would say, because we're asked to talk about priorities. And in looking at the presentation, the one of the things that struck me, I mean, it's hard to quarrel with what is listed as high priority cases. I don't know that I would have graffiti. This is just something to consider as a medium priority over low what is considered low priority, which is garbage and litter. Because when I see and hear garbage, I'm not even sure what the difference is between garbage and litter, but someone can explain that to me another time. But I do think about health and safety infestations, and I think protecting our health and safety of our community is important. I'm also a little unclear on what secondary priority cases are, but certainly when it comes to noise, I think noise is a health and safety issue. I mean, we live in a noisy society and there are just layers of decibels accosting us from all sides. And so I think that is something that needs to to have particular attention. But again, that can be something for further discussion. I would also like to know what, if anything, can be done about buildings, especially commercial buildings that have been long vacant. Last week I did a walk, a Webster Street walk with Linda Asbury, who's the executive director of the West Alameda Business Association. And she walked me back a couple of spots, and I bet you I could point him out. And I said, Linda, remind me, how long is this one been vacant? Over ten years, more than one. So this is not a good thing for so many reasons. But the question is, what can be done about that? Is that anything that could come within the purview of code enforcement? I think it's already been noted that when working with collection agencies, I don't even think it was as far back as ten years ago. But I remember we had, you know, every stereotype you've heard about a collection agency we experienced. So we don't want to do that again. Don't call those folks who they were. But anyway, I would be inclined to to have a report, let's say, I guess, for being asked to recommend, to review the planning and to make a recommendation to potential changes. I would be amenable to considering the consolidated model. I know it involves another another staff position. I think the Vice Mayor stated that concern very well. At the same time, we we're finding that we're getting more of these habitability complaints because of renters now bringing these attention, these items to our attention. For the most part, our rental stock isn't getting any newer so that, you know, can be health and safety issues, too. So tell us how best to send this back to staff for next steps. Who would like to take a stab at that?
Speaker 3: Mr. THOMAS This is I mean, this is what I'm hearing and thinking. Based on what I'm hearing from from the council tonight, I think we should staff city staff should go back and will then go back to work tomorrow. We're going to keep enforcing codes and keep doing what he does every day. Yes. In the meantime, Greg and I, I think, are going to do a couple of things. One, we're going to start working on sort of packaging and providing a little bit more of a report that focuses around the the kinds of reports we're getting . We sort of talked about this in one of our items. Things would be improved like this. We called it transparency. I think it's a better way of saying is getting more information to the to this council in the near future about the kinds of things, the types of cases we have, how we're approaching them, how we're getting back to people. And I think this is, you know, something that in this next report we can do in the next couple of months before mid-cycle, I'm thinking about a two step process. There's a report that comes back in the next couple of months and maybe it's around priorities and a little more information about how we're operating things. Greg in Orlando and I and the other enforcement officers can really start looking, giving you some better ideas about how we're integrating these new types of complaints into this old system and some adjustments to the priority system. I think that that next report will help inform your conversations at mid-cycle budget. It'll give us a chance to think a little bit more about the priorities, think a little bit more about, inform you and the community, a little bit more about how we operate today and continue to develop our thinking around this idea of coordination, consolidation . If we want to if you want to go down that road, what will it really take? Um, I mean, I think we've looked in a very cursory way, um, but I think that sets up a sort of mid-cycle conversation.
Speaker 0: Anyone want to anything? Let me just call on the city manager and city attorney. Do you all have any thoughts or comments, Mr. Levitt.
Speaker 11: I, I think what Andrew suggests is is an excellent way to go. And I've got some ideas, too. And we could even come back with an off agenda report prior to the mid-cycle to if I'm thinking timing wise, because mid-cycle, we're going to start to have the study sessions in May so we can do that prior to that.
Speaker 0: That's great.
Speaker 9: Councilmember Vella and I was just going to say if there's any additional trainings or anything like that, because we are sort of moving our staff outside of building code. And so and thinking about our other priorities that we've set as council and folding that in.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, I, I, yeah, I totally agree. I think that's.
Speaker 0: Mr. McFadden, you can add anything to that.
Speaker 3: It's just one of the things that's come up over and over again, the noise issue. Our noise ordinance is horrible.
Speaker 0: In the microphones. We can hear it. Yeah, maybe we need.
Speaker 3: To rewrite our noise ordinances. So that's something we're going to be looking at it. I mean, currently, if you don't want to do a noise violation, it's so many minutes and so many decibels at the property line in an hour. And it's it's almost impossible to prove. And so this is some of the the frustration staff has with the noise ordinance. I think it's time for us to go back and look at that and and part of this whole package, because that seems to be an ongoing issue.
Speaker 11: And it's likely the issue the police have when they do it after hours.
Speaker 3: On everybody, it just it's just almost impossible to find someone in violation unless they're just blaring their music for hours at a time. So.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Good to hear.
Speaker 3: Just to emphasize that point, because this is a real bone of contention. I mean, if you're complaining about the tenant in the unit next to you, that's not a property line. So that the ordinance doesn't even apply now. I mean, we basically if you're if that tenant next door to you is making all that noise, Greg and Orlando have to go out to the property line out on the street with a decibel meter.
Speaker 0: It's not going to okay.
Speaker 4: Cathy Rhody Well, you put that on your own plate. Andrew So I didn't do a referral for that or my colleagues. I just want to make sure that it's clear that I meant I thought I heard that somehow because somebody is a small property owner, they should be exempt from code enforcement or that we shouldn't make sure they keep their buildings up to code. Because, you know, there's the state law that requires you provide habitable premises. And, you know, I just looked at this one here, just scrolling through 12 x six union, which I looked at, it looked like it's a two unit property, illegal electrical work done causing fire at property 1209 Union Street I'm sorry, fire damage observed inside a bathroom exhaust in one of the lower units. So I mean, to me, somebody shouldn't be get a free pass on that just because they're a small property owner. We should we should enforce that. And and I don't think we're we're doing this with the intention of going after any group. A group. Group C We're trying to make sure that everyone who lives in Alameda lives in a safe building. So. And just because you're small business does not exempt you from that requirement. Sorry.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. We have one last comment from the vice mayor and then I. It's 10:00 people in Rome. And that would be.
Speaker 7: Yeah. So I just want to as we're reprioritizing. It would be very easy to make a very detailed list. And I would argue I would recommend that instead of think, think in terms of high level concepts and whatever else, so that we're not coming back and having to readjust. Now, noises, litter is more important than garbage. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Oh, sorry, Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 6: The point that I make, the point that I'm making when it comes to small property owners is simply this, is that the data in the staff report says that we don't have an abundance of code enforcement issues. That there is not that much. And then to suddenly, you know, create this regime that's oriented towards this, the data is not there for it. It seems to me, yes, there are problem properties, but it seems to me that we have the capacity to deal with it. So if we're going to increase the capacity, I have to wonder is if we're going to go overboard in trying to find, you know, problems where there are no problems.
Speaker 0: Thank you, everyone, for your comments.
Speaker 7: Are you coming back with the noise ordinance as well? Sorry, that wasn't clear. Okay.
Speaker 0: That was.
Speaker 9: Your ideas?
Speaker 0: Yes. I want to stay within the Brown Act in the description that was it was in here. But we've heard the comments, staff has heard our comments. We look forward to everything the city manager describe for next steps. And with that, we thank everyone. We move on to item six C.
Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Missile Code by amending Section 1-7 Administrative Citations of Chapter one General concerning code enforcement and administrative citations.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Review the Planning and Building Code Enforcement Program in Response to the City Council’s November 19, 2019 Referral, and Provide Direction on Potential Future Changes to the Existing Enforcement Program. (Planning, Building and Transportation 481005)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_02182020_2020-7705
|
Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Missile Code by amending Section 1-7 Administrative Citations of Chapter one General concerning code enforcement and administrative citations.
Speaker 0: The city attorney even shared the floor.
Speaker 7: Good evening, mayor and Council. This report continues the conversation with you about code enforcement. One of the stellar slides that you saw from the building official was that one of the immediate things that we are looking at is to streamline the administrative citation process. We had an opportunity to look at that with our colleagues in the planning, building and Transportation Department. And we thought that like the priorities that were very old, the ordinance that authorizes administrative citations is quite old and needed updating. And this ordinance essentially accomplishes that purpose. It does not engage in major changes, but it makes clear that administrative citations can be issued for a full range of municipal code violations. It makes clear that when an administrative citation is issued, payment of the fine is not simply sufficient. That one actually has to comply with the citation by abating the violation. It makes clear that once one receives a citation, that transfer of the property does not eliminate the citation. And these are just some of the many various enhancements that we're proposing to you tonight. And I thought about administrative citations. It is an incredibly important tool in the code enforcement arena. And I think more and more so in recent years, court systems are incredibly congested, and it's not a realistic thing for cases to be filed in court. And the first opportunity, nor is it really fair to the underlying responsible party to not be given a lower risk opportunity to come into compliance and administrative citations is just that tool. It allows for more cases to be processed. It allows cases to be processed more effectively. And when there is truly noncompliance, it allows the funnel to funnel down to the number of cases that really cannot be resolved through administrative citation and needs additional prosecutorial support. So we think it revising this section is an important step in collaboration with our colleagues, and we look forward to working with them.
Speaker 0: To give the public speakers on their side. Okay. So Counsel, we've read this very brief staff report and heard the presentation. Do we have any questions? Before I hear a motion councilmember.
Speaker 9: I'd like to move approval of this item, and I'd like to thank our city attorney and his office for their work on this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Village. We have a second.
Speaker 7: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved by Councilmember Vela and seconded by vice mayor next way. And you have a question, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 7: Sure. So I appreciate that there's an advance deposit hardship waiver for those who are fined. You know, one of the issues that has been found is that fines and start compounding sometimes and whatever else. Do we have any hardship provisions in here for for folks who have been found in violation and do have they do end up having some sort of a site citation? How that how that can be a. Or at least how it doesn't compound and become a problem. I'm not sure I entirely understand the question and the advance deposit, the way the waiver for the advance deposit essentially is to allow low income personnel to seek a waiver from having to deposit the fine. Yes, nothing accrues if there is a waiver. And so sorry, I understood that I meant once they are fined after the fact because this is the advance the advance deposit. But I guess the question is if they get the waiver for. Ahead of time. I'm assuming that if they go through the that's not that's not the case. Vice Mayor So what happens is that someone receives an administrative citation. Yes. Someone will say, Oh, I need to appeal, but I don't have the financial wherewithal to deposit the fine. So then they apply with the finance director to say, Can I not deposit the fine and contest my citation? And assuming it is proven, the finance director can say, okay, you don't have to deposit the fine and nothing is accruing other than the fine itself, right? And then they go through the hearing. They their appeal is unsuccessful and they now have a fine to pay. That's right. Right. And at some point in time, because we're talking about collection agencies and whatever else, their their start to be accruing of often accruing interest on those fines. Right. So so the late fees only accrue after a long period of nonpayment. And while the non that the the advance deposit just causes you to not have to deposit, that's all. And so let's say the hearing officer finds for the appellant, the appellant will be given a certain amount of time to pay, but let's say six months go by and nothing is deposited. At some point, fines start and penalty start accruing, right? Yes. And so that that's what I'm concerned about. I understand the advance deposit, but say with parking tickets, etc.. State analysis of what's happening with low income households. They get a parking ticket or two. They go on. They go unpaid. They start a career in late fines and penalties, etc., to the point that that that actually they they can start, you know, people can start having thousands of dollars. You know, people who can't or having a hard time paying a $55 parking fee all of a sudden have 1500 dollars in debt. And it's a and it's impacting them and whatever else. I guess I'm just asking, is there anywhere I didn't see it in here, but is there any any provision at this point in time? Is it something that I would like to approve this tonight? But is there a way for us to bring back something to just address that issue? The council could give us direction so that when it comes back, we will work with our colleagues to look at that particular issue. Okay. Thank you. I would like if I know there's a second or the motion, if there was if the mover was was amenable to that.
Speaker 0: Well, or is that is staff direction sufficient or.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: So. So we've had a motion second and staff direction from the vice mayor.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Okay. Everyone ready to vote? Yes. All in favor. I opposed. Abstain. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And now we go on to thank you, everybody who is here for code enforcement items. Now we go into item six D.
Speaker 5: Introduction of.
Speaker 1: Ordinance, amending the meaning of the code by adding Section five Dash 31 to establish procedures for expediting permit processing for electric vehicle charging.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 1-7 (Administrative Citations) of Chapter I (General) Concerning Code Enforcement and Administrative Citations. (City Attorney)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_02182020_2020-7629
|
Speaker 1: Ordinance, amending the meaning of the code by adding Section five Dash 31 to establish procedures for expediting permit processing for electric vehicle charging.
Speaker 9: Stations.
Speaker 3: I'll make this quick. This is a simple code amendment. It's all about climate action and trying to help with the our ability to get money to help us put in chargers. Greg and the building department have had streamlined over the counter electronic plan permits for EV chargers for several years. What we've never did is do these code amendments which are required, which will if we want to apply for money in the future. So we're really trying to just do this to put the city of Alameda in a good position to be able to access money for EV chargers in the future. If you if anybody needs an easy charger, that's pretty straightforward. Just come on down to the permit center or submit your plan check. You can do it today. You don't need to wait for this ordinance, but we hope to be putting in more EV chargers around the city in the future with some financial help from outside agencies
Speaker 0: . Yeah. Move approval. So any public speakers on this one? Okay. Any council questions? We have a motion from Casa Rodeo. We have a second from Councilmember Vela. Any discussion? Hearing? None. All in favor. I oppose. Abstained. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. See, council, we can do this. Item six.
Speaker 1: E public hearing to consider.
Speaker 5: Introduction of.
Speaker 1: Ordinance amending the Alameda Missile Code by amending Article one Uniform Codes relating to Building Housing and Technical Codes of Chapter 13 Building and Housing. To top the 2019 edition of the California Building Code, the 2019 edition of the California Residential Code. The 2019 edition of the California Historical Building Code. The 2918 edition of the California Electrical Code. The 2019 edition of the Code. The 2019 edition of the California Mechanical Code. The 2019 edition of the California Energy Code. The 2019 edition of the California Green Building Code and amending Section 15 Dash one of Chapter 15 Fire Prevention to top the 2019 edition of the California Fire Code with Alameda Local Amendments.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 5-31 to Establish Procedures for Expediting Permit Processing for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. (Planning, Building and Transportation 481003)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_02042020_2020-7569
|
Speaker 1: to operate transitional housing for refugees and recommendation to approve the finding that the short term lease transaction with shelter and peace is exempt from the Surplus Lands Act as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Potter. Are you presenting on this? And this is this is something that has been in the works for a while. It's a project that I'm really proud of our city council for moving forward. And I think it really just puts into action the slogan Getting a little faded, but still as meaningful as ever in the back of the room that everyone belongs here. Miss Potter.
Speaker 8: Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter, the clean development director. And the mayor has just on my staff, which is fine with me because I wholeheartedly agree that this is something that the city and the council has been at for several years now. And it has been quite the process to get this single family home out at the base renovated. And the renovation is currently underway so that we can enter into a lease with a nonprofit called Shelter in Peace, who is going to run transitional housing for immigrants and refugees at the house. And so this is the very last step, I'm quite hopeful, which is the introduction of an ordinance for a lease with shelter in peace. That is a one year ordinance with four and one year lease with for one year options to extend for for a total term of five years. The lease transaction this evening is exempt from the Surplus Lands Act because given the short term nature of the lease, it is not considered a property disposition under the Act. And then just a few highlights of the term of the lease. It is a one year annual rent, a security deposit of $1,000. The use will be limited to transitional housing for refugees.
Speaker 0: You said it was a one year annual rent. Did you mean to say a dollar amount?
Speaker 8: Maybe $1? Sorry. Thank you. The tenant who is sheltering peace will do all of the referring and placement of the families, and they will be responsible for maintaining insurance and for all of the standard repairs and maintenance. And with that, staff is recommending that the City Council introduce an ordinance on first reading for for this lease for the single family home on San Diego Road.
Speaker 0: Could I ask that whoever is playing music or a cell phone step out of the out of the chambers. Oh, okay. But perhaps it was just him. Okay, so any questions or comments from them? From the council?
Speaker 7: No problem.
Speaker 0: No emotion.
Speaker 9: I'm of approval. Second.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have a motion. It's been seconded. All in favor. I and it's a the motion passes unanimously. And I just want to thank shelter and peace and Ms.. Potter and your staff for all the good work in bringing this this project to fruition. And we look forward to doing our part to help this community. Thank you so much for being here. And, you know, we actually have a I know, applause rule. I guess we did for a couple of the proclamations. Do you want to say something?
Speaker 8: And I just want to say thank you. I want to say on behalf of.
Speaker 0: Yeah, go ahead and introduce yourself. Do you want to introduce yourself?
Speaker 8: Oh, I'm out of Ross. I'm the chair of Shelter and Peace. The whole board is here tonight and we owe very pleased at this forum of this ordinance. And if I could just quickly.
Speaker 0: Introduce actually, I'd love to have you introduce and bring your board up. Yeah, come on up and. Are you?
Speaker 8: Introduce yourselves.
Speaker 0: Yeah, everybody just introduce yourself quickly. I'm Sister Pat.
Speaker 7: Nangle. And thanks to each and every one of you. Good evening. Member Council members. Michael Yoshi. One of us. Unanimous.
Speaker 0: Welcome.
Speaker 9: Hi, I'm Andrea. Report a member of the board.
Speaker 7: I'm Bob Key, member of the board.
Speaker 0: Nice to meet you. All right. Thank you very much for your good work. All right. Thank you. So then we move on to item six P.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager or Designee to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a One-Year Lease With Four One-Year Extension Options, Each Subject to Reasonable Discretionary Approval of the City Manager, with Shelter In Peace, Inc., a California Non-Profit Corporation, for 2815 San Diego Road Located at Alameda Point to Operate Transitional Housing for Refugees; and
Recommendation to Approve the Finding that the Short-Term Lease Transaction with Shelter in Peace, Inc. is Exempt from the Surplus Lands Act, as Amended. (Community Development 236)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_02042020_2020-7660
|
Speaker 0: Nice to meet you. All right. Thank you very much for your good work. All right. Thank you. So then we move on to item six P.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to accept update on recently installed and ongoing traffic safety and traffic calming activities.
Speaker 0: All right. And presenting this item is our city engineer, Scott Wickstrom. Welcome.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Scott Wickstrom. I am the city engineer. I apologize.
Speaker 0: What did I say? City attorney.
Speaker 7: Or.
Speaker 0: Engineer? I did. Okay, good.
Speaker 11: Apologize for my voice a little bit. I've been fighting that cold from so tonight. Presenting with me will be Don Emery.
Speaker 0: To use your microphone.
Speaker 11: Lean in as much as I can.
Speaker 0: I know I'm taller. When?
Speaker 11: Tonight presented with me will be Donya Mary, who's a principal engineer with us, and she will share the presentation with me. I want to start really kind of, you know, laying out why are we here and how this item came before council. Between August in November of last year, there were 16 bike and ped pedestrian collisions involving minors. The photo on the right was a silent protest that members of the community concerned parents held before the November 5th City Council meeting, where this body adopted the Vision Zero policy document. And then two days later at on November 7th, the active transportation plan kicked off along with its open house. And I think you started the meeting tonight, recognizing that the unfortunate tragedy that occurred on Friday brings poignancy to the efforts that we're trying to achieve here. So. They would acknowledge that together these items have really highlighted traffic safety as a significant and immediate concern of both the community and the council. So we're not here to talk about Vision zero per se, but I want to at least bring it up in terms of a context. It is the guiding principle for our planning, design and maintenance for all of our transportation activities. The goal is really safety for all modes and all users. And really the underlying goal is eliminating fatalities and serious injuries through education, enforcement and engineering. One of the things I want to least broach tonight is that it really is a data driven approach. We look to existing data to the best extent we can, and we use that data to to hone in our efforts where they can be most effective and have the greatest impact. I'm going to show you a map that you can't read, but this is really collision data that has been gathered for the last ten years. And the little dots represent incidents for either bikes, peds or vehicles. It really is part of the vision zero effort. There will be more discussion about this as the Vision zero item comes before City Council. A key thing to point out, though, is the idea of high incident corridors. And these are areas where we want to begin to focus our efforts of how we can make improvements as quickly as we can to have the maximum impact.
Speaker 0: So those are the colored areas that get you to.
Speaker 11: The colored area, so that the two blue lines obviously on the west we have Webster and Park Street to the east and then there's Lincoln and Central and Grand Street are ones that have already been identified through the visual process, and you'll hear more about that in the coming months as that whole process comes forward. But that that serve to help us as we as we go through our process for immediate and short term responses. This is really the same data in a slightly different format. On the left, you'll see the total number of collisions a year. And it's and if you look at it, there really have been close to 800 collisions every single day or every single year. That's over two collisions every day. It's a significant item. It's also as you look at that graph, of course, of ten years, it's stubbornly persistent. You can be generous and say there's a slight downward trend, but it's not that significant. You look at the pedestrian and bicycling involved collisions and for our most vulnerable users and those are also holding steady. One of the things that we have committed to our staff and as obviously council is committed to as well with the Vision Zero, is to do what we can to bring those numbers down. And that's really what the Vision Zero policy is intended to do. One of the things I want to caution the public and also council is to recognize that this is not going to be accomplished over the course of weeks or months. It's a it's a many year effort that through continuous improvement and continuous efforts, that we will gradually look to reduce both the number of collisions and, almost most importantly, the severity of those collisions that lead to permanent life altering injuries. So with that, I'm going to hand off the presentation to Dana, who's going to kind of walk through what we have done in our short and near term to address traffic safety, don't you?
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Scott. Good evening, Madam Mayor, and members of the City Council. Tonight I'm here to let me to my slide go over two major topics. One is our immediate response to the children involved collisions. And secondly, to go over our next steps and our near-term plans. On October 28th, 2019, the city manager called for an immediate an emergency meeting in response to the data that's shown on this map. This map depicts the 16 locations that, unfortunately, children and and minors were involved in collisions throughout the city. The green dots depict the additional nearby locations that we looked at. The very first thing that we did was form an interdisciplinary response team, including members from our city managers, office engineers, planners, police officers and school officials when available. What we did is that the map that I showed earlier, the 16 identified locations, we visited each site as a team and determined what happened, what was the what we knew of the cause of the collision. But what else could we do in terms of traffic safety improvements at that location? Our lieutenant showed us how the collision occurred, additional information that was available to him. School officials also joined us in the field and explained to us typical traffic patterns around the schools and school drop off zones and other concerns they had around their school. Since we were there doing this investigation, while we, in a period of 6 to 8 weeks, visited all of our sites and gathered information, the police department also ran a special enforcement effort on overtime in the month of November to issue over 400 tickets around the locations of the known collisions. All in all, we developed 25 work plans, which included the original 16 plus the nine nearby locations that we developed work plans and scheduled the work through our contractor. And some of that I would quickly go over some of the some of the things that we did that we were able to achieve pretty quickly. One was daylighting. Daylighting was adopted by city council, and it's basically red painted curbs at intersections to improve visibility. We thought this was a pretty simple improvement that we could do in almost all the locations we looked at opportunities to either extend or introduce red red curbs for the first time. Part of Daylighting is a notification process, which is a courtesy letter that we send out to the residents who are losing parking or businesses that were losing parking. So the notification letters went out in two phases, and we did that in two phases because we wanted to quickly start the work scheduled with our contractor. So some of our residents got this notification letter, but the next thing that we did, as you can see, is add ladder crosswalks and do a striping refresh. So this is the intersection of Encino Avenue and High Street. Here we refreshed the striping at the crosswalk with a thermoplastic, yellow thermoplastic paint and a ladder of stripes. As you can see, it really enhanced the safety, the visibility of the crosswalks at this location and really brightened up the look intersection. Another safety element that we introduced through our project was an advanced stopper, so that the stop bar basically pushed the vehicles further away from the crosswalk by moving the stop legend further down and making vehicles stop further away and of course, refreshing the the crosswalks and the center lines. This is a before and after picture of Lincoln Avenue and Sally's Avenue. So those are basically the three top things that we did at the 25 intersections, which was our immediate response to the children involved collisions. We knew that that wasn't going to be the end of our traffic safety efforts in Alameda. So right now, I will go over what our next steps are, which are basically our near-term improvements. And given that our concern, and rightly so, was due to the collisions involving children, mostly around schools, walking and biking to school. Our number one focus right now for near-term improvements is around schools. The next focus will be intersections and corridors known, as Scott mentioned, to have high collisions and speeding and other intersection issues that we have data on already. The third is a traffic signal timing updates for increased safety at the intersection. And lastly, it's infrastructure modernization to give us the capabilities to run the special timing, I guess, controller features that would be available to us to make the intersection safer in terms of how it is timed. So quickly, go over these four things in terms of school. Our number one priority, I have great news to share that we have seven assessments already in hand. This kind of gives us a good head start or a boost in our efforts. The assessments that we have in hand are called Safe Routes to School Assessments funded by Ictsi Safer Afterschool Program. And I won't go through the list, but I have listed the seven locations that we have already and our plan is to actually implement the striping plans. I'm sorry. Our plan is to implement all striping recommendations that have been given to us through these school assessments. However, if you could just focus on the fine print on the bottom of this exhibit, which is an example at Franklin Elementary School, the consultants from Ictsi that gave us the assessments basically said that these are just our recommendations and actual engineering analysis are required for some of the things that we're putting on a map, basically. Which is which brings me to my third bullet point here, which is perform engineering analysis as needed. So depending on what was recommended to us, the ones that require engineering analysis, we would do that next and seek funding for the warranted recommendations. Typically, things that require engineering analysis or if there is recommendations regarding traffic signals, a stop, a new stop control intersection and our fobs, the flashing beacons for the crosswalk. And there is a combination of all those three things mentioned in the seven assessments we have, but we will start off with our striping and work our way down. But definitely safe routes to school assessments will be our starting point in addressing our first goal. And in terms of intersection improvements, we have Lincoln and Walnut listed as a location. Unfortunately, this location has been known for collisions. We recently had another collision here and what we're planning on doing here, sorry, there's a lot of information here, but just focus on the green boxes, which is the first thing we want to do is do a lane drop west of the intersection. So so right now you have four lanes total two lanes in each direction. And we want to get that to one lane in each direction. And in order to do that, west of the intersection, we have to drop the lane 2 to 1. So as you're approaching the intersection, there's just one lane plus a left turn pocket that we want to add on both sides. So we want to have two left turn pockets, single lane with enhanced crosswalks so that you see the it'll be a ladder crosswalk as well as yield lines before the crosswalk for vehicles to stop for for pedestrians crossing the intersection. And lastly, we have a hatch painted bulb outs, so we want to shorten the crosswalk. So the distance through the crosswalk is shorter, vehicles are stopping and the lanes have been narrowed down. This is just an intersection improvement and we do believe that Lincoln Avenue needs a further all corridor evaluation. And like I said, these are just our near-term goals, that that is a future goal for us to look into the full corridor at a later time. Another example of an intersection improvement we are doing near-term and this work actually got done yesterday. I was in the field verifying it is at the intersection of Burnside Boulevard and High Street here. For the first time we are introducing a new crosswalk leg and pedestrian. Signals. And in addition, we are doing ladder crosswalks all around the intersection to add visibility and just bold, you know, crosswalks for pedestrians where because this intersection has the, I guess up to date controller cabinet and controllers, we're able to run lead pedestrian in a interval for all the phases of this intersection. What this means is kind of like along Park Street, pedestrians are able to start crossing the street while all vehicles are at a stop. And in terms of corridor projects, I will just highlight and repeat what Scott brought up in terms of the data that we have regarding our high injury corridors, which are shown as Webster, Webster Street, Park Street and Grand Lincoln and Central. Two of our corridors have, I guess, existing projects that just need completion. One is the Webster Street Corridor Project. It's I've learned has is a ten year project. And we have some technology to implement or install in the cabinet to basically run signal coordination along Webster. Likewise, Park Street received the technology needed in the cabinets and we just need to complete the signal coordination portion of that. So in terms of signal coordination and timing update, those are the two corridors that we're focusing on this year. And in terms of other improvements for our high injury network corridors, we were planning on Daylighting all along Lincoln Avenue Central and Grand. And so I'm going to combine my third and fourth point, which is traffic signal timing for safety and modernization of our traffic signal system. So there are features that we can run at our intersection that would enhance our safety at the intersection greatly, in my opinion. And one of it is I've listed them there as basic signal timing updates that we could do for traffic safety. An all red phase is a it's like a safety buffer to to basically have all vehicles, pads, everyone at a stop before the next phase gets their green. It kind of gets everyone a chance to, like, recheck themselves, be aware of their surroundings, and then the next phase will go. It is a slight delay at the intersection, but a one or 2/2 stop is very important and increasing safety at the intersection. The next bullet point I have is a minimum green time for bicyclists. This is great for bicyclists and not so great for vehicles, but that is okay with this signal timing changes. What we would be doing is looking at every intersection in the city and ensuring that a bicyclist has the sufficient time to safely cross the intersection to the last leg, making a left turn, basically the longest trajectory from one direction to another versus the view of vehicle. So right now, our traffic signals are timed for a minimum green time for a vehicle to get to an intersection. I don't think that is the safest programing and that is another effort. So what we would have to do is re time, all of our signals increasing our minimum green so that if a bicyclist were there, they could make it to the intersection and not get stuck in a yellow or red halfway through the intersection. The third thing I already mentioned is lead pedestrian interval. This allows pedestrians to get into the crosswalk in advance of vehicles. And lastly, it's time of day signal timing plans. So right now, our city, all of our intersections are timed, fixed. So what that means is that it's regardless of an afternoon peak traffic time or school dismissal time or 2 a.m., when traffic is very light, we are running the same exact times throughout the day with no differentiation for the change in traffic. So while we are like I have a picture of an old cabinet, that's basically what most of our city is like in the picture. To the right is this traffic signal cabinet, which is which has the equipment needed to run some of these things. But running the time of day signal plans would be something that for the most part, we have some of our controllers that can handle this change. So I believe this would make our corridors more efficient and help greatly with our traffic safety efforts so quickly. There are some other things that I would like us to implement near term, and one is a yellow reflective border around signals so that you could see from afar that you're approaching a traffic signal. The pedestrian countdown signals. I know we have them mostly everywhere, but not all intersections have it. And lastly, we have some intersections where the crosswalks are missing. The signal head for a pedestrian. So this is a matter of purchasing equipment to ensure that if a pedestrians crossing the crosswalk, not only are they getting the information of not only are they getting an API to safely cross the intersection, but a countdown to tell them how much time they have to get through the intersection. And so I will actually pass it back to Scott to continue.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Great presentation. And I want to ask, I don't think this was included in our packet. Will you be able to make that available to us? I think that's great. And I also wanted to just let the public know that in the back of the room, we have Lieutenant Matt McMullen from APD Wave to the people . So thank you. He came particularly for this item. Thank you, Mr. Wickstrom.
Speaker 11: I'd like to continue and build off what Daniel was saying. So we have a very active program to improve traffic safety. But there's another component to traffic safety, which is basically good maintenance of our existing infrastructure. So signs and striping anyone who's been anywhere west of Grande Street has noticed stop signs, stop legends, crosswalks that have been re striped. We re striped over 250 intersections west of Grand. Focusing on those three components. We are moving on to our next phase, which is really looking from grande to park and then eventually park to the east and the island and eventual kind of work away into Bay Farm Island as well. I will say that payments is also a component of traffic safety in the sense that while we've revamped our our our paving program, we're doing more than just 2 to 3 miles the streets per year with a lot of preventative maintenance. We're going to be doing ten miles of pavement maintenance this next year or this year or 2020. And with that comes all new striping and opportunities to look at ways to improve our our striping crosswalks, potentially painted billboards where appropriate. So that's another major component. And then I want to talk about sidewalks, because sidewalks are a critical component of our transportation network. There's a lot of dots on there. So this is kind of what we call zone four, which is between Grand and Broadway. You notice we tend to work left to right across the city with our with a program. We're going we've transitioned to a new kind of method for sidewalks where we're doing a lot more cutting of offsets. And it's going to help us go from a several hundred remove and replaces to over 2500 potential trip and fall hazards that will be removed just in this section alone. Staff report should be coming to you in two weeks to award that contract, which we'd certainly appreciate.
Speaker 0: It just approved it for the next agenda.
Speaker 11: I yes, it will be next two weeks from now. Yeah. Want to talk a little bit about some capital projects that are in construction that are near nearing completion. Obviously, the cross Alameda Trail is set for a grand opening on the 29th. They took half of the fences down for the remaining section today. They're down tomorrow. So if you want to ride the cross Alameda Trail on your bike or walk it from Webster to Main Street, you should be able to do that on Wednesday. But certainly by the end of this week, the business park over at Harbor Bay has that long had some concerns about traffic and the ability for their workers to leave safely. At the end of the day. And we are in progress of installing two new traffic signals on what are called A street and B street or Penumbra Street. Those are in progress and should be operational by the end of the month or not early into March. So those are well under construction as well. And perhaps a couple of things that you might not be as attuned to from, I'll say, a city council perspective, but we do have a fair amount of design that we're working on in the background. So Island McCartney Intersection has long been on our, I'll say our our work plan for a capital budget. And originally the idea was to install a signal here. We've been working with one of our traffic consultants who did it recently completed an intersection control evaluation, if you will. What is the best way to manage traffic here? And there's the idea came out about what about possibly doing a roundabout at this location. This is something that we recognize. We're going to go back and make a visit by the Transportation Commission, bring this idea through them and get a little more input and feedback from them before potentially bring it back up here to council. That's something we're working on in the background as well. Hopefully that will be to Transportation Commission this spring. And then I do want to talk a little bit about protected intersections. Most collisions occur at or in the vicinity of an intersection, and the latest practice or latest guidance is to protect the intersection as best possible, to separate the pedestrian movement from bicycle movements, from vehicular movements. And these are sometimes referred to as Dot's intersections. We currently have eight of these in design. Seven of them are out on Alameda Point. A lot of them are with the base we use project which we hope to kick off in in 2021. The one that's going to come first is likely going to be well is going to be Otis and Grand as part of the Otis Street Safety Improvement Project. So there's a lot of exciting stuff that we're working on in the background, and I also want to at least put some thought through that. Traffic safety happens as part of development projects as well. Side a, phase one that was really early in the morning when I took that photo. But they have the pavement down. They're beginning to get the sidewalks and the bike paths in there. It may depend on a couple items we're trying to work through open to the public as early as April this year. And you'll have access through to see play in the ground and potentially access back between the north and south of Alameda Point and then Del Monte Construction. The new developer pulled permits last month and they have actively begun construction. And the big carrot there is that Clement Avenue will be extended from its current terminus at Entrance Road and carry all the way through to Atlantic. So that'll be a wonderful addition for it. So that kind of concludes our presentation that Danny and I had prepared, and both of us are available for any questions, anyone we might have.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, both of you. That was a great presentation. I do we have public comments on this item. Speaker Okay, well, shall we hear a public speaker and then have to have comments and questions? Okay.
Speaker 1: Jeff Not.
Speaker 0: Good evening.
Speaker 7: Evening, mayor. Council members. I'm Jeff Canals and I live at the corner of Lincoln and Walnut and I feel like I've hit the lottery. After hearing that presentation about what's going to happen at Lincoln and Walnut, but I'm going to go ahead and read this anyway to put an exclamation point on why the work needs to be done. According to Alameda transportation statistics, there have been 47 collisions at this intersection in the past five years. In one, one of my cars parked at the curb was totaled. In another, my fence was taken out in four separate crashes. The neighbor across the street has lost two cars parked on the curb and two fences. To be fair, the city has implemented traffic calming measures. Cornered parking spaces have been replaced with red curbs to improve sightlines when crossing Lincoln with a newly repainted crosswalk, a neon yellow pedestrian crossing signs. But the collisions between cars trying to cross Lincoln keep happening. In the past six months, there have been four accidents, all resulting in personal injury requiring ambulance transport to a hospital. In one recent collision, it resulted in a car crashing through the front bedroom of a house where a mother and her two children were sleeping. The house has been red tagged and the occupants displaced, still not back. There are several conditions that make this intersection so difficult for drivers. We already know that drivers regularly exceed almeida's 25 mile per hour speed limit. On Lincoln. It's more like 35 to 45 on the stretch between Willow and Oak. I know because I live there. As speeding drivers approach the intersection going east from the light at Willow, they have to merge from two lanes to one. The merge happens right at the intersection of Lincoln and Walnut. Going west from the lighted oh. There's a split from one lane to two drivers behind a slower car step on the gas at the split. And that acceleration happens right before the intersection of Lincoln and Walnut. Drivers already exceeding safe speed limits in a hurry, distracted on their cell phones, often encounter cars on Walnut wanting to cross Lincoln, not to mention students from Love Elementary. Love the name of that school. By the way, I'm a retired principal from Alameda Unified and Alameda High School, just two blocks away, one to across the street vehicles , including the mail truck who parks there every day at the red curb, obstruct sightlines and they never get tickets when there is an event closing Park Street, a default detours Walnut Street, which exacerbates an already difficult crossing. And I promise that I did not have any prior knowledge to your presentation. One obvious solution is to change the lane configuration on Lincoln from two lanes each way to one. I just wrote this tonight.
Speaker 0: It's brilliant.
Speaker 7: With a middle lane designated for turning cars, Broadway has this configuration. My neighbors and I have been in contact with the city as vice mayor and city manager. To their credit, they have met with us to discuss the accidents that have caused significant property damage and personal injury. We have heard there may be a plan to mitigate the danger. I'm almost done last sentence to indicate the conditions that link in a wall and we would love to know what the plan is. Thank you very much for that tonight. And I would love to know how soon it might be put in place.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your comments. Okay. These are all our public comments. Correct. Okay. We we will close I have a comment and I was thinking I didn't know we had a retired principal in the chambers, but I was thinking how nice it is to have all these students from middle school and high school listening because it's for all of you. You're one of the reasons we want to keep our streets and our sidewalks safe so that your parents will let you walk and ride your bike to school. But we want to have safe ways for you to do it. So with that, and thank you to to both of our folks from the city engineer's office, because this is a it's a big issue for this council, for our city. And so with that, let's let's start out with our comments. So we just go down the line or to somebody somebody just itching to go first.
Speaker 3: Vice Mayor Doesn't matter to me.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, okay then on my right. Okay.
Speaker 3: So couple questions since since I got the mic first. So that gentleman raised some interesting questions. Can we get some answers to those?
Speaker 0: Oh, you know, you.
Speaker 12: Are schedule for Walnut and Lincoln is. So we have the plans, as I showed, and it's a matter of getting our contractor crisp company to schedule the work. So we are expecting it in in spring, so within a month or so.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Yeah. All right, you heard it here.
Speaker 3: So then what's our long term? I'm sorry. I mean, what's our long term? Because it's not just that section of Lincoln. I mean, all of Lincoln is kind of a speedway.
Speaker 12: Right. So as I mentioned, we do believe that Lincoln Avenue needs a fuller full corridor analysis. And we expect that there's a lot of community outreach required, additional funding and design for what could be done. Narrowing the four lanes to two lanes with some billboards are just things that we're imagining. The lane shift actually would offset some of our traffic signals and the location of the signal heads. So there's some modifications along the corridors that are needed and each traffic signal modification is a few hundred thousand dollars at the least. So we are hoping to revisit or scope out this project. And this year, like we want to look at the full corridor and have like a ticket, an item, I guess a price tag to what we need, how much we need to fully address the full corridor.
Speaker 3: And are there things we can do on an emergency basis? You know, like, for example, temporarily shut down lanes if kids are getting hit lower the speed limit in school zones, because I thought we had that authority under the state law.
Speaker 12: So. Sure. So regarding the speed limit we are I'm putting together an RFP to do a citywide speed survey. I'm working with our police department to determine the segments that need to be surveyed. Once we have that data, the Council can and we will share that with you. And there there is some ability for the agency to lower speed limits around school zones. Now, there's I think I know of Sacramento who has done it, but in order to get that far, we need our speed survey done first. And the speed survey actually also it's very tricky because the speed survey could show higher speed limits. And in that cases, lowering it where it is, you're kind of tied to what you could do there. But we do have more ability around school zones.
Speaker 3: Okay. And then the other thing I think I asked this last year when we had this discussion, I remember working in San Francisco, and if you were a pedestrian, you could pretty much walk down some of the major arteries to Market Street because the lights and the crosswalks were time to pedestrians. I mean, if we thought about implementing something like that to make it, I mean, we're doing it for bicycles, but making our main streets park in Webster and so on. A little more pedestrian friendly.
Speaker 12: Yes. Great recommendation. And that is something where I'm looking at and considering all the safety improvements that we could do with traffic signal with our traffic signal system, some of our intersections have obsolete technology, obsolete cabinets and controllers. We just don't have the ability we have the ability to replace the cabinet and by the cap, the controllers, basically the computer running the intersection to install these features along certain business districts like Park in Webster. We are definitely considering additional pedestrian timings because we know the volume. Is there more? Not at every intersection in the city, but definitely along certain corridors. There's a need and it's being considered. Definitely.
Speaker 3: Well then I'll just make some quick comments. I appreciate your presentation. I appreciate the fact that our staff has prioritized working on this. I mean, to me, this is the one thing we cannot get wrong because I don't want to look in the face of a parent or a child who may have lost their mother or father . You know, some of us that are not kids also get hit in the street. Right. I see one of our surviving accident victims in the audience. So I'm intrigued by the, uh, the roundabout. On on Harbor Bay, I think there are a number of places in the city, that High Street intersection being one of them. I think there's one on Gibbons where that comes out. So I think this is something that's not just European. I know, Malia, when you were prepping for your wedding, I was driving around and I didn't cover a lot of roundabouts. So I think it's a much safer way to deal with some of these dangerous intersections. I'm excited to see that. But let's let's keep up the work. Let's keep prioritizing this. This is something we have to do now. We have to do it right. And we we have to just get it done. So I appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 6: Well, great. Well, thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation. I think one area where I'm interested in is for all the 25 locations that you've identified as well as. The various corridors that that you've identified. If we can make sure to get, uh, ample data, you've already gathered the data, ample data so that you can compare in a statistically significant manner, have the, have the, you know, approaches that you've adopted actually resulted in statistically significant improvements that are outside of chance. I think we need to know that, you know, that I think the public needs to know that the the tools that we're adopting are going to be effective. Um, and, you know, I have no doubt that, you know, if you put a stop sign, you stop the car. But, but, but you also want to know, are you diverting traffic to elsewhere, other parts of town which did not exhibit, you know, high traffic incidents? So I think that's the type of data that we need is not just to collect trends data, but be able to put into some kind of context that allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of our decision. And I think it's not it's not difficult to just, you know, to, uh, put the data all together and just, you know, run simple statistical significance analysis. Unfortunately, what that means, though, is once the the techniques are put into place, we won't be truly able to measure the the statistical significance impact for at least three or four years, because we have to gather like a number of data, but we can do some preliminary basis. You know, we can compare five years before with five years after. Um, but I think it's important that we at least put, begin to put some kind of remedies in place. But, but at the end of the day, though, we need to know that the remedies are truly effective. And I think we owe that much to to the residents. Otherwise, we're just kind of, you know, making people feel good and saying, oh, hey, you know, we're going to put all these ball balls and I'm going to put all these are one, two to let two days to one lane remedies. But at the end of the day, we need to know that that what we're putting in place will be effective. But like I said, though, in order to make that kind of comparison, it's going to take some time. But these would be lessons learned that future councils can can look to and draw on when it comes to saying, you know, what are the remedies that work? So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Vice Mayor. Next.
Speaker 4: WHITE Thank you. So I believe this is Ms.. Mary's first council presentations. I wanted to welcome her and also recognize that when she started last fall, she came in at probably one of the most horrific times for a traffic engineer to start in Alameda, because not only were children being hit at a shocking rate, but a council who was prioritizing street safety was screaming, do more, do something now. Holy cow. And I just wanted to, you know, thank you. Thank thank Mr. Wikström as well for the work that has been done, because there's been a lot of it. And I know that sometimes and I'll say this personally, but I'm sure you're hearing from other people, we are always saying more. But but that doesn't necessarily mean that we're not also recognizing the hard work and the work that's being done out there. I also wanted to recognize that the courage in pronouncing it for sales took me five years to get there. So, you know, I've been trying to think about how to how to talk about this. Maybe one of my former neighbors who grew up in Alameda, you know, really wanted to bike. She really wanted a tricycle. And she was an older adult. And, you know, our neighborhood came together and bought her that. And she felt so unsafe riding and riding on the streets of Alameda that she would only ride on a few sidewalks in our neighborhood. And so when I think about, you know, where we need to get to as a city and again, thank you for doing everything we're doing. But also, oh, my gosh, we need to do so much more. You know, I think this is an example of we are trying to not just make it safe for for students to be able to walk to school, but for people to just have mobility around their own neighborhoods and whatnot. You know, we have decades and decades of decisions that have led us to the city that is unsafe and doesn't feel right now. And we don't have decades and decades and decades to undo that work and fix it. I said at our council workshop for for me, the word of the year is transformational. And, you know, as we move forward, I do see a lot of repaving, repaving projects and whatever else actually starting to transform our streets. And I really appreciate that there's been a lot of proactive work done there. I, I am still curious when we're going to start. I have seen that. So if you go down Broadway to Bayview, the first protected interstate or first clear intersection with bollards in Alameda has appeared. But when I see us clear zoning and doing projects on Lincoln, etc., I'm not seeing the use of bollards. And unfortunately, I know, I know they're not the most beautiful things. But unfortunately, people who drive seem to as, as Mr. Chernoff mentioned, park in those red zones with quite a imputed community. And we have to, unfortunately, have to put a physical barrier to tell drivers that the red zone is not a place for you to park for 15 minutes because you're just running in. It's a safety zone for for our for our neighbors. And I'd like to start seeing I'd really like to start seeing that as a part of our ah toolkit coming out because I think we need to not just create the space, but we need to protect the space. Yeah. You know, I we we started this meeting with with a moment of silence for the fatality that happened on Friday night. You know, one of the tenets of Vision Zero is that all fatalities are avoidable. Right. That there are changes we can make, whether it's providing better protection on sidewalks, whether it's slowing the speed limit down . It is it is not a shock that that fatality happened on one of our four and that many of our fatalities happen on our fastest streets. That is a 35 mile an hour street. We have had many conversations kind of at the community level, not within the city, about just removing the four or five streets that are 35 miles an hour and making them safer at 25 miles an hour. And just having to be in Alameda, we drive 25 and I would like to see that as a part of our conversation as we're going forward. Again, acknowledging that you're doing speed service for 50 mile an hour school zones and. Right. This is not a let's bring it back in March. But but, you know, let's keep that in the mix as well as as we're thinking thinking things through. San Francisco has done a lot of work to extend pedestrian crossing times for seniors. Alameda as population is, you know, aging quickly. County's population is aging quickly. That doesn't always come at the cost of extending the length of time that the light has to stay green. It can actually come out of sometimes if the green area just means, you know, a longer yellow. But it gives that it gives seniors a little bit more understanding of how much time they have if we just program them for a slower crossing time. And that's been shown to have some safety impacts as well. You know, I guess I want to say I appreciate Councilmember D's call for evaluation and whatnot. I want to make sure we have the right metrics. For me, the metric isn't we divert traffic to somebody else's street. For me, the metric is are people getting hit less? Are the behaviors we're trying to change changing? Because sometimes these numbers are not going to go to a place where somebody where there have been, you know, 15 collisions over five years and find a statistically significant change over five years. But you can go and measure whether or not people are more slow and stop slowly making the corner or people are yielding for pedestrians, etc.. And those are the behaviors that that, you know, we know yielding speeding illegal turns and running red lights and stop signs are typically the five things that lead to people getting hit. Are we are we are we reducing those incidents so that there is a reduction in the chance that we're going to be hitting people? My guess is we're going to find that, yes, we have kind of reduced it, but we haven't eliminated it. And that actually a lot of the things that we're doing, which I appreciate, are quick and effective. Right. These are best practice, are not enough that we're not going far enough. And that gets to the long term and the more transformational things that I know you're working on. And I will stop here in basically just saying, you know, I am proud to serve with the council I serve with because I think you have strong partners in safety. You know, I think you have you have the council that you can come to and talk to about the fact, you know, we have 1950 stoplight traffic lights and we're trying to implement 21st century safety things. We need to have that conversation. And I think we're here to to support you. So, you know, ask us for the tools we need. Bear with us when we seem impatient again. I mean, me, you know, but I also know that it's done. It's done with support and and appreciation for the hard work that's come in and that we want to be here for you, because you guys are doing a great job for our community and we all want to work for the community, you know, to become what we what we have always said we are. But when I talk to people, people are not feeling that we are the small town, that you just feel like you can send your kids to the movies anymore. People feel like they they have to kind of armor their kids up to just, you know, have them go hang out with some friends for an afternoon. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 9: So I want to thank staff for the quick turnaround on this. I think whenever and it may have been a few months, but the reality is with city government and all of the things that we have to look at and take a comprehensive approach, a few months is a very quick turnaround, so I really appreciate that. I'm also somebody who used to live at the corner of Sherman and Santa Clara, and while I lived there and multiple cars drove up over the curb and we actually put in a rock wall of sorts, which has even since then prevented cars from careening into the house. But I was also there when cars hit rope, drove into the house across the street, and I saw that happen a couple of times and was the first person out making the call to 911. And I think, you know, a lot of these changes have been a long time coming. Many of these intersections were just on the cusp. And I think we need to and I think we are doing that as a policy, kind of changing how we're looking at this from a problem solving standpoint and who we're trying to make. Make it safest for a couple of questions that I had was. You know, we've I heard you speak about the obsolete obsolete traffic signal technology. There have been a few intersections that I've been at where the as a pedestrian, I see a lot of pedestrians walking against the pedestrian light because they haven't hit that button. They either don't know to hit the button or. And in fact, when I was over at Love school early one morning with the mayor and the vice mayor.
Speaker 0: Out in the.
Speaker 9: Rain. Out in the rain, I think we all witnessed this where the that the pedestrians didn't hit the hit the button and so the pedestrian light didn't turn on for them to cross and they basically missed a cycle or were walking against the pedestrian light. And so that's something that I would just like to see gone. And I see it happen all the time. I live near Washington Park and it happens all the time where people kind of miss the pedestrian signal and then they have to either choose between waiting for another cycle or crossing against the signal. And I kind of hold my breath whenever this happened. And I see a lot of parents doing it with strollers and things like that. And as a new parent, you know, in fact, the other week I was out there telling people, no, you have to press the button here, otherwise it doesn't change for you. So those are the types of things that I would just like to see gone. I think there are a hold over. Obviously there's a cost associated with them. But to that point, when when looking at these zones and I know we're focused on school zones, but I would also like my question is, are we looking at kind of the zones near these major parks and thoroughfares the same way? Because if there's a dog park or things like that that we know are kind of heavy pedestrian traffic, it seems to me that we should be. Obviously, there's limits. You said that. Is that part of the overall consideration in terms of what we're focused on? I'm seeing Scott not. Okay. Thank you. The other the other question that I had was the roundabout or the intersection, I guess, at and Snell Central and Sherman, which is where the three streets kind of come together for streets, I think , come together and what the plan is for that. When I say roundabout, I'm I'm hoping that hopefully we'll think about that at some point.
Speaker 11: That specific intersection and one of the things I'm going to make and I'll I'll yellow get your.
Speaker 0: Voices softer tonight.
Speaker 11: Yeah we didn't talk too much about some of the longer term plans and actions that are going on. I know the active transportation plan will be in front of this council and next month sometime and they will be talking about a lot of the larger corridor projects. The specific intersection you're talking about is at the end of the Central Avenue project. And so that will be incorporated into that project. We're looking at it. I know a roundabout has been discussed. There are some challenges, geometry that will be presented and evaluated as part of that larger Central Avenue corridor project.
Speaker 9: Okay. Appreciate that. The other thing that I've seen a lot of is the illegal double parking. My colleague, the vice mayor, mentioned parking and red zones. I've seen a lot of that. But there's also been a lot of illegal double parking. I've seen everyone from delivery drivers to people on, you know, picking up food and things like that, running into restaurants, illegally parking, double parking. And I know that while it's convenient for them, I also see them doing this in our bike lanes and seeing cyclists have to bike around this, seeing cars have to drive around it in an unsafe manner. And I'm hoping that we can also be looking at that in some of our plans. And I think to staff's point, when we're looking at new structures and new kind of areas of commerce and things like that, making sure that there are delivery, ample delivery of 15 minute parking, that sort of thing, so that people can actually have a spot to to safely double park or not to safely park rather than double park. Excuse me, because it seems in some of our districts we don't have those types of spaces which mean that there isn't an ability to stop for a few minutes, drop something off or pick something up. You either have to park in a in a regular parking spot or double park. And obviously, I would like to see that cut down because I think it's incredibly unsafe where it's happening. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And so I will just echo a lot of what my colleagues have said, but I also want to start out and recognize both of you. I think we're lucky to have both of you on Team Alameda. But Missouri, I have to say, it's always a pleasure. It makes me proud to see a woman engineer. You're a great role model. We have a lot of young men in this room, but I'm hoping there's some girls watching do. And even for you guys, she's an engineer, isn't she? Awesome and great. Just a great presentation. So so thank you for that. I had a few questions that I made in my margins when I was reading I'm reading the staff report. So one of them is when I'm out and about in the community, people come up to me and talk to me about their intersections of concern, and I will just throw out that Councilmember Vela and I get our nails done at the same salon. It's this is not an advertisement, but it's at the corner of Central and Ninth Street. And I cannot tell you how many times I've been there, a captive audience. I'm always happy to talk to me any time that they come up and talk to me about and especially the women who work there because they saw a window and they see so many near misses at the corner. This is at Central at Ninth Street. And so they've asked me, you know, what's being done about this? And so I promised them I would bring this up during this report. So you heard it here. You can tell my manicurist. And then the other intersection that was brought to my attention is at Central and page. And page is that little street you might know where Spitzer's cafe is just down from Washington Park on central. And so it's a popular coffee place. But also just down the street in that same block is a is a center, a day center for adults with developmental disabilities. And that intersection has, you know, nothing just some pain on the ground. And I, as an able bodied person, always feel that I'm taking my life in my hands when I'm crossing the street to to meet someone for coffee. And so that was that's been brought up to me, I think, actually, by one of the parents of an individual who uses that center. But it's I would like to to know what's being what, if anything, is being considered there. And then I think at the Open House workshop you did at the library last year, which was great and very informative, I asked. The question is, would it be possible in a couple of intersections in our downtown area and I'm thinking especially at Park and Central and Park in Santa Clara, to do what is done in some other business district. Scott Smiley He knows what I mean to say. I know it is a scramble intersection. I think there's other terms. But just today, the city manager and I were coming back from a meeting in Oakland and we were driving down Webster Street through Oakland, Chinatown. And for years they've done a very successful and actually very beautiful with the decorative pavement scramble intersection, which means at one time pedestrians can go every which way. And they really seem to honor that and observe it in for even longer than the one in Oakland, Chinatown, in the financial district in San Francisco. There's a couple of those. And so, you know, I realize everything costs some money, but I'm wondering if that's something that could be considered in time. And then I will just close with saying I cringe when I hear about the antiquated signal boxes. And so just be sure that you're letting the city manager know because our mid-year budget cycle study is coming up. So we want to be able to to fund these necessary changes and improvements because safety is just the top priority for for everyone on this council. And I know for all of our city staff. So with that, I thank you for your time. Do you want to come and address any of the inquiries you heard or did you all you got the notes down and. Okay, so with that council, what we're being asked to do on this is to accept the update on the recently installed and ongoing traffic safety and traffic calming activities. So do I have affirmation? So we do a motion move. Okay, get a motion second. Got a second. All in favor. I okay. I think that was unanimous. Right, that was unanimous. Thank you so much. Now we're going to do a little bit of housekeeping audience. I beg your pardon?
Speaker 4: Process safety.
Speaker 0: Sure. Process.
Speaker 4: Question Can I assume that what's coming forth in March to the council is is essentially the response to the council direction in September to bring back an intersection equity access policy, street lane with how we're doing traffic calming?
Speaker 6: Uh, I can't say yes to all of those things, but several of those things will.
Speaker 4: Be.
Speaker 6: Are, are being developed right now. Things like the lane with study and what's what was referred to for March 17th is the active transportation plan.
Speaker 7: Active choices plan annual report.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. Got that answered. All right. So here's my my housekeeping and we are going to take a break. Let's say. Uh, yes, Mr..
Speaker 4: That one option that we've discussed is.
Speaker 7: Since you have a lot of speakers on Sunshine.
Speaker 0: I'm getting to that. Thank you. I'm one option we have. We're going to take a break and take a ten minute break. What I would appreciate from the audience, could I get a show of hands because we have a couple more items. What do we have, madam? Quick. We've got three items. Yes. Okay. So I'm guessing that we have a lot of speakers on the last one, which is item six is about the Sunshine Ordinance five. So it is there. Raise your hand if you intend to speak on item six. E Okay. So that looks like one, two, three, four, five. Okay. So that is five. Okay. And what about we've got item six. C is looking at four weak requests for qualifications for West Midway Project. Two speakers, any more than two, raise your hand if you wanna speak for Ms. on West Midway. And then there is the one about the personal wireless service facilities in public right away zero which.
Speaker 1: Is in one speaker on.
Speaker 0: 9a9a Okay. So Counsel, I would suggest that we take that in with the most speakers first, but I am but one person. What does everyone think?
Speaker 3: I'll move for that to change the agenda to do so.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 0: Okay, so then that would be should we go in the order of the speakers? So we do the Sunshine Ordinance, the West Midway and then the small cell.
Speaker 3: So just move 60 next.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. Does that work? All right, so we have a motion. We have a second all in favor. I, i okay. That is, that carries four to nothing. I miss village. Just had to step out, bitch. So she didn't vote. Okay, ten minute break. We'll be back and we'll start with such an ordinance.
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 0: When? Just take their seats, please. We will get started. The staff hangs on my every word.
Speaker 3: We all.
Speaker 0: We all do. Yeah. I have children.
Speaker 2: I'm used to being ignored. It became.
Speaker 0: So high. Audience I apologize for the delay. Usually when I say a ten minute break, it's 10 minutes. But just we had some housekeeping details that couldn't be avoided. So. Counsel, you're not going far, right? Vice Mayor Okay, you and we have had a little agenda, possible agenda change come up. But I want to just take your temperature, as it were. So on the West Midway item, that's item six. See, there are some couple of possible ways we could proceed. We could continue this to a date certain, uh, we could. Mr. City Attorney, help me out. We could move forward tonight.
Speaker 5: You could. The Council could choose to move forward tonight. Or you could choose to take a vote to continue the item to a date certain you have flexibility in how you could choose to proceed.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, um, well, we have two speakers, but we're not going to hear from them if we're going to continue. So first, I want to do the housekeeping from the council. So counsel, your thoughts. Just go down the line. Now, I won't start with the prison history on my right, Councilman Brody.
Speaker 3: I just moved my seat. I'd actually like to hear it and then figure out why we might want to continue it or not.
Speaker 0: Councilmember dissuaded Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 6: Well, you know, if if it's a matter of crossing our T's and dotting the I's, then I'm all in favor of continuing it to a later time.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Accept Update on Recently Installed and Ongoing Traffic Safety and Traffic Calming Activities. (Public Works 96013)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_02042020_2020-7678
|
Speaker 6: Well, you know, if if it's a matter of crossing our T's and dotting the I's, then I'm all in favor of continuing it to a later time.
Speaker 0: Okay. My preference is continuing to a date certain because I want to just have as much information as possible to make an informed decision. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: I'd like to hear tonight.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 9: Deciding vote. I actually would like to continue it in light of the question that was raised.
Speaker 0: Okay. So that is a 22 motion. Okay. So you can make a motion.
Speaker 9: I'll move to continue the item. Do we have a date?
Speaker 0: Certain to have a date certain? I would like a date. Certain.
Speaker 7: I'd recommend March 3rd.
Speaker 0: Okay. So the first meeting on March 2nd. Okay. We have a motion. It's been seconded to continue the item to March 3rd, the first council meeting in March. Any discussion at all in favor? I oppose.
Speaker 4: No, no.
Speaker 0: Okay. The motion carries 3 to 2. This motion will be heard, as we noticed and heard on March the third. To those in the audience who came to speak on this item, I apologize. But once in a while an anticipated events occur and we just play the hand we're dealt. So thank you and see you soon. Okay. So then we we had decided before the break that we were going to go with the item that has the most speakers and that is item six. E Madam Clerk.
Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinance amending the Civil Code by amending various provisions of Article eight Sunshine Ordinance of Chapter two Administration, including provisions related to public access to public meetings and public records and Sunshine Ordinance enforcement, including recommendations to eliminate the null and void in order to cure remedies and replace such remedies with the authority for the Open Government
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to: 1) Direct Staff to Conduct a Four-Week Request For Qualification (RFQ) Solicitation Process for the Development of the West Midway Project; 2) Approve Debbie Potter, Community Development Director; Michelle Giles, Base Reuse Manager; Lisa N. Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; and Eric Levitt, City Manager, as Designated Real Property Negotiators for the West Midway Project; 3) Approve the Finding Related to the Surplus Lands Act that the Property Constitutes Exempt Surplus Land; and 4) Direct Staff to Include a $350,000 Appropriation for the RESHAP Project Backbone Infrastructure Design in the Mid-Year Budget. (Community Development 819099)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_02042020_2020-7642
|
Speaker 1: Nine is consider requiring paid parking at any future city owned or operated parking lots, including the Main Street Ferry Terminal. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Vela, and we have three speakers.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, Councilmember Ballard, the floor is yours.
Speaker 9: I'll keep it short. But basically this item has come up a number of times whenever we've discussed our Climate Action Plan and various projects that have been brought before the Council. And I thought that it would be helpful to have this conversation agenda so that we can really discuss it in full. Because I know that there are a number of items coming back to the council are scheduled to come back to us and as we all know, free, there's nothing that's really free. It just means that it's subsidized from somebody. And and in in this case, subsidizing parking means that we're spending public funds on parking, which is not necessarily in line with our stated goals under our Climate Action Plan or in line with our other goals in terms of finding ways to provide more housing and things like that. So I just want us to have this conversation so that we can give staff some direction ahead of these items coming back. And I certainly I didn't I specifically didn't put a dollar amount or anything like that because obviously it depends on the project and how we go about and, you know, enforcing it. But I think if we can at least have the general conversation and perhaps give staff some general direction to put this into effect, then any time an item comes up where there would be a city lot or city parking, we know to to include this analysis in the staff report so that we can vote on it. And it just becomes part of the conversation as opposed to something that we add on later on. So I hope you'll be supportive.
Speaker 0: Okay. And so I. I think I'm. So what's your ask?
Speaker 9: My ask is that we direct staff essentially to come back to us with either what basically to give directive to staff that for any projects including city parking city. Any any parking lots or other parking structures that they provide us with options for how to actually do that had actually charge for parking and that that be part of the the cost analysis that that gets built in.
Speaker 0: Okay. For new projects. Mm hmm. Okay. And we have new public speakers on this. Are we do we have three? Okay. Any current questions from council before we take our public speakers?
Speaker 3: Calcium or maybe not from the author, but from staff. So the parking lot at Seaplane Lagoon Ferry, I mean, is that something that has already been. We've done that.
Speaker 0: It's already there. Okay.
Speaker 3: So. Okay.
Speaker 0: Anything further? Let's hear those patient public speakers Denise Trapani.
Speaker 1: Debbie Ryan and Ruth Harvey.
Speaker 0: Who they are. Good evening. It's still evening.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Hi, Madam Mayor and council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak here tonight and especially thank you, former Vice Mayor Vella, for bringing this subject up. I also want to start by thanking staff, especially the transportation and planning staff and the public work staff for the work they've done to encourage aluminum and to choose alternative transportation options. We heard from the public works director that said the Cross Alameda Trail, a big section of it is opening in a couple of days. It was actually open today and I got to ride it tonight. And it's amazing. It's stunning. But even with all that encouragement that our staff is doing for people to choose, alternative transportation's drivers are continuing to kill and injure people on our streets, and our greenhouse gas emissions from personal transportation continue to rise. It's clear that encouraging people to get out of their cars isn't enough. I'm here to ask you to please go beyond encouraging people to do the right thing by also actively discouraging driving. You can do that by no longer paying the cost of people to park in our public lots at the ferry and in other places. If this comes up and we have a public conversation about it, you're going to hear from people who say that you can't charge for parking at the ferry until you provide another transit option. But that's simply not true. That's no different than people saying you can't approve any more housing construction until you solve all our traffic issues. The issues are unrelated and drivers will just keep moving the goalposts. If you were able to magically get Alameda or Alameda County Transit to provide bus service to the terminal, people would still need to pay an extra 450 daily for their roundtrip bus drop bus ride. I don't know why we would think that the they need the option to pay for a bus ride before we start giving away parking. We've run bus service out to Main Street terminal before while there was free parking. People didn't stop driving then and they won't do it now. Not unless the option is at least financial parity, which means we have to charge for parking. And I'd also ask you to maybe consider something a little more radical, which is potentially absolving yourselves from the responsibility to provide free parking. It's it's not our responsibility. It's not a free parking. It's not a right. It's a luxury that we've decided to give to those who are lucky enough to afford a car and choose to drive. There is no free parking, so I think my time is almost up that I'll just close with that. So thank you for raising this issue.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Debbie Ryan and Ruth Abby Ben Smith.
Speaker 2: Good. Very late evening, Tom. Yeah. Good evening. Try to keep it short. Hopefully you received a letter earlier today from Qatar. Can the action for sustain. Mm. But my name is Debbie Ryan with Qatar. And the gist of the letter is that we are in support of furthering this conversation and considering the requirement of paying for parking as stated in the referral. Mainly because we do want to completely connect this to the transportation plan, the transportation choice plan that was committed to start a year and a half ago. The Climate Emergency Mobilization Resolution that was committed to in March of last year, as well as the Climate Action Resiliency Plan that was committed to in September. We very much feel that these are directly related. And if you look at the current plan, which details on page 21 to 22 and as of January 2020, about 70% of Almeida's annual GHG emissions will come from transportation. And in order to reach the city's newly set sustainability goals, Alameda must achieve deep cuts in transportation emissions. This is directly affiliated with that. And if you look at the letter, it does detail. I don't have to go through all the bullets, but all the different ways that we really can reduce GHG, we can increase carpooling, we can look at increasing biking to the ferry and the cross Alameda Trail and ridership on AC Transit Line 96. So all of these can be implementable and increased upon. Now, we do also look at the idea, I think, what the last speaker just said, which is that in conjunction we have to look at this by continuing the momentum, the forward innovation of affordable transportation options. Because speaking to many folks, including at a community event this evening, people want to ride their bikes, they want to lock them up. They want to ride their scooters. They want to see new lines and new pools developed. We have to keep working on that together, but we have to avoid the use of the single occupancy vehicles. Real quickly, I just wanted to also read a quick note. This is not here locally, but just a congratulations article to the towns of Banff and Canmore. Yet another city who's increased their use of paid parking in order to look at the reduction of GHG emissions. And I think there's a really good point here in that it says these proposals do not represent yet another fee, but rather paid parking redistributes a silent charge on all taxpayers to an explicit charge for those who use public parking lots. And I think that's really important for us to consider, because these parking spaces are worth something and the city should use perhaps the funds coming out of it to work in other ways to get people out of their cars. So thank you. We're in full support.
Speaker 0: Thank you for all your good work with Ryan Mosby.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Ruth Abby with Community Action for Sustainable Alameda. And we support the the request to put this discussion on a future agenda. You're not going to be discussing the merits of the proposal tonight. But I think one of the things you might ask staff to do when you do is to look at a blanket policy rather than coming up for each new development to provide options for paid parking. Just, you know, develop a city council policy that you will always have paid parking for public spaces, and that would be our recommendation. Then you don't have to worry about it. You don't have to litigate it every time and have public comment and concerns about it. It would just be the policy of the city. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And Mr. Smith.
Speaker 11: And good evening, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor and council members. And thank you, Councilmember Melo, for bringing this up. I've been a member of the Sierra Club for a long time and I remember bringing up housing for a long time. All of these organizations have been saying, we, we need to do something to have people pay for parking. It's another example of inequality by subsidizing the car, not paying the full prices. And we make people pay for a bus ticket, which is environmentally better. It's also the people that take the busses generally have less money to begin with. So it's just backwards, bad public policy. So I realize that it's it's difficult to do politically, but this is where the education begins and great deal with climate change deals, inequality. We've got to begin educating people and there's no way to begin that education and with the pocketbook, but no better way to do that. So thank you. I really do support having this come up for discussion.
Speaker 0: Okay. So council your thoughts.
Speaker 3: I'll jump in.
Speaker 0: Again.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So just to finish my other point. So when the ferry station parking opens, is that going to be paid?
Speaker 0: Seaplane Lagoon.
Speaker 3: Seaplane Lagoon.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yes.
Speaker 7: That's the intent. We are actually bringing back. And so we can take your comments tonight and we're bringing back a parking.
Speaker 6: Staff.
Speaker 7: Report, I believe, in March. So we can at this point, this is great timing. So we can take your comments from tonight and put it into that staff report.
Speaker 3: Okay. So I'll be really quick because it's getting late. I fully support this. I think we need to go even beyond what this this does. San Francisco, you know, different neighborhoods have different stickers where you're allowed to park in certain times. Where I grew up, we used to every car had a village sticker and it was kind of cool to see the different art on them. But the point is, if you didn't have a sticker, you got a ticket and you also generated some revenue. So if there was something we could do to kind of charge for parking, kind of in a way, you know, like you got to have a permit to park on a city street. I don't know what that solution looks like, but other cities have done it because I think, as the speaker said, you know, there's just way too many cars here and the cost of driving nice to drive to San Francisco. It would be $7 to park and $6 for roundtrip. I mean, that was $13. That's not a lot of money to go to San Francisco. But, you know, if it was 25, I'd never go because it was 40 bucks to park downtown. But, you know, if if the cost of parking is comparable or is prices you out, then, you know, you'll have to take a bus. And then last thing, this chicken and the egg thing about the funding, I think if we start charging for parking and we can amass enough money, we can help subsidize bus because I think that's what we did with the line 19. We paid for it as a city the first couple of years and then we paid more. But once it generated more revenue and then I and I also think we're having site A I think we're getting bus service on day one, too. So I mean, those kind of arguments don't really hold a lot of water with me.
Speaker 0: I will just chime in and remind us that what we already know is that we can charge for parking, we can have regulations, but it requires enforcement. And I do know I have it on good authority that in the next month or so that item is coming to us. So, you know, we want to manage expectations. It's never enough to just say, yeah, we're going to pay for parking, but there has to be a way to deal with it. And then yeah, just a reminder.
Speaker 6: Councilmember Desai One thing that I would encourage when we talk about single occupancy vehicles is this the people who drive to work are not bad people, they're not evil people. They are fellow residents, they are neighbors. They love this city just as much as anyone. And if the trend is any indication, at some point we're going to get out, get away from. You know, gas powered cars that everything will be electric. So I would encourage the residents to avoid rhetoric that paints single occupancy vehicles as bad people. And I'm very concerned that that's the trajectory that we can be going. They get up early in the morning, travel long distances like San Jose or Fremont, you know, to make a living for their families just like everyone else. And by the same token, you know, it doesn't mean that, you know, people who ride bicycles are, you know, all the virtuous people. Let's not create caricatures of different people who utilize different modes of transit. Let's just have a policy discussion on its merits.
Speaker 0: Thanks. Hi. Well, I appreciate. I think. I think that's a that's a point well taken. Um, let's see. Just going down the line. Oh, well, the maker of the motion and I.
Speaker 9: Want to clarify one thing, because I this is a I had two drafts of this and I realize this is after it got published this it. This is this wasn't the original one. And that there was this not the one that I intended to use. And it says that new including the new terminal at Main Street. And that was a typo.
Speaker 0: And it's.
Speaker 9: The seaplane lagoon, but also any any new parking or changes to the parking at Main Street. Because one of the things that has come up in the past that we've discussed is perhaps repaving or expenditures out there. And I want that to be considered as new parking if we're going to be expending any sort of major funds to improve existing lots.
Speaker 0: Right. Basement X way.
Speaker 4: Sure. So obviously. Well, hopefully. Obviously, a topic near and dear to my heart. I guess I'm struggling a little bit with what we're actually asking because we already have policies that every public every public parking project that is underway or exists is priced except for our two ferry terminals and Main Street ferry terminal is likely going to fade into fade in its use significantly. It's very unlikely that anybody will be using it at once once the new the new terminal goes in. And I would want to be careful that we're not spent encouraging encouraging the spending of money on unpaid parking infrastructure. It's a place that people might not be using, although I think if it's going to be revamped because it's getting used, I think I think it's a it's a good idea. My understanding is that we have a parking policy for street parking, etc., that is somewhat under development. We've tried so many different things that the transportation folks I have no idea where that is and I don't have an expectation it will be to us in the next month. But. But. I guess I'm not I'm not I'm not exactly sure what direction we're giving to staff. I don't know that there is. With all the different transportation projects, whether or not something asking for somebody to come back very, very soon on this issue I don't think is going to have a huge impact. And I'm wondering if we can kind of give more direction that when issues related to city owned lights and etc. come , you know, rather than a discussion in the future, why don't we just can we just give it the the direction tonight that there always be a paid parking option?
Speaker 9: That's what I'm asking.
Speaker 4: Okay. So I heard bring it back for discussion in the future. Not tonight. So that sounded like a whole new parking item. So it's just this. Just give direction. Yeah. Okay. I do want to say one thing. The residential parking permits do not pay for themselves or barely pay for themselves. They are something like $27 a year and the state law does not allow for anything more. So all they end up doing is privatizing the street for the people who live in a specific area, but they aren't a really good management process for managing overall use. So I think we're not correcting you. There are places where they exist. We have actually given it away for free out at Harper Bay near the ferry out there. I think that's something we should maybe reconsider someday. But we're nobody parks in the street, but nobody has to pay for permits. So nobody parks anyway. But yeah, I can see if that if that's if that's the intent. I'm 100% on board.
Speaker 0: And I would just say I actually think that people will continue to use the Main Street Ferry terminal. It'll just be more trips that are going to Oakland, and that's yet another way we get single occupancy vehicles off the road. But I also think that it is a matter of prioritizing both staff time and funding. And I think that Seaplane Lagoon should be were our biggest pressures because I think that, you know, this is the new ferry terminal and you're starting from scratch from the ground up. You can do it. Right. But I think it's those are good recommendations. I just think that we also need to tell staff it's not something that you push everything else off the desk and work on this. But I think, you know, it's it is something I think.
Speaker 2: We.
Speaker 0: Do need to do whatever we can to incentivize people out of their single occupancy vehicles. But I, I hear what Councilmember de SAG is saying. I think I always like to look for as many carrots as sticks. I mean, my carrot is I'm not sitting in my vehicle surrounded by traffic, but it's probably telling people they're horrible people or implying that that's not your most effective strategy. But we're rather going to strive to do better. And even if you drive in TV, we don't need more cars on the road because the roads are pretty crowded and that will keep working. So so this is essentially a recommendation to staff and do we need anything further? Okay. So then thank you for bringing that to our attention, Councilmember Vella. And then with that, we've got Council Communications Councilmember Vella, anything from you?
|
Council Referral
|
Consider Requiring Paid Parking at Any Future City Owned or Operated Parking Lots, Including the Main Street Ferry Terminal. (Councilmember Vella)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_01212020_2020-7578
|
Speaker 1: Great. We have item to D merit as the Ashcraft. Would you prefer a staff report or do you have some questions and comments you'd like to raise?
Speaker 0: Um, actually, whichever way you'd like to proceed. I have, um. I have spoken to Mr. Potter about this. Yeah. Um. Um, do you want me to the case?
Speaker 1: Sure. Sure. If you. If you want to read. That would be great. If you want to raise your issues. And then I, Steph Potter, can come up and address the any issues that come up.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. So, um, my concern with this transaction is that I do understand that this is, um, we're making this decision and when you have the successor agency to the, um, the former redevelopment agency, both from the commission and so the recently amended from that doesn't apply. Um, there's an exception, but I still am concerned with the fact that in our city, in the Bay Area, in the state, we have a housing crisis. And I feel that we need to be working as hard as we can to of our Board of Housing. Um, I am actually Councilmember Abella and I will be in Sacramento on Friday for our Statewide Policy Committee on Housing, Community and Economic Development to really help identify the housing and homelessness is among their top four priorities to focus on this year. So I've talked with, um, my partner and my concerns are that if we get some of this, um, it's well within our right then um, is intending to build townhomes. I understand it. We'll hear more on the staff report. The city will get revenue of $300,000 to come back to the general fund and we can all go home. But I would like to see if this council might be able to come up with, um, maybe some more creative resolution that recognizes and addresses the need to add more affordable housing, either in this project or perhaps elsewhere on the island to save the point, if we don't just do a straight transaction pandering to the general fund to do whatever with um, but perhaps and I haven't had a chance to interact with any other colleagues to know how everyone else feels. And I'm sure we should support them. And my concern is they just can't in good conscience say, Yeah, let's just do this and make sure that the tax and agency, which is we all want the taxpayer to be paying our money. But I want to see because if we're if the plans were subject to the plans that you've given them, apart from me and, you know, one of the things you offered to other agencies, how did you go through that doesn't apply here. But I still think that the spirit of that was a good one to keep in mind. So those are my concerns. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It sounded like there was an interest in hearing some feedback here, but I know that there might be some questions to my right. Do you have questions? Member Odie or would you?
Speaker 3: Maybe I'll wait to Ms.. Potter makes her brief presentation, then add my comments or questions.
Speaker 6: Thanks. Thank you very much. I'm Debbie Potter. I'm the city's community development director. And the mayor has, I think, done a good job of characterizing that item before you this evening. This is a remnant parcel. It is about 4.8 acres. And actually the developable footprint of the parcels, even smaller. It's more like two thirds of an acre just because of its irregular shape. It is a remnant piece. It was a redevelopment agency owned under state law. When redevelopment agencies were dissolved in 2012, we had a mandate. Successor agencies have a very narrow mandate, and that mandate is to pay for enforceable obligations that are listed on the recognized obligation payment schedule. Another item you just approved this evening and to dispose of. Property that was previously owned by the redevelopment agency. When we dispose of property, we do it consistent with a long range property management plan. That long range property management plan, like everything else that is done by a successor agency, must be approved by the state of California. The State Department of Finance is the agency that oversees all of the successor agency related activities. We have an approved long range property management plan that was approved in 2015 by D, o, f. And our disposition strategy for this piece of property is to put it on the open market. And we have a mandate under state law to sell it as quickly as possible for as much money as we can get, as quickly as we can. And then the way the proceeds work from the land sales, from successor agency property is that they are dispersed among all the taxing entities on a pro-rata share based on the share of property taxes for all the taxing entities. So the city gets as a taxing entity, we receive about 30% of any land sale proceeds we have. And that and I believe the Surplus Lands Act was also talked about. That's a new law that went into effect January 1st and the law explicitly provides that land to be disposed of by the successor agency. Successor agencies have until December 31st of 2020 to enter into legally binding sales agreements. And if you enter into your legally binding sales agreement before December 31st, 2020, and you dispose of the property by December 31st of 2022, then the Surplus Lands Act does not apply to the successor agency. And I believe that was intentional on the part of the state legislature because there is a maybe you could call it a competing state mandate to dispose of surplus property in a different manner that property owned by successor agencies. So what's before the council this evening is a purchase and sale agreement by Brand, a development company to purchase the property for $1,000,000. The 300,000 that would come to the city is the 30% of the million dollars to build residential a residential project. And on two thirds of an acre at this time, I believe Brown is thinking that they could get 20 to 22 units on that on that that property. The property is not served by any backbone infrastructure. So the developer has to have the expertize to bring the backbone infrastructure to the property. As you know, the city of Alameda has an inclusionary housing ordinance, so we have a 15% inclusionary requirement for all residential development in excess of nine units. And this project would require an exemption from the measure, a requirement so it would have to provide apply for a density bonus ordinance. And if you apply for a density bonus ordinance, you were then obligated to provide more affordable units above the mandated 15%. So if this project goes forward, if the project secures its residential entitlements, there will be an affordable component to the project and it will be a minimum of 15%. And then depending on the purchasers application, there will you know, that the additional could range from, you know, 1% more if you provide another very low income, you know , 1% more, very low to several percentage more affordable units if you do more moderate income units. So that's a kind of a high level overview of how this would work if a residential project were to move forward and then the land sale proceeds as a taxing entity. The land sale proceeds do go into the city's general fund. Those proceeds are are there for the council to make a policy decision about how it might want to expend those land sale proceeds.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Design.
Speaker 7: Quick question. Thank you very much for your presentation. A quick question is, does the housing overlay that was adopted in 2012, I believe, is this included within that or is it outside of it?
Speaker 6: No, this is not there's not an MF overlay on this piece of property. This piece of property, because it was a remnant parcel as part of the Bay Port Alameda Landing project. It actually doesn't have any underlying zoning. And that's why we would the prospective purchaser would go through the entitlement process. And part of what would happen with the entitlement process is there would be a zoning amendment and that zoning amendment. Make its way to city council for its final approval. I'm with the successor agency tonight. A successor agency would be acting in your proprietary capacity as the property owner. And then later any zoning amendment would come before the city council and with its regulatory hat on. But I think that staff, as well as the prospective purchaser, is going to think, okay, if there is a willingness to sell for the for the project, describe that ultimately that entitlement process will then will then happen.
Speaker 7: So one more quick question if it's okay. So you you used a phrase, an exception from Measure A, the I, I mean, outside of the multifamily overlay, which was adopted and so which has been in practical effect. I'm not aware of some kind of exception that well.
Speaker 6: The city has had its density.
Speaker 7: The density bonus rates.
Speaker 6: Which is why they would go for a concession waiver and then they in exchange for that concession or waiver, they then are obligated to do more affordable housing. So that's the the trade off for the exchange.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 6: Public benefit.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember City.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Miss Potter, for the presentation. Just as a first comment, I agree with everything the mayor said. I had the same concerns. I think we had this discussion, I don't know, six or eight months ago and there was an office building proposed and a lot of us said we'd rather have housing. So it's not zoned.
Speaker 6: You a.
Speaker 3: Thank you, but. So I guess my one question is, if it's not zoned anything now, I mean, could they look at this and say a year from now we don't think we can put housing on there and then change it?
Speaker 6: Well, the purchase and sale agreement specifies a residential use.
Speaker 3: Okay. And then trying to do the math, I can do 15% of 20, but I can't do 1% to some other numbers. So, I mean, what are we looking at realistically? Is it three? Is it five? I mean.
Speaker 6: Affordable housing at 15%, a 20 unit project would have a 3% inclusionary. A 22 unit project would have a 3.3. And I believe we round down if it's less than point five and round up if it's more than point five and at 25%, at 25%, inclusionary for example, would be five units on a 20 unit project and six units on a 22 unit project. So we're talking because it's a very small project. It's a very small lot. It's 27, just under 28,000 square feet, the lot itself. So it's the difference of, you know, maybe two or three units. Okay. That's the range between 15 and 25%.
Speaker 3: Okay. And I just want to echo the mayor's point also. I mean, I appreciate you bringing us a residential project. And even though this is exempt from surplus lands, I think our guiding policy should be the guiding policy behind the surplus lands, which is to provide more affordable housing wherever we can. So I'm just going to use my time to say that.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any further questions? We have no speakers. Um, I think you answered the question. I suppose you came and asked us to support an office building a year ago, right? Well, it was. I think it was January 2nd of last year. Yes, it was. Right. So a long time ago. And we and we asked that that deal obviously fell apart because we actually said that we would prefer to be housing, but approve that. So here we are back again moving this forward. Is there a way for us to use this money that's coming into the city as a part of it? I certainly support Councilmember Ody and mayor is Ashcroft's interest in providing more affordable housing and would there be a way for us to at least consider as part of a cycle or whatever else, you know, how we could use these funds, as I think the mayor said at Alameda Point or something like that in support of providing further homes. Is there a way in this process? I since we're acting as the successor commission committee, I'm not sure if we can actually. I guess I'm looking at the city attorney, but let me look at you first. Is there a way for us to kind of enact some guidance that doesn't necessarily today commit something? So, um, a mr. Vice Mayor, I believe the Council can give brief direction that the proceeds ought to be considered for affordable housing, but the details should be left for an agenda as future meeting. Okay. And and to the comments about affordable housing, did anybody talk with the housing authority or because the city saw the guidance as achieving the highest price possible? No, that wasn't a part of that conversation.
Speaker 6: The housing authority as an entity could have offered to purchase the property when it was listed for sale. It was you know, we we retained our commercial broker to list the property and to then, you know, review and analyze offers. The housing authority did did not indicate an interest in the property. That's not to say if a project goes forward, they may not have an interest in working on the the affordable component of if it's for, say, the units, if it's a for sale project product, they may be interested potentially in purchasing those and renting them or that kind of, you know, they're we've done that's what that's a model that was used for the Mulberry, right. Where the housing authority purchased those affordable units.
Speaker 1: Okay. But I guess my question was, do you know if we proactively talked to them about the fact that this was going to market for their consideration?
Speaker 6: A broker did walk in. And I'm just going to ask. So, Andrew, I don't. And actually we are so fortunate to have the director of development for the Housing Authority here. Kathleen, did you guys look at that at this parcel?
Speaker 0: I personally did not get it okay for the last year. I didn't hear what the response said.
Speaker 1: The response from the Housing Authority staff was that they do not know. They do not remember looking at the property.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. When you're done, I'd like to have a look.
Speaker 1: Please feel free. I'm done.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. Um, so what? I'm wondering. I understand that there are representative from Brianna and all the things just down to the city. To me, some town council might actually to some direction to staff. But what is the, um, the thing that they would rather be willing to do a higher percentage of affordable units and there's some way that could happen. And out in Alameda Point, there are also projects that could probably some assistance. So some maybe that's as specific as we can get without making the city attorney nervous on what to do with the property. And those are the kinds of things about the city council.
Speaker 1: With Councilmember Abella.
Speaker 4: Madame Mayor, just to try to understand what you're asking, you're asking either that we advise that or give direction that we would like the proceeds to perhaps be spent on affordable housing in some way or in the alternative to have staff go back and negotiate that in in lieu of the proceeds, there be additional affordable housing included in this proposed project.
Speaker 0: I don't know what it is in lieu of the trophy that is bringing her to do the project. And, you know, maybe it would involve a different purchase price. I'm not negotiating this one, but I could put more affordable units there because again, harkening back to what Councilmember Owens, thank you for being my friend, but it is the spirit of Mr. Platforms. After I would like to see if keep in mind and so there are cities and towns in the rebellion and I sit on the same housing policies. We know that around the state, the city that is still open to affordable housing developers, which just make the process of it more affordable to build because of the high cost of land in California. But again, I do understand that this is an it may be land in our city, but it's not a from the property of the maybe there is an opportunity to keep on the land that I haven't really consider what exactly I want to see for what I think that I don't want to see that are going to go from the land transaction to go back in time. So I can I can entertain a lot of creative solutions that we are at the moment, but I would like to accomplish, which is more affordable housing and whether that's for sale or for something, I can decide.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilmember de SAC.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Thank you. Two strands of thought. The first my first strand of thought is the mayor seems enthusiastic about this parcel for good reason, because there are so few, you know, parcels that we can actually that are available that we own. We own it. Right.
Speaker 6: That's our agency. We are. This is.
Speaker 0: A success.
Speaker 6: Just to clarify, one thing is that the successor agency cannot donate this land that's outside of the legal constraints under which successor agencies have to share property.
Speaker 7: So I think the enthusiasm that the mayor is expressing, along with the support of Councilmember Ody. So my first strand of thought is just to take the time to maybe create a subcommittee where they can put their ideas to work with staff and to see where where things can align with what Brian Branagh is seeking or not . Maybe one in line, but but I think maybe we should take the time to vet those ideas that either Councilmember Odie or or Mayor Ashcraft has about this parcel site. I don't see any reason to rush. I'm granted I know that there is the December 2020 timeline that you said. So that's the first round of thought that that would be my druthers. The second strand of thought is. I thought that the density bonus only kicks in within the context of the housing overlay. So that's what I thought. So. So I do have some concerns about not being consistent with Measure A, our 1973 charter. But I think realistically that's an issue that's down the line that ought not to hold up any kind of decisions that we make tonight. But I do want to at least put that out there. So those are my two thoughts.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Odie, thank you. I guess my comment and the on the proceeds, I mean, we could just say when will we actually get them? Because I think it's a 15 month escrow and it probably will take 15 months. Right. So that staff comes back to us when we get that, doesn't spend it until we have a hearing on and what we want to do with it. That way we're not earmarking it today, but at least we're saying don't spend it. So and I do wonder if there's more because like three really isn't enough for me. So, I mean, I know it's kind of fuzzy, but.
Speaker 6: Right. Well, part of the challenge is that it's a very it's 28,000 square. It's a very small parcel. So it's not it's not as if you can do, you know, 40, 50 units on that on that parcel.
Speaker 3: Right. But we could have five or eight or something. I mean, it's just.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean if it's 25%, that could be five.
Speaker 6: That's correct. And yes. And if it's a 22 unit, it could be six. That's. That's right. Versus the three. So those are the trade offs. Is it is it I guess some of the trade offs may be is it more sort of more effective if the project goes forward as as sort of a market rate project with a 15% inclusionary plus whatever additional inclusionary is a function of the density bonus. And then the earmarked dollars can go to something like Reshape or another project that may need a little bit of a catalyst to move forward. And that's a 100%, 267 unit project. So. Or do you want to spend that time looking at exacting, you know, three or four more units? I mean, that I guess that's that's one way of looking at it potentially.
Speaker 0: Well, I have a chance to speak whenever possible.
Speaker 1: But. Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 3: I'm not done with. Sorry. I mean, I can say I am done with my.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay, Mayor, as you Ashcraft.
Speaker 3: For now.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. They want to.
Speaker 1: Know you didn't.
Speaker 0: Want to figure out the size of the property. It is 35,730 square feet. It would have been if the property fell onto the strip of land with an exception of size. But that was because of what I've seen so far 45000 to 56000 square feet, even a small amount, you know, a couple dozen housing units is bearing in mind. One thing is, if we're really well positioned to make a decision on the sale tonight, if it might make sense to have a subcommittee, I know you're over on the part of the staff of what some of the possibilities are to preserve the baby in the sale, something on and on. And come back to you with for any decision on how that money is to be spent. Maybe that's going to need to be fine. But I wonder whether we wouldn't mind a little more information on which to base an informed decision before home? That would be an enormous overlay because I think there's a range of possible options, both on an infinite number of.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Vella.
Speaker 4: I was just going to ask what a delay in this would mean. And in terms of the timeline, we have a housing shortage I'm all for. I would like to get as much affordable housing as possible, and I think that that's been an articulated goal of this council. I'm also, I guess, wondering what you know, is it possible to delay this? And if we do what? At what cost? So does it does it delay the project? Does it delay us getting these units? Does it delay us getting those three affordable units? Can you speak on that at all?
Speaker 6: Yes, it would be a delay because. The way the purchase and sale agreement is set up. It's a 90 day due diligence period. So, I mean, one way to approach this, if the Council is interested in moving forward, you will know within three months whether or not the brand elects to move forward with the entitlement process. So there's the possibility of moving forward knowing that. And I also should say that Lisa Howard, who's the VP of development from Brianna, is here tonight and she had an opportunity to chat with her. Can you just raise your hand? And she has indicated that they are open to explore. You know, they're willing to evaluate and look at, you know, a range of proposals. They always evaluate properties for both for sale and for rental and then make their decision. They're leaning towards for sale on the at this property. Mm hmm. But they have a 90 day due diligence period. At the end of 90 days, they'll know whether they're electing to go forward. So there's an opportunity potentially to come back in 90 days based on discussions with, you know, to include looking at the affordable housing issue as part of the due diligence period. And and then come back before, you know, whether or not they elect to move forward is one way of going. The other way is to just indicate that the council is not prepared to go forward this evening and, you know, not go forward.
Speaker 4: Can we hear also from our city attorney?
Speaker 1: So the due diligence period that the community development director is correct, the developer has a 90 day period to engage in due diligence. But if the city does not, so if the council approves the agreement tonight, it will be at the developer's.
Speaker 3: Discretion.
Speaker 1: Discretion to proceed or not proceed at that time, at the end of the 90 day period.
Speaker 6: However, if the Council gave direction to revise the purchase and sale agreement and Brianna was.
Speaker 5: Agreeable or agreeable. Sure.
Speaker 6: That we could do. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Sure. The Council could direct that we modify so that the diligence period is a 90 day cancelation for both sides and instead of just the developer. Yeah. I guess my question would be. Sorry. Our city manager is a good one. I was just going to say, if the developer. That sounds like something that would meet everybody's needs. If the developer was amenable to that. I don't know if there.
Speaker 4: Hey there. Excuse me. I'm Lisa Villa with Brianna Land. I am not. I am, fortunately.
Speaker 5: Would have to have that.
Speaker 4: Run by our owners. So I'm not able to say that. I will say during that 90 day due diligence, we do a pretty in-depth due diligence. So not just looking at, you know, we're going to look at all the utilities, which there are none. So I have to figure out how we're getting them. We look at, you know, the environmental everything down to architecture and land planning. And at that point, we really are deciding what, you know, what level of affordability. So whether it's moderate, very low, low, and we're weighing the options in terms of how many units for each of those really fits best in the project. Same with density level of density type of project. So townhome versus, you know, apartments, all of.
Speaker 5: That sort of thing.
Speaker 4: So during that 90 days, we are really dialed in and focused and we're also happy to meet with any council members, planners, all of that. During that time, we'd probably be hoping to do at least a pre-application with the city's planning department during that time as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So my comments really quick and then you know where you're from. The last time we talked about this property, I think that there is this myth in our in our community that you just say, oh, let's build some housing. And somebody comes in and says, we'll build housing and it gets built. We've gone around for a year now on West Midway for some of the most important affordable housing. I think, you know, projects we have and we can't seem to figure out how to make that happen. So I'm a little nervous if we have somebody who seems to know what they're doing and is interested in moving forward and can build, you know, and albeit 3 to 5 to six units, I think with with some sort of encouragement, although I know we can't like try to make commitments tonight, you know, with the encouragement to , to get those affordable numbers up as high. I think personally I would be ready to move forward on this. I if we were for me, if it was a much bigger project or we could, you know, we were talking about the ability to build 100 units or something like that. I think I would be more willing to to hold back. I feel like, you know, we already have a housing authority that's trying to find money for the north housing projects that we can't find. And I'm not clear on how we're going to get from a market based affordable and affordable units that are built by the market . How are we going to get from something that's more subsidized without funding that we're then going to be competing against possibly two other if not three other major projects in the city? And so I worry that we're I'm very on board with with Mayor Ashcraft and Councilmember Otis, you know, interest in trying to do this. But I worry that that if we delay again, we're just putting off something that's I don't see what the way forward is.
Speaker 6: So if I might just. Okay. And to Councilmember Vela's point, it is true that this project could happen most likely much more quickly than an affordable housing project because of the, you know, many different funds that you need to cobble together and the rounds that you need to be part of. And the whole idea, I think, is valid about competing against ourselves in our jurisdiction for multiple affordable housing projects. And I think that the scale of this is an important piece, the scale and the constraints that we have as the successor agency in terms of how we dispose of property. And we have a very sort of narrow path forward for disposing of property as the successor agency that perhaps it's not the most ideal site because you don't it just is not going to yield a lot of units. I, I believe Councilmember ody.
Speaker 3: I guess I was going to suggest something that kind of melded the two ideas together. I don't know if this is even possible, but, you know, if they could get their due diligence done in 60 days but not start it for 30 days and not pay their deposit for 30 days, then maybe we can use that 30 days to do what the mayor was talking about in her comments. I don't know, just an idea that way doesn't delay it, but I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, look looked at the city manager. I said I'd.
Speaker 8: Recommend the council go one or two directions. Either you just delay this decision probably for 30 days to 60. Yeah, maybe 60 days. That's fine to either February or March. And then we can explore the different ideas have come up or two. You could go with the idea that Debby approve approached and that is you approve the project or you approve the agreement. And then with the intent that you'll set aside the money for affordable housing, whether it be for another project or. Or you could use it to incentivize them to do more units, and that could be done later on in the negotiation. I would recommend you do one of those two options.
Speaker 1: I agree. Councilmember de.
Speaker 7: SAC. Since the options were laid out as such, I would encourage delaying the project and in the intervening days allow a subcommittee headed perhaps by the mayor and council member Ody to vet different approaches and getting the professional responses to their ideas from staff or from the developer. And if it doesn't work, then, then, then I think those council members are rational enough to say, okay, we, we had some great ideas and maybe they don't work, but maybe they do work. Some of the ideas that they have do work, but they require some kind of tradeoffs, which then they will have to mull among themselves and report back to the city council. So, for example, maybe the trade offs is instead of that $300,000 that we're supposed to get, maybe we're getting something less than that as a result of of wanting a different scenario than was being contemplated here. But at least by having that delay and having a committee subcommittee in place, it allows this process to be council driven. And let me make sure to say, though, that if we are to delay that we would have to work within the context of the players who we have right now. In other words, we're not going to delay and open up an RFP process or an RFP process because that's not going to work. With regards to the December 2020 timeline, I suspect, but if we're going to delay, you know, it's possible that we can work. And, you know, at the end of the day, it seems to me the the project would be that much more better and everyone will be so much more enthused about it. If if we had, you know, you know, obviously, the mayor, as he Ashcraft, along with Councilmember Melia, they've been very involved in housing issues. And we see many other mayors across the East Bay in the San Francisco Bay area taking taking critical responses to the crisis that we have now. And maybe this is an opportunity for our mayor to showcase an interesting project that she's pursuing. So I think we should just go ahead and delay and work it out. You know, the old saying, measure twice, cut once. So it's. So that would be my encouragement to delay for 30 days at the end point of which we will have a report back from the subcommittee working with staff and and and the the party who's interested in in the property and and we'll make a decision in 30 days. But between now and the 30 days we will have, they will all the party interested party will have vetted the issues and concerns and and see what is reasonable. And so that.
Speaker 1: Is that a motion.
Speaker 7: That's a motion.
Speaker 3: Can I go in to hear the mayor's thoughts on that before I.
Speaker 1: Want to say then we can if somebody would like to speak on the motion, we can discuss the motion or else it dies for lack of a second.
Speaker 0: I'll. Okay.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 4: So I. I just I think that we also have a lot of people who are unhoused right now and we have a lot of people facing housing insecurity right now. And I would hate for us to delay in order to, you know, delay on this project, which potentially could mean 22 units, potentially means three affordable units of of housing. And I would I think all of us have a finite amount of time so to staff. And I think that there is a bigger conversation that perhaps we need to have looking at the list of all of our properties that are potentially at play for some of these, you know, in terms of addressing a council perspective or process that we want to have to get more affordable housing and to kind of address the the impact of the Surplus Lands Act and and also any other parcels that we have that could potentially be used to get affordable housing. I just I want to be cautious of kind of over politicking. And on this small parcel where there is a finite number of units essentially that really can feasibly be built without having like a ten storey tower of you want two units next to each other or something like that. That's an exaggeration. It's not going to happen. But but essentially, I and I also want to acknowledge the fact that getting $300,000 is not going to even account for us constructing one affordable housing unit. We all know that the cost of affordable housing in terms of building it, even if the land is free, is much higher than that, especially when we have to do all of the utilities and everything else. So I if we are going to have a subcommittee, I would almost rather have it be about the broader issue in the broader conversation or even having another staff report coming back about. And I know staff is working on it, the impact of the surplus housing land and then doing an inventory of the parcels that we do have and what we can do to add to our affordable housing stock. So that would be my inclination would be to go with the city managers. I think it was a second option, but but having a more robust conversation, looking forward at these other parcels that we have because there have been other parcels that we sold in previous years that now looking back and looking at the conversations that are happening both at the state and local level and could have potentially been developed into affordable housing projects. And now that opportunity has passed. So I don't want to lose those opportunities, but I'm kind of a little worried about potentially to the vice mayor's point undermining this specific project when we could get these units. I know it's not a lot. I know it's I know even six units of affordable housing isn't a lot and isn't going to solve our problems. But if it means that we could actually get those units sooner rather than later, I think that that makes a difference.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah, hold on. I just want to ask the city attorney one question in terms of direction that we were to give to staff would if we were to move forward with not the motion, but the other motion to move forward. This could we also appoint a subcommittee to work with the developer during the 90 days to outline kind of to to kind of help shape that? Or would that be getting into the design review side of things, which is in a part of this body? It would be unclear to me what the subcommittee would be doing in those 90 days if the council approves this project and the project essentially goes forward with the developer doing due diligence and the city has no real further diligence to do so, it's not clear that what that committee subcommittee where they will be coming back for zoning, that we will not be required to approve. And so therefore part of the due diligence might be understanding whether or not they what the city is looking for in terms of the use of the project, so that when they come back for the zoning, they at least know that there's been two members of the council they've worked with to kind of ensure that it meets what I hear, at least a good majority of the voices here saying they'd like to see our project because the zoning decision is a quasi judicial decision. I would advise the Council to not act outside of its regular process of having the full council hear the process, judicial action in front of the council with public comment. That's good. Thank you. Okay. Mayor Mary's Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: Okay. I like Tony's proposal, and I think I can also address Councilmember Bell. Continue on, but then have people to. I don't think that a 30 day delay is going to be that significant in the grand scheme of things. But I think it does give us time to look at the various options, which could also be looking at the process to get more affordable housing. But I think it's a reasonable approach to take at this time because I don't think I hear the majority of us saying, Yeah, we want it just fine. I'll just say Go for it and we'll figure out what to do with the 300,000. I think we can look at all of the things that were raised tonight and do it in 30 days and work with that. And also, as far as the voting has presented, I think they can get the residential zoning. So I don't feel they were holding that over their head. At the end of the day, I do think a 30 day hiatus in which time a subcommittee I'd be happy to be a part of, works diligently with staff, with the developers and comes back to the council.
Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. I Councilmember Odie had some comments. I'm just going to your time. Got just hit zero. So you were perfectly timed. Um, Councilman Brody, I.
Speaker 3: Think she can have a minute of mine or two. I still have, what, 7 minutes? And since she said everything I was going to say, I should get take half of her time. So this is a three vote or four vote.
Speaker 6: Three three vote, the successor agency and not the city. Interesting.
Speaker 3: And then the so that the proposed delay, if we adopt this motion is 60 days 38. What what are we talking here?
Speaker 6: Say it's going if.
Speaker 8: I could recommend 60 days.
Speaker 6: Because yeah the stop just for staff to do it staff report in on times is a minimum of 60 days.
Speaker 3: I mean I really want more than three. But.
Speaker 6: We hear you and I just ran. A representative is here this evening, too. All right.
Speaker 1: I'm just through the chair. Please. I'm sorry. No, no. You were speaking.
Speaker 3: Here I am thinking and speaking at the same time, which is always dangerous. But, you know, I don't know if I want to wait two months.
Speaker 1: Can I ask you a question? Sure of you. So so I guess my question is, I'm not it's unclear to me what we are going to beyond the let's get together and talk generally try to figure out how to get more. It is unclear to me what the path to more affordable housing is short of going to the housing authority and saying, hey, will you help us find money to to take on this project at a time when they're trying to take on multiple other projects to fund? So that if I thought there was a path there, I'd be very excited about this. But delaying 60 or possibly more. But let's go with 60 days. It's unclear to me what's going to come out of those those that discussion. And it would make me.
Speaker 0: The happiest audience and the only developer.
Speaker 1: I understand that.
Speaker 3: I mean, some I mean, to me, I would say more clarity on, you know, how many units are going to be and how many are going to be affordable. But, I mean, are we willing to kill this if it's just 20 in three? I mean, that's the question. And if we're not, then.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Daza.
Speaker 7: Just quickly to me, I think I really don't think a 60 day delay is required. I think the reason why I think 30 days is required is because out of the conversation, what I'm really looking for is mayor as he Ashcraft and council member Ody to sit down, talk with staff and talk with Branagh to figure out , okay, this is my idea rather than three, I want six affordable units. What is required to make that happen? Do we have the resources? What would be the trade offs? I don't. You know, I think if within the 30 days, I think council members and staff could come back with they don't have to have a specific contract , but they can come back with some kind of plan that says, okay, we.
Speaker 6: Get it completely agree that staff could have that conversation with the subcommittee. But at the end of those 30 days, we have to produce a staff report and get on the OIC to come back to council, and that is at least another 30 days, if not more, because the staff report has to be written. And then we have an internal process to get before you again.
Speaker 8: Get it put in perspective. I think the February 18th agenda reports are due. Are that this week, Laura. Yeah. So they're already due for a February 18th, which is 30 days out. Right.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 1: So I'm sorry. And then council member Odie.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 1: Council member Odie.
Speaker 3: Okay. So if we do that, just hypothetically, we go through this exercise and then they say there's no way we can feasibly do more than our 15% or for whatever it turns out to be, you know, then are we prepared to say we're going to walk? I mean, that's the thing. If we're not prepared to say we're going to walk, then. I don't understand the point of delaying.
Speaker 1: Right. Councilmember Bello.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I'm not prepared to walk from this if I can't get more than three. I want more than three, but I will take three.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I.
Speaker 4: I think my that's that's my concern. And then we're adding potentially not just the delay, but adding additional costs or whatever, if they have to if we have to redo anything in order to get there. I. I think again, what I would like to see is I think that this whole council needs to review kind of the impact of the Surplus Lands Act. This whole council needs to see what lands there is, and perhaps that's where we have the broader discussion about how we go about getting more affordable housing. I think it's been stated very clearly stated goal of this council to get more affordable housing. And I don't know that this is the parcel where and this is the project where a 60 day delay is going to help us really chip away at that goal in a meaningful way. And I do think that it's a council conversation that needs to be had. Talking about the impact, looking at all of the parcels and seeing if there is perhaps another opportunity that we could partner with somebody. Maybe it's not the housing authority, maybe it's somebody else to get additional affordable housing units. But I would like us to spend our resources in that capacity as well as staff's resources, because I think that that will allow us to get more of the solution that we're trying to to find.
Speaker 1: Okay? Yeah. So I would agree. But we have a motion and a second on the table. I have to admit with it's not Robert's rules. It's do we do we do substitute motions? Yes. So the council has to. Currently, there are no substitute motions on on the table. So the council could call the question on the main motion, no hearing, no subsidy motions. I will call a vote on the main question. Roll call. Yes.
Speaker 7: I think the motion actually specifies 30 days, but out of deference to what the city manager said. 60 days. Okay.
Speaker 1: And is that okay with you, Madam Chair?
Speaker 0: It is.
Speaker 1: Okay. So roll call votes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember De Sang. Oh.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 2: Not Slate. No Mayor as the.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: That fails 2 to 3.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 3: Councilmember I make my guess not. It's not a substitute because there's nothing pending but approve the item. But with the idea that Councilmember Vela raised to have this other subcommittee created to talk about an overall affordable housing plan. And, you know, I prefer the mayor and her, to be honest, since they're on the League of Cities, but I don't really care who's on it because I trust any one of you guys to come up with a, um, effective report.
Speaker 1: Okay. Would your motion include direction to look to use the proceeds?
Speaker 3: Well, I'd prefer just not to bring the the distribution of the proceeds back to the council when we get them and then decide then I mean, I don't really know if we can decide now how to spend money we don't have.
Speaker 4: I know, but that would your motion would be to basically have staff, bring the identify the proceeds and bring it back to council at that point.
Speaker 3: Right. And not. Yeah. Sure. Yes. Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes. You could.
Speaker 3: Have 2 minutes of mine.
Speaker 2: Vote because you're.
Speaker 6: Suspending her.
Speaker 3: I move to get the mayor more time.
Speaker 4: Can I second that motion?
Speaker 1: That's Councilmember Vela's second motion. The motion made by Councilmember o.T.
Speaker 3: I like the move to give the mayor another 3 minutes. Okay.
Speaker 2: And Councilmember Desai, we're doing.
Speaker 5: A vote.
Speaker 2: Roll call vote.
Speaker 7: Yes, yes, yes. So I support more minutes.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes. Yes. There is a.
Speaker 0: Lot going on. 15 minutes.
Speaker 2: Okay. Carries my bye bye.
Speaker 0: Well, that's what I'm thinking of. But it would make me feel sad about. But we didn't indicate case. We intend to use the policy to go back into the general or attitude toward achieving this kind of removal. Remove unstated or low areas. So I think we have the spirit of policy that's included. I can support it.
Speaker 1: Okay. And I'm just going to confirm, I believe that was a part of Councilmember Otis motion.
Speaker 3: If we could be that specific, I'm happy to agree to those changes. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yes, sir. I believe you already did.
Speaker 4: Okay. Okay.
Speaker 1: So it's a part of that. Okay, then assuming that we. We all know what we're voting on. Yeah, sorry. It was. It was a little sausage making here in below the phone can be difficult.
Speaker 7: So are we still going to have a subcommittee that's going to talk about the more global issues of what to do with them?
Speaker 4: That was pretty good.
Speaker 7: Mm hmm. Well, I mean, it's not too distantly removed from what I originally said, so I think I can support that, but I could support it. But I just want to make sure it also emphasized now because, you know, I am still concerned about the measure at issue. So I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 1: And just for the folks in the audience, that's a state dinner city bonus. We have no say. If they do it, we have no right to deny it as long as they make the case. Okay, just fair. So I'm going to call unless you want clarification.
Speaker 3: Then we'll just defer to the mayor to appoint a subcommittee. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 4: Although I would be happy to serve on it with the mayor.
Speaker 0: Um, and I would be happy to have you back. Wondering if you think I'm going to the subcommittee.
Speaker 3: Well, I. You have. It's your prerogative when you choose to do so. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Just report back who it is.
Speaker 0: I need to be back in a way that I get what you want to do with my.
Speaker 4: Doing.
Speaker 1: So, Madam Mayor, because that item is not really agenda is, I think, giving this indication of uh. Right. But I think that the mayor could announce that when the mayor returns. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right. With that, we have a motion and a second on the floor. A roll call vote, please.
Speaker 2: They said nice. Yes. Yes, that's right. Yes. Is he Ashcraft? Yes. That carries with my body.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. With that item, I will adjourn the meeting of the successor committee and move on to tonight's regular city council meeting. Roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Been noted. Five present.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have any agenda changes? Hearing none. We will read our first proclamation.
|
SACIC Consent Item
|
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Branagh Land, Inc., a California Corporation, for a Net Sales Price of $1,000,000 for the 0.82 Acre Vacant Parcel at 2350 Fifth Street. (Community Development 207)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_01212020_2020-7559
|
Speaker 5: We had our first community meeting last week, about 50 plus people in attendance, which was great. We have two more community meetings coming up on January 29th and February 12th at 6:00 at the club by excuse me and at those will at the next one on January 28th will actually be looking at potential conceptual designs and then narrowing down on a on a final conceptual plan at the last one, other basic terms of the lease. The district receives up to 735 hours of use annually for their regular season practices and games for their aquatics programs like swimming, water polo, diving, and any other future aquatics programs. It's that is at no cost and at a prioritized use. So that gets the highest priority use for those 735 hours. It's in addition, there is also they get priority and no cost for post-season play. So if one of their teams makes it into the finals and that that is also considered prioritized at no cost and then one is a USD school district hosted tournament per team per season also gets use of the facility. Any additional uses outside of that need to be. All of it needs to be scheduled would need to be scheduled to the city. But any uses outside of that would be an it would be charged per our regular fee schedule and allocated. Our regular LAPD allocation policy. The uses I just described are limited to the competition pool. So far, the design is envisioned to have one competition pool with at least ten lanes and one recreation pool with several lanes, plus what we call fun water recreational components. So the school districts priority use is limited to the pool, competition pool. If there are available lanes, then if their practices only need for five or six of the ten one night, then we can also program those additional lanes for lap swim or other community use like the Gators and other youth organizations. It's also important to note the city would retain all revenue from programs including concession sales, which will help for our cost recovery. And then the last point is, is DSA Division of State Architecture. All school construction is under DSA purview rather than going through, for example, the city's permit center and state code. So this aquatic center would not be built under DSA. There is an exemption under DSA that a recreational facility, a city facility built on a school district property for the public purposes is exempt from from DSA. The lease agreement also includes language that if either entity were to request and require changes to the facility that trigger DSA , that entity would be responsible to pay for those costs. If DSA changes are rules in the future, then it would be renegotiated that time when more is known about the factors at play. I do want to note that currently the the City Aquatic Center construction operations is not funded. The city will be considering funding options. This could include an infrastructure bond. It could include a large capital donation campaign and other potential options. So that concludes my report and I'm open to any questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Welcome, counsel. Questions. Looking like none. All right. Are there any speakers on this? No, we have no speakers. Um, so we will move into, uh, council communications. No, no. Sorry. I mean, comment, though. Comments. They both start with CRT. Come on. I didn't mean the agenda. I mean council. Council comments? Yes. So are there any kind of looks like Councilmember de SAC would like to start us off?
Speaker 7: Well, thank you. Let me just briefly say quickly say as a member of the Alameda Unified School District Dash, Alameda City Council Joint Committee. I'm proud to have seen this come through and then to pass it on to our subcommittee of Mayor Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Knox White and who have brought us to this point now of moving this forward. I think this is something that would be very, very exciting for the city of Alameda. I think from the outset, we all thought of it as, you know, modernizing the swimming pool, making sure that it meets the needs of the swimming community. But I think it's more than that. I think this is really going to be not to overuse the word, another jewel in the assets that that the city of Alameda retains in conjunction with its partners. So I certainly look forward to supporting this and staff's recommendation.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brody.
Speaker 3: Sure. I want to thank everyone who worked to put this together. I think this is a good deal for the city. The one thing I would just suggest as we move forward and, you know, if there are any issues that still need to be resolved, is that we all remember that even though we're two different legal entities were two different governments, we all work for the same people. So let's try to remember that going forward as as we try to implement this and figure out a way to pay for it and and operate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. There were any comments? No Councilmember or Mayor Ashcraft, any comments?
Speaker 0: I was just going to say thank you to Director Aldridge and also the City Center for the training thought that was involved and utilizing all of this. But it did take a fair amount of communicating that. That's how you come to a decision and hearing from all sides and hearing their concerns. And I think that there's a lot to be excited about going forward, but we need to get started because we need to get that pool up and ready for the season or two that can be in and separate from the new aquatic center. But I'm very pleased that subcommittee was able to come up with the compromises that it did. And so hopefully this council 3000, we move forward. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I will just quickly chime in with my thanks for both city staff and school district staff, as well as the school board members, Harris and Williams, who worked very diligently. We had a couple of meetings here at the end. I would say that every meeting started with us all remaining, her not remaining, but acknowledging that we know we work for the same people and whatnot. And I think some of the language in here actually we decided to leave it a little flexible and vague based on the fact that that we expected that not only can we , but others in the future will be able to work together as as we have around these issues. And that sometimes having having some of that flexibility will be easier and better for us moving forward. So I really appreciate all the work. It was a lot of work. I know that behalf of Dr. Aldridge and and Shahrukh Khan especially, but the rest of the staff. So thank you very much. It doesn't sound like we have any any issues of this. Would somebody like to make a motion to approve.
Speaker 7: The staff's recommendation?
Speaker 1: Second, we have a motion to approve by Councilmember Desai and a second by Councilmember Vela. Any comments? See? None. Roll call vote.
Speaker 2: Please remember Jason.
Speaker 7: Enthusiastic.
Speaker 6: Yes, Odie.
Speaker 3: He has to get enthusiastic.
Speaker 2: Yes, Knox.
Speaker 1: Quite very excited. Yes.
Speaker 2: Here is the.
Speaker 0: Unanimous. Cynthia.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1: And on the list of people who have been here, I just want to thank Dr. Parker for his his voice and just say, I'm really happy to see you here tonight after our conversation. So thank you. Great. So there we go.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a 60-Year Lease Agreement with the Alameda Unified School District for a City Aquatic Center at the Existing Swim Center Site at Alameda High School. (Recreation and Parks 208)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_01072020_2020-7556
|
Speaker 1: Recommendation to provide advice and consent on the Social Service Human Relations Board workPlan for the 2020 calendar year.
Speaker 0: Um, Mr. Vice Mayor, you pulled this. Did you want to hear from Stafford? Did you want.
Speaker 4: To? I'm happy to. Just make a couple of quick comments.
Speaker 0: Go right.
Speaker 4: Ahead. First first off, I just I really appreciate that this comes forward. Actually, I think this is a practice. I would love to see some of our other boards and commissions do. The mayor and I had a referral halfway through last year about the Commission on Disability Issues that I think would benefit from, you know, just making sure we're all on the same page as to what our advisory bodies are working on.
Speaker 0: Mr. Vice Mayor, for the benefit of someone who might not be following along with, what, five years, do you want to just explain?
Speaker 4: Sure. So this is a work plan for the social survey, the draft 2020 work plan for the Social Service Human Relations Board for Alameda. And it identifies that our municipal code identifies six key goals that the Shrub is supposed to work on in this proposes the actions that they are going to the actions and next steps that they are looking to tackle in pursuit of those. Specifically, the reason beyond just wanting to say, I think it's a great work plan and I appreciate the clear thought and effort that has gone into this. One issue that has come up over and over and over again, not just in the last year, but in the last few years, that I think connects to some of this. But I didn't see reflected that. I just was going to ask if it could be considered maybe at the next meeting is we continue to have issues, especially in our schools, around hate, hate crimes, hate language, hate incidents as well. And there is some confusion, at least among community members as to how that is addressed. Our school district and our city staff do connect at times. It's usually driven by the school district and whatnot, but I think that there's a way for us to formalize and strengthen some of those those processes and whatever else. And the trust seems to be a great place to do that, to look at how we can kind of bring those conversations more to the fourth community. It's great that our police department works very closely with the school district. I'm not trying to say that anybody is not doing their jobs, but having we have heard from a number of parents over the last few months, especially about incidents that have come to their attention, and curious how the city is addressing this. And I think it's a place that the Shrub who took a lead in 2016, 2017 on how to how the city should start looking at these issues, how maybe they can look at the next step of how they can maybe convene some conversations with the district and and others in the city. So that was it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Can you remind me who who on the council is on the liaison committee with the school districts.
Speaker 4: It's Tony and I.
Speaker 0: Okay. To you. So perhaps you also raise that.
Speaker 4: You should have already asked for it to be agendas at our next meeting.
Speaker 0: Great. Madam Kirk, did you.
Speaker 1: Once you're done, move on from this item. We just have to make an announcement as part of the consent calendar. So circle back to me once you're done with that item. Okay? Fabulous.
Speaker 0: Good enough. Okay. So any other comments on this social this closed session item or shall we vote to approve it to her motion to approve item five? Okay. It's been moved and seconded all in favor. This is recommendation to provide advice and consent on the Social Service Human Relations Board workPlan for the 2020 calendar year. All in favor. Okay, that's unanimous. Back to you, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 1: Pardon me. Thank you so much. As part of the consent count, you approved an amendment to the employment agreement with the city manager. And that was item five I. And basically to highlight what those changes were, they were approved at the close session last time. And you did a 6000 annual transportation allowance, increase the base pay by 3%, the first full pay period of January, and then tied future increases to the executive management group, which will be effective on his anniversary date. So we just needed to publicly announce what those changes were.
Speaker 4: The transportation allowance.
Speaker 0: Yes, we we we we actually, I think, folded it into the city manager's.
Speaker 1: Base salary in the announcement from last time. Okay.
Speaker 3: The report.
Speaker 0: I just wanted to make sure that the report is correct.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Um, okay. Well, and we approve them when we approve the consent calendar. Okay. Um, so then we move on to item six eight.
Speaker 1: Six eight is public hearing to consider approving the Housing and Community Development Needs statement and priority needs and objectives for the Community Development BLOCK Grant, annual and five year plans. And there's a PowerPoint. It's a.
Speaker 0: Good evening.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam Mayor. City council member, staff members of the public. I'm Lisa Fitz. I'm a management analyst with the Housing Authority of the city of Alameda. And I manage the Community Development BLOCK Program for the city of Alameda. Tonight, I will briefly review the CDBG program and the needs hearing process for the five year strategic plan and the annual action plan, collectively known as the Consolidated Plan. So what is CDBG?
Speaker 0: So maybe I was thinking, okay, now we know the answer.
Speaker 3: What is CDBG? It is federal funds provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the explicit purpose of assisting low and moderate income persons by developing viable urban communities which provide decent housing, a suitable living environment or economic opportunity. In the past five years, the CDBG funded programs have served approximately 6000 individuals each year. As part of the process, the city is required to prepare a five year strategic plan, which outlines the housing and community development priority needs that will inform the CDBG funding decisions.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Recommendation to Provide Advice and Consent on the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) Work Plan for the 2020 Calendar Year. (Community Development 267)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_01072020_2020-7488
|
Speaker 1: . The adoption resolution amending the General Fund budget for fiscal year 20 1920 by 130,000 to cover costs associated with the 4th of July.
Speaker 0: Okay. And who's whose item is this, by the way? Is it Mrs. Aldrich, or you want to you want to come up and do this? I was I was kind of thinking, since we're approving the recreation party budget.
Speaker 3: That's good evening. We were on the.
Speaker 0: A we we and we pulled B from the calendar.
Speaker 3: Sorry about that. So. Good evening. I'm Amy Wooldridge, director of Recreation and Parks.
Speaker 0: And it is defense. Sometimes at 730 we're just doing proclamation.
Speaker 3: So it's New Year Crest. So a nice new decade.
Speaker 0: We're we're on a roll.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor. So I'm here to discuss the 4th of July parade. The Alameda 4th of July parade began in 1976, is touted as the longest parade on the West Coast. It goes from Park Street to Webster Street with an estimated 60,000 spectators and over 170 entries. It's by far our largest event on the island. Up until now, this event's been coordinated by volunteers, specifically from the nonprofit Parade Foundation. They have decided to earn a well to to take a well-earned retirement from this coordination. And I personally want to take this time to thank them for their many years of service and all they've done for this work.
Speaker 0: I see one of the the triumvirate, Jim Franz, is in the audience. I think we should give him a round of applause.
Speaker 3: So I want to mention that I'm going to get into the various points. Part of why I understand that the we've had volunteers running this this event. It's been a massive undertaking for them. And it's been difficult for them to find folks to a succession plan and other folks to come up behind them to volunteer. So I want to give you a little bit of context on that. Volunteerism across the United States has declined steadily over the last decade. I was recently looking at numbers. California is actually 47th in the nation on volunteerism. So get out and volunteer people.
Speaker 0: I feel that Alameda as a city is probably that.
Speaker 3: Data wasn't quite there and specifically on Alameda and so it's really an A and people are they volunteer their time but the average is 52 hours a year. Right. So people are generally volunteering a few hours a month. Generally, they're with their faith organizations, their schools and some and nonprofits. The smallest one of the smallest wages was for civic organizations. So just tell us the story of how it is really difficult in these times to find volunteers willing to volunteer 20 plus more as you get closer to the event hours a week. And part of it also is the Parade Foundation had increasing liability costs and concerns. And I want to ensure I've already had people come to me saying, hey, I want to volunteer. So we would continue. If LAPD takes over coordination of this event, we would continue to have a volunteer committee, and there definitely is still a role for that and places where people can work with us on that. And as being the largest event in Alameda and stretching across the entire. And there are significant safety concerns with this event. Event security, as unfortunately we all know, has become a more pressing issue in our society with very large scale and tragic incidences occurring at large community events. So it's something that we really need to be taking seriously. Unfortunately, the police chief couldn't be here tonight. He's out of town, but he's been extremely involved in these conversations. And even prior to the retirement of the Pride Foundation, I was working with the police chief and the city manager's office, and we were already already in conversations about the need to increase the level of security at this event. For example, in the past, volunteers have been utilized to assist at intersections to help offset costs. And in this we tried it again this last year, and it it it was extremely difficult to recruit and train volunteers. It was difficult to have consistency. Plus, it's not really putting volunteers in a fair position if an incident occurs or so they're not trained to that level as a as a paid security company would be. So per per Alameda Police Department, really, there's too many complications and concerns with using volunteers for security and for traffic positions. So we as part of this recommendation, we're recommending additional security of staffing due to these increased potential threats and liabilities as seen in other communities. It includes activating the Alameda Police Department special units for higher parade route security. It also includes increasing traffic security personnel. So the company that we are to use that we've been very happy with, it's nearly doubling the number of personnel that they would be bringing out there. So these measures, just the safety and traffic security measures total 109,000. Currently there is 50,000 budgeted in the general fund. So it's a net cost just for security of 59,000. So that's part of and to be clear, that is part of all of the recommendations you see before you tonight, already built into the budget, the city budget as well is the general fund budget is $60,000, half of which is for public works to put out barricades, to take the barricades back in, put out porta potties and do all of that work. And also for Alameda Police Department for their officers doing parade detail, the officers are also out there helping with setup and both public works and APD are involved in pre-event coordination. So before you tonight, you have three options. We've provided the three options to consider if the cities are taking responsibility over coordination of the parade event. So one is keeping the current route with with Alameda Recreation, Park Department staff coordination. You have a proposal before you of a recreation assistant position. It would be the lowest level position in our department in terms of coordination staff. It'd be super. The position would be supervised by the recreation manager and 25% of his time would be going toward this as well. I actually expect this first year because we're getting a late start, honestly, on coordination of this and it takes time to hire new person. A lot of it would be on the recreation manager and then we'd be phasing it in and training a new person with this first option. The total general fund budget for this, including security, including staffing, including other parade costs, part time staff for that day. All total costs is 179,500. And as you recall, 50,000 of that is already budgeted. So it's a new ask financially of about 130,000. The second option is also with the same staffing level of the recreation assistant and recreation manager, but with a potential revised route. So we put this out just as as a potential cost savings measure. We fully recognize the highest, I guess you could say, historic nature of of the route of this parade. And the but we wanted to provide options. So the revised route would go start at the same location, go down Park Street to end tunnel, make a right, go all the way down and tunnel to Webster and then finish on Webster, as it usually does. What that does is it removes Otis Drive and removes the well attended Grand Street. So again, we just wanted to put it out as an option, but what it does is it reduces the traffic personnel costs or outside security costs. So that is a total general fund budget of 158,000 with a net new cost of 108,000. The last option is keep the existing parade route, but contract out the event. Nation of it. We would aim for that to be very minimal oversight by LAPD, by the recreation manager. The I want to note that an event planner cost that I put $100,000 in here for an event planner. Cause that's a very rough estimate because we would have to do an RFP and go out and see and bring a contract back to you and see what that cost. So that's an educated placeholder of a cost. So the total general fund budget for that option would be 193,000 with the new general fund request of 143,000. So all just to clarify, all of these options include the increased security costs, which are strongly recommended by staff, including her police chief. All options include a parade coordination budget of 13,000, and that was based on the Parade Foundation's budget. There was actually there was actually a little bit higher. I reduced it down because there was some equipment and things like that that we have in house that we didn't feel we would need to pay for some minimal part time staff cost of 20 $500. It does assume continued revenue from donations from businesses. It also assumes an added revenue of adding a small registration fee for additional revenue. We budgeted it, but it's not a final number, but we budgeted it based on $25 for residents and nonprofits and $100 for businesses. With the thought process, that $100 isn't much for the amount of marketing that a business gets when they're taking a float down the entire length of the island. I also want to clarify that all of these assumed that we would be keeping the pre parade race that benefits Midway Shelter. So that is part of this total coordination effort. So that concludes my report. I'm open to any questions.
Speaker 0: Any questions? And do we have public speakers clarifying question just a few minutes.
Speaker 2: And I only ask this question because I was at I don't it was the last park and rec meeting or the one before where you outlined everything that was on your plate. Can this person will they be able to do more than the parade or with the parade to be basically a full time job?
Speaker 3: The parade, we expect, would be about 50% of their time. And it would it would ebb and wane based on the the time of year. Right. So as we start heading into April, it would probably May it would get pretty heavy on that person's load. But then once the parade's over, they could be shifted over, which actually be great because then it's summertime, which is super busy for us. So they could be shifted over and and the concept because it's the lowest level position would be that this person could it's almost like an entry level position into the recreation field and be learning and helping and assisting with a variety of ways in our department.
Speaker 2: So you'd be able to they'd be able to write a little help with all of the things that are on your plate.
Speaker 3: Just a little bit. I think they'd be more focused on the on the operation. Okay.
Speaker 2: And then the 15,000 that was 1920. I mean, I, I think didn't we also have something and in 18, 19.
Speaker 3: 18, 19, I don't recall the exact amount. It was less it was.
Speaker 2: It was like 35 and.
Speaker 3: Then but 50,000 is budgeted for this fiscal year and next fiscal.
Speaker 2: Year. And if I remember correctly, I mean, even though we didn't have budget for it, the police chief was spending money out of his like that wasn't in line item. So, you know, we have been spending this money. It's just this was the first year we decided to segregate it on the budget. So it didn't you know, it wasn't a hit to his budget.
Speaker 3: You're correct. So before that, he spent about 75,000 out of the police of unanticipated out of the police.
Speaker 2: Okay. So, I mean, that's that's been a few years. So I just want to make sure the people know that we have been supporting this. And, you know, the police have been very generous with his budget, but he may not always have overages.
Speaker 3: So, yeah.
Speaker 2: I think those are my questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. I think clarifying questions. Vice Mayor. That's right.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I appreciate appreciated the budget. I just had a quick question. So historically, there's about $60,000 that it's just been, which I think includes the police in costs. That's not reflected in here as right. Because that that would have been covered by this 50,000 that we budgeted historically.
Speaker 3: No separate actually from the 50,000 also. So the 60,000 we considered essentially already baked into the budget in the in the budgets of police and fire. The 50,000 is in our Non-Departmental fund and and which is probably where this would live as well, which is under the general fund and is separate from that 60,000 already baked in
Speaker 4: . To these costs. The expense costs actually include an additional 60,000, which is already baked in because it's a part of departmental funds. Okay. And then kind of picking up on Councilmember Otis comment, so you explain the 50. Percent time for the assistant, which is the new position. But this other also has 25% time for a manager who I believe already exists. So this will actually be taking away from a higher up who currently is working. And we don't think that that's going to be a problem.
Speaker 3: It's going to it's it's going to be difficult. I mean, this is this is a huge undertaking. And I'm going to be honest and we're nervous about taking it on. But we recognize the the the the depth of how the community feels about this event. And it's an important event to continue. So so we will do our you know, we're going to do our best to manage it with our staffing. Great.
Speaker 4: And then lastly, this week or next week at the next Rec and Park Commission meeting, there is they are having another item about increasing park staff. And I'm just curious, we're here asking to increase park staff. How how did how do these two things? I haven't a chance to read the staff report. I'm sorry that I tried.
Speaker 3: No, no problem. So. So that's correct. This Thursday, the record. So let me back up. Last month and at the December Recreation and Parks Commission meeting, they reviewed the park and made a recommendation on the park priorities as as this body asked to occur. They and several speakers from Casa Sierra Club came forward and looked at the list. And we really delved into all the different projects and the speakers said, well, we want d paved park to happen and there's too much happening with the level of staffing and we want to see more the commission recommend more staffing. So part of the Commission's motion was for me to bring back a staffing plan on how to manage the projects. All of this would come before you obviously as as so it's just a recommendation. But they're considering my proposal was essentially a middle management position. That's a senior management analyst I think is the right level to do the project project coordination that that to Councilmember Otis point that's really it's really a higher level position that's needed to take these projects on. And the intention was that I would still manage the high profile and large projects like De Pave Park, but that this position could start taking over smaller things like a playground at Jackson Park or other annual playground maintenance and things, a kayak launch at Water Park, so things like that. So that is been a separate discussion from this recreation assistant, the recreation system position there, other 50% time. And that's actually a position that's been needed that I've been trying to figure out how to fund for for a number of years. Our we're very flat in our recreation department on our staffing. It's myself and I'm really primarily doing projects at this point and our recreation manager for each of our divisions Mastic, recreation services and parks . And then and then there's for recreation supervisor ones underneath them that do everything right. So there's no one's supporting them. So we're paying someone. It's really not an efficient way to work because we're paying someone at a high level to answer phone calls from parents saying, My kid's not going to be there today. And they're really doing this huge range of work that would fit more of a recreation assistant position. So so this is a way that I think we can bolster our services we're providing overall to the city as well as as incorporate the parade management.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Public speakers.
Speaker 1: Kerry Thompson.
Speaker 0: Good evening. I'm Kerry Thompson.
Speaker 3: I'm the president of the Army, the homeless network, which we do the 4th of July parade or race beforehand. And I just want to encourage you to stick with option A or C, not altering the route, because it does make a difference to the race as far as the distance and everything. And I encourage you to support one of those two options.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you. And oh, just once we got that interested to, um. Okay. Um, if I could just comment. Thank you for the report. And the parade is certainly a beloved institution tradition in Alameda. When I looked at the the proposed parade route change and for the spirit of full disclosure I live on Grand Street, although my life would probably be simpler if I wasn't both in the parade and hosting a parade party that I had to get back to. But it's more complicated than you need to know about. But I do the cooking too. But anyway. But when I think of the parade route and Otis Drive, yeah, it is a more sparsely populated street for the parade, but along Otis Drive are all those assisted living facilities for seniors, including the assisted living facility that prepares the meals every day for Meals on Wheels. And every year on the 4th of July, they will the residents out on the sidewalks. And it is the sweetest thing to see them there. And, you know, and I think the caregivers who are out there and sometimes families also really enjoy that. So I can see that we would save maybe $21,000 from the most costly option of keeping it. And I just I don't know, that would make me sad if we would take that away from from those folks because they always look so pleased to see us and I kind of look forward to seeing them every year. It is true that the in so many ways the parade looks the way it always has, but it is more sophisticated and it does require more security for all the reasons our recreation parks director Amy Aldridge delineated. So we we do need to spend more money to make sure that that it's a safe event and our crowds are safe at the same time. I would never want to see us reveal too much about the kind of security we're providing. Has bad people pay attention to those sorts of things? But our police department is great and they know who to contract out with. So, you know, those are those are my thoughts. I think that whatever is the considered the most workable option and I guess I think I'm hearing misspoke. Or is it correct to say that your preference would be to see if you could contract the event coordinator coordinator position out rather than have it in house? Or are you neutral on that?
Speaker 3: I think we would have more control and consistency if we have a staff person actually, because event planners change, we might potentially, you know, we could do a three year contract, but but they could potentially change. And now you're doing it again back.
Speaker 0: To square.
Speaker 3: One. I think there would be more consistency if we were in-house.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thanks for that input. Okay, Counsel, your thoughts on my left? No. Okay, Tony. On my semi left, also my right, Councilmember Desai. Now be quiet on the left or whatever it. I'll leave you out.
Speaker 7: You know, the 4th of July parade is Alameda is once a year gift to the San Francisco Bay area. And I want to see us continue. The 4th of July parade is the city of alameda was once a year gift to the San Francisco Bay area. It's something that, you know, everyone looks forward to. It's always on the local television stations. So I think clearly we need to keep that going. I prefer option A, I think it's the cleanest. There are costs involved with option A, but the reality, though, is that there has always. In costs involved. It's just that now we are certainly recognizing those costs. So, so I prefer option eight. Um.
Speaker 0: Okay. Others Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank my colleagues for their comments and know I think my colleague here basically said it all. I mean, that's an Alameda institution since the bicentennial year. Right. And I know I look forward to it every year. And I also prefer option A because that stretch on Otis. You do get a chance to rest and not not walk.
Speaker 0: And I'll.
Speaker 2: Gear up for the for the end. I just want to give my appreciation to the volunteers that have been putting this together. I mean, I remember my first parade and, you know, coming around the corner and we were, you know, entry 130 or whatever it was. And there was Jim friends still moving people along. And you know, you're still volunteering at FAS. I have lots of cat pictures. People are sick of my cat pictures.
Speaker 0: Those words to.
Speaker 2: You and Barbara Price and Mark Sorenson. And, you know, it's not that there's not a willingness. It's just, you know, it's a thankless job. And, you know, people need to, you know, move on to other things. So I just want to give you a huge shout out. And I'm happy that we if we pick option, we'll will have a full time person. I'm not going to talk about the staffing because that's not in the agenda, but I eagerly await that agenda item. And I do want to again give an appreciation to our police chief, who has taken who has paid for a lot of this out of his budget, a lot of his budget surplus over the past few years since the Boston Marathon incident. So, I mean, it's we probably won't in the end see a net increase in in cash spent by the city. But I appreciate that, you know, we've been supportive and partnered, so I'm just excited. I'm glad that we're not losing the the foot race. I'd like to see a bike race added before the foot race because, you know, we don't close our streets but once a year. So that's something maybe to think about. But again, huge appreciation to Jim and Mark and Barbara and everybody on that committee who's done this work year in and year out. You know, it's tireless work. And I just want to say I appreciate it all.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor. Not quite.
Speaker 4: Sure. Thank you very much. I would also like to just share my thanks to everybody. I mean, the three who continue to be mentioned, but the many dozens and scores of other people who make this happen every year have made this happen every year. You know, I certainly want to preface my comments with that. I don't think that there's a world in which we're going to decide tonight that the parade is not happening. But I am a little nervous that depending on what decision we make tonight as the economy goes south, we could find ourselves in a place where we've found , you know, this could be one of the first places that gets cut in a budget and impact of impact future parades. I'm a it does it concerns me that we have a budget that's somewhere north of $250,000 of city money that is being spent on the parade. Under this budget, I know that, you know, somewhere around 75,000 has historically been spent. We tried to start trying to budget for this. And, you know, I guess I would I'd like to. Would it be interested in at least discussing tonight would be something where we whether it's option one or option three, I don't think there's there's enough savings to even consider option to where we find a way for the city to fund this for the next year or two, but that we actually start working with some of our community organizations the Elks, the Rotary, etc., to see if we can still find some community leadership that might take on the the actual organizing of the event, an understanding that there's going to be ongoing security costs to the city that we need to budget for. I don't know what that looks like and I'm fortunate. I don't think we have enough time to probably tonight or before the next parade to figure that out. But I think, you know, kind of adding adding on an annual expense of another hundred $25,000, given all the other things that we're also asking for money to be spent on. I just want to be a little mindful of that outside outside our overall budget discussions as an ongoing annual expense.
Speaker 0: And Councilmember Vella.
Speaker 5: I was going to make a really bad pun about raining on the parade, but that's good.
Speaker 3: You didn't get to it.
Speaker 5: So have a.
Speaker 0: Few more hours.
Speaker 5: So a few things. I think one of my colleagues, Councilmember Odie, said that, you know, it's a thankless job. I think that the key word there isn't actually thankless. I think the key word is job and. Typically when something is an undertaking big enough to call it a job, we compensate people for it so that we can depend on it and rely on it. And I think it's become much more complicated than it has been in past years because of the security element, because of the different things that go into it. There there are more considerations that staff are having to work with now, and it's for public safety. It's also for liability purposes and everything else. And so I do recognize that there's an increase in the workload as well as the overall cost. I do. And I would like to thank all of those who have volunteered for all of these years and will be continuing to volunteer in various capacities because it is a production and it's a huge production that lasts for many countless hours before the the first person lines up to actually be in the parade to the the vice mayors point. I would be interested in seeing if there's a way to have, you know, sponsorships or naming rights for the parade. I think in addition to looking at, you know, volunteer opportunities, I do know that some other parades get sponsorships. They have naming rights, things like that. If that's something that we could look at here, this is a pretty well-known parade. We do get a fairly large turnout. Um, if we're doing all this work, it'd be nice to see if we could build something like that into it. And I do want to recognize, I mean, the staff vacancy savings that the police department has has put into this to kind of hide the costs for the past few years is fairly significant. So it's not that there's a huge amount of money that's now all of a sudden being spent. We're just allocating it separately and not using staff vacancy savings. And I think all of us up here are very committed to making sure that the vacancy savings for our police department decrease over time by virtue of filling those positions. So I think that this is also prudent planning. I'm inclined to support option one with the caveat that we we look at kind of other ways of funding this, if at all possible.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And you know, I'm glad, Councilmember Vella, that you mentioned sponsorships and naming rights because that was something that staff raised with the committee last year in the planning phases. I think there's a lot of potential there, but it's just that by the time you come down to a couple months before the parade, it's too late to do that and.
Speaker 5: Person to coordinate.
Speaker 0: Exactly. And we have an economic development department that has, you know, good contacts with our business community. So I think those are all things that a staff can consider. So I heard at least a few of you. I heard Councilmember Velez specifically say she would support option number one, which is to keep the existing parade route at a full time recreation. Assistant for LAPD event coordination includes 25% of recreation manager's time for oversight and coordination. Do you want to make that as a motion, Councilmember Vela?
Speaker 5: Sure, I'm going to move that. We select option one, move forward with option one.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: So that was council ready. Okay. So now that's been moved and seconded the option. One option. All in favor I a okay. Was that five eyes. That's unanimous. Okay. Thanks, everyone. Okay. The OC Council. Are you okay? If we keep going without a break? You guys are going to be okay. Okay. Okay. I know, I know. That's true. It's only been in there when we were in closed session. Okay, so then we move on to item. Oh, goodness. I'm going to do that. Uh.
Speaker 7: For sure.
Speaker 0: It's the same I've had. Come on, guys, I've got a paper agenda. Who needs your city manager? Communications. Mr. Leavitt?
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Consider Options on Coordination of the 4th of July Parade;
Adoption of Resolution Approving a Workforce Change in the Recreation and Parks Department to Create a New Classification, Recreation Assistant; Add One Position, Recreation Assistant; and Amend the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule to Add the Classification of Recreation Assistant, Effective January 8, 2020; and
Adoption of Resolution Amending the General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2019-20 by $130,000 for Costs Associated with the 4th of July. (Recreation and Parks Department 280)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_01072020_2020-7584
|
Speaker 1: Considered directing staff to develop a recommendation on an automated license plate reader program. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Vice Fairfax by.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor next week.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So my interest tonight is to well, you know, as many of you know, 2018 there was a discussion around the use of automated license plate readers in Alameda that was sent back for additional information on the use of the data setting, some privacy policies, etc.. In our last meeting, we set a number of those policies, including expanding to a surveillance policy. And I know that there's been a lot of interest in that in some aspects of the community to at least have a conversation around automated license plate readers. So I brought this referral to find out if there is interest from this body to look at license plate readers and then understanding that there are two different issues. There's the license plate readers which provide real time information about vehicles in cities. And then there's the second issue what do you do with the data once it's happening? And so there's a spectrum of how we how license plate readers could be implemented in Alameda. And there may be places where the police department and staff feel that there is a reasonable use of them and where they aren't interested in that . And so I wanted to again see if there's a interest on the council to ask staff to explore how they might propose using license plate readers in Alameda County consistent with our privacy policy, which is not yet an ordinance and consistent with the the San Francisco surveillance ordinance, which we sent to staff for their consideration to bring back is an ordinance as well. But in that it outlines a number of reporting requirements for when we move forward with surveillance type technology. So until we have our own ordinance set, it's pretty much the gold plated surveillance ordinance in the Bay Area and probably in this country. And it would be a good pilot for how does this work and how does it inform both the council and the community about the impacts of proposed use of technology in in Alameda? And then additionally, if data is being collected, if we were to move forward with license plate readers, where would we be comfortable having staff consider kind of the retention and use and possible sharing of any of that data data possibly providing staff with a menu or a spectrum of of or range of. Sorry. Brain freezing where they were with a range of options for how they might come back and talk to us if they were interested in bringing that back. So that is my refer counsel comments.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Vela Um, so I'm a little bit, um, I had a referral several years ago to get the privacy and data retention, um, ordinances in place. And, you know, one of the things that happened was that our police department asked for an exemption, uh, specifically for, for law enforcement. Um, and well, we discussed that exemption at the last meeting that was not with the thought of Alpers being adopted. Um, so I would like to see what the actual ordinance and we did give instruction at the last meeting about the ordinances and looking at the ACLU model ordinance as well as the San Francisco ordinance. Um, I think, Vice Mayor, you were, you were pretty clear on that instruction and helping us clarify that for staff. Direction. But I would also like to see, you know, to have staff come back with both of those, um, and with an explanation of how a law enforcement exemption would interact with this and what it would mean . Because I do have concerns about, you know, if we're going to adopt an ordinance for privacy and data retention. Um, I would like the ordinance to apply. And specifically part of it is to have it applied to all aspects of government, including law enforcement, so that there can't be, um, you know, abuses, maybe not even by our own city, but by vendors who we contract with. The other concern that I have, and it's something that we've discussed in the past, is while there is a Supreme Court case saying that cities are not bound to release kind of wholesale data collected by Alpers, the Brown Act still or not the Brown Act, but the the Public Records Act still compels us to release records to people that are the vehicles registered owner. And we've heard from a couple of speakers tonight regarding domestic violence concerns and things like that. Um, I would like to know if there's a way to, to, uh, you know, create a policy specific to checking on certain things, for instance, before we do a release, if we could have a policy in place to check to see if there's any civil or criminal restraining orders against the requesting party, that sort of thing. The reason being, you know, I think that we're all human. Our police officers are human. I was in my third trimester of pregnancy when Alameda Police Department came banging on my door in the middle of the night, woke both my husband and I up. Um, and we had multiple officers and there were four or five at our door searching for somebody who was not, uh, living with us because they had gotten a welfare call and this individual had a criminal and a civil restraining order against his former partner. And that former individual was, had been very abusive and violent and was harassing this individual and basically was calling in to various police departments, um, saying that this individual was a threat to himself and was essentially trying to weaponize the police. And so out of their good intention, they showed up at our house, understandably concerned for the welfare of this individual without realizing that the person calling was literally down the block trying to see if that individual was, in fact, staying with us. And, you know, my concern would be the same sort of thing. You know, if if your partner and you're an abusive relationship has the car registered to them, you know, somebody's putting in an information request and getting that information and then using it to stalk the person. And I don't want us to inadvertently turn over information that could help facilitate that sort of thing.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brody.
Speaker 2: Sure. I had a couple of comments. I appreciate customer vela's comments that I share a lot of the same concerns. I guess the threshold issue to me is, I mean, do we have support to do this? Because, one, this is a tremendous amount of work for our police chief, who I imagine would be the one. Doing it. And if there's not a majority that want to move forward with license plate readers, it's a waste of time, in my opinion, for him to do all this work if it eventually gets voted down. So further. I mean, if it for me to vote on it, I would want this information. So I think that's a prerequisite even before it comes. And, you know, I'm not into setting the priorities of of the police chief, but we do have a shortage of of staff right now. And I know he's made that a top priority of his. We have eight or nine kids now that have been hit since the beginning of the school year. And I know he's made that a priority of his. So, I mean, my question to the city manager is, you know, where would doing this work fall in with those priorities? Because I'd rather have our police force working on not having kids get run over and filling vacancies than drafting a report for something that may have limited use or limited value. So, I mean, that would be one of my questions. So I don't know. You don't have to answer that now, maybe.
Speaker 8: So depending upon where the I would agree with you and agree with you, but those are high priorities that you mentioned. My recommendation would be that this would probably fall below those priorities and that we would bring back the parameters you want to see. And then he can move forward with the license plate readers depending upon whether or not the parameters work. But I would do the parameters prior to doing any work on the LP.
Speaker 2: Okay. Because I'd like to see, you know, information on, you know, exactly what it is that we would use this for because I mean, the original proposal was to put them at the bridges and the tubes. And I hear people, you know, I see on Facebook, well, I had a package stolen from my house and we have license plate readers. We would have caught that person. Well, no, because we don't know what that person doesn't have a car. So or you know, I was assaulted by so-and-so. You know, a license plate reader would have would stop them. Okay. Well, if you're not a car, you don't know when they're crossing the bridge. And I do have I mean, another example is, you know, so and so, you know, I was a victim of a crime by a a green person. So then if we want to find that green person, then we're scrolling through thousands and thousands of photos profiling a green person. I'm just using that as an example. I mean, that color I know we don't have green people, but I mean that that potential for racial profiling is concerning to me. The potential for, um, just the issue with the shooter was not to my tongue, but I forgot. But I'll come back to it. Um, the whole issue with domestic violence, I mean, I could easily see an instance like Councilmember Vela brought up where, you know, someone's the owner of the car, their wife or husband or whatever as a victim of domestic violence. They get their records, you know, they find out they go off the bridge every day at 933. Maybe they're in hiding. And then all of a sudden, the next day, that person's there, they stalk them, they kill them. So, I mean, and then, you know, I have concerns about that. I have concerns about, you know, this data being misused by someone who has a right to that if they own the car, you know, use it in a family law dispute. I used to do that as a as a living. And those things get vicious, you know. And I thought of the other one and I forgot again. But, um. Oh, and I think we were on the verge of adopting this a while back. And then we found out that, you know, data was going to ice, not because we wanted it to, not because our police were giving it, but because the vendor was doing it. Even though we were we were somehow told that that wasn't happening. I don't know if it specifically was for Alameda, but that vendor was sharing data with ice now three years ago. You know, this would not have been a problem. But, you know, I don't know where we're going in the next 3 to 5 years with with data that could be commandeered. You know, this is a different time than it was three years ago. So there's a lot of things I'd like to see. You know, these examples turn into use cases. You know, that's kind of is something where you kind of lay out what's going to happen in these certain circumstances that we can kind of see and show the public, yeah, this is going to be valuable for this. You know, this is going to be, you know, we're going to protect you in case of this or, you know, that type of thing. So I can visualize, you know, how this tool, if we decide to adopt that is going to be effective and how the civil liberties of our public, you know, are going to be protected. Because, you know, you could have you know, there's just so much potential for abuse. And, you know, I before I would vote on this, I'd want to make sure that I was satisfied that that that that potential was protected or prevented.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 7: Oh, well, thank you very much. I come at this from a different angle. Back in 2013, I believe it was, uh. Council. Lina Tam at the time took an interest in license plate readers. Both of us were asked to attend a meeting at Ruby Bridges Elementary School because residents at the Bayport neighborhood were very concerned about about the increasing increase of crime that was going on and saw in license plate readers as a possible tool to deal with safety and crime related issues. I continue to have that perspective and I saw that the City Council between 2013 and 2015, 2016, I think made incredible headway in terms of moving forward with implementing license plate readers . And we also had an audit report that was issued I think some time in December 2015 looking at, you know, what had been the record of the license plate readers that were put into place. And I believe they were for the four or so license plate readers. They were pretty effective in identifying a good number of vehicles that were associated in criminal activity. My hope is that we return to looking at license plate readers, especially from the lens of crime prevention, of making people who want to come into town, whether they cross the bridges or or come in through the to think twice about coming into Alameda using their vehicles to commit crimes. And I think license plate readers does that. I think there's been some considerable evidence that crime has reduced been reduced in the city of Piedmont because of license plate readers that were placed there. And I think they had expanded the numbers just recently in terms of issues of what you do with the data and in terms that particularly with regard to civil liberties, I believe the city of Alameda had a robust discussion around data, data management and, uh, and I think that certain policies were in place if they need to be tweaked and they ought to be tweaked. But in my opinion, I believe we need to get back to implementing license plate readers where we can within the budget that we have. Um, that's my perspective. I think it's a, it's first and foremost a crime prevention tool in a time of great changes in and in the region and in Alameda. I think this is one way of making people feel safe and secure when they come into the city of Alameda. And I think we owe that to the residents of Alameda.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Desai. So here's my perspective. Um, I think that all of us are probably aware of a horrendous attack that occurred in New York State during Hanukkah where an intruder, a criminal, barged into a rabbi's home, a crowded home with children and guests there celebrating Hanukkah pulled out, I mean, a large knife, but it sounded more like a sword and injured a number of people badly and then fled in a car and was later arrested in Harlem, which was a considerable distance from this home in northern New York. And the way that that person was tracked down and so quickly, I mean, within hours was because there were fixed license plate readers that guests at the party had the presence of mind to get the license plate of this fleeing vehicle. The police came and then that information was broadcast out to jurisdictions and it went up into these license plate readers. And they were able to they ping when whenever a vehicle, a wanted vehicle is located and that person is now under arrest and, you know, will be facing charges for a horrendous hate crime, is what it was. So I was on the city council when we adopted the use of license plate readers on a number of our police vehicles. They don't all have them, but there's a certain number of maybe four, maybe half dozen, I don't remember. And there's a policy that governs the use of those. ALPERS And it's not terribly different than I would imagine a policy would be for license plate readers on fixed locations like our portals, our bridges and. The entrance to the tube. I think it's unfortunate and I know it wasn't intentional that we brought this item forward at a time when the police chief was going to be out of town. I suppose we could have delegated or designated someone from the police department to be here to answer questions, because it's not really fair for us to be speculating. But I will say and I attended there was a forum that was held at the library. Tony, I feel like you might have been there. Are you Jim? Were you. Okay. But you were in the audience, you know what I'm talking about. And there was a panel and there was someone from New Haven. The ACLU attorney was there, and there was a white paper that was published. But it was on the basis of the feedback from that workshop that our license plate reader policy was, was adopted, was, was formulated in adopted. And so I'm sure that rather than throw it out and start from scratch, I mean, I'm sure San Francisco does great work, but we're not San Francisco. I have huge regard for the ACLU. I'd be interested in what they say, and I know we use the ACLU, use white paper and examples in formulating the policy for the body worn cameras that our police department also uses. But I heard concerns raised and, you know, valid concerns that our police department is currently understaffed. And so how would we prioritize all this? But I've also heard our police chief say many, many times he would like to have these license plate readers. He refers to them as a force multiplier, that they're what they're able to do is to be collecting data and doing the work of officers manually having to do that or going out on on a bit of a wild goose chase, a retention policy. Retention policy is in the current the current guidelines. I haven't looked at it for a while. It's could well need to be revisited. Technology changes, but there's definitely a retention policy there. Now I share the concern that's been expressed with sharing. I would be want to be very clear about who does and doesn't get that. But I know there's there's been concern raised about, say, domestic violence victims. I'm more conversant with the of the body worn camera policy because that was more recent in time. There are definitely in our policy exceptions for even activating your body worn camera. If you are interviewing someone who's a domestic violence victim, they're very sensitive. They don't want to be on camera, a child victim. I mean, there's there are guidelines to that and there are certainly guidelines to who can access the the the footage from license plate readers. It isn't just that the, you know, disgruntled ex-boyfriend with bad intentions can can walk in and get that it is that is not the case. But we'd want to make sure that any policy has those protections, the potential for racial profiling. I'm confused here because we're talking about license plate readers that are reading the license plate and not the. I know there were other examples of well, it caught a screenshot of the driver of the vehicle, too. These are machines that are capturing the license plate data and so so it knows that that car with that and yeah it would capture a bit of the rear or the front of the the bumper. So you might be able to tell the make and model of the car. But using it for racial profiling, I'm I'm confused about how that could happen. And certainly this is not something we want to do. But but as far as the civil liberties, you know, we were reminded when we did this discussion previously about license plate readers that there is no expectation of privacy driving down a street or a highway with your car. You don't have a right to the privacy of your license plate as you drive down the street. But whatever we do as a council, of course, we balance competing interests. We want to look out for civil civil liberties. We want to protect vulnerable populations, domestic violence victims. But these are not mutually exclusive propositions. I do believe we can, and I know I certainly get these emails and I would imagine my counsel does to from residents saying, when are we going to get those? And so I think that even more so now at a time when we are short staffed as a police department, and I don't see that reversing or completely reversing anytime soon because we all know the challenges to filling law enforcement positions. I think we owe it to our police department. I think we owe it to our citizens to make these tools available that can help make us a safer community. And again, I give you the recent New York example. We have policies in place now. They should be revisited, updated. But I think I think it's time to move forward. And I had just a couple questions on the the wording of the staff report that on page two says the report should include effectiveness in reducing auto theft auto recovery. I would like to add should include but not be limited to because they're I mean I'm I don't do police work but I would imagine there are other things that license plate readers could help in in in capturing like a terrorist, you know, a hate crime that was in New York. I mean, that's not auto theft. That but that was that was a very important arrest that was made possible by an LPR. And then I, I was confused about the next to the last bullet on the second page, which says the report should include information on the level of interest of Alameda Police Department leadership in proceeding under each of the identified scenarios. And is that what what did you mean by that?
Speaker 4: I just think there would have been a sub sub bullet of the the bullet above it, which is options for addressing. So, you know, what options would we be if we were interested? Well, if we were interested in moving something forward and we had, you know, some members who were interested in just real time know, warehousing, etc. , that might be one thing we say, hey, please, you know that. You know, city manager, when you come back, look at this option. And another one might be right. This spectrum sharing your data with everybody in the world and not caring about who uses it. Not that I'm proposing that. You're right. Yeah. It may be that the police department says, you know what? Real time license plate readers with no data warehousing, retention and use for detective work in the future not interested in that. So what they.
Speaker 5: Said at the meeting.
Speaker 4: Right. So, you know, I think that there are there is a spectrum of what we do with that data. And to your point, there is probably some places where there's probably some places where all five of us are like, yeah, let's, let's, let's move forward this and the police might say we're not going to spend half a million dollars on that. It's not worth it. So I think I just wanted to well, I have some comments, but that was for that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, and that's the extent of mine. So. Vice Mayor. Sure.
Speaker 4: So, you know, I want to appreciate this. I actually think everybody made comments that I thought were very consistent with what I proposed. This referral is not to say let's do license plate readers. This is to take the temperature of the council and say, is there are there three people who who would be interested in seeing license license plate readers under certain under certain circumstances? And what would those circumstances be? I would say that it includes it requests a report that provides information on the effectiveness of. Yeah, we can we can talk about hate crimes and terrorist tax. I think those happened so infrequently. We have you know, I would I would like to be careful of is getting a report that goes to the hyperbolic very you know Timothy McVeigh you know you could have in court kind of thing which is unlikely where where our community is very much concerned about package theft, etc.. But, you know, to Councilmember Otis examples, I agree. I think that there is a lot of misinformation about how useful license plate readers are. And I think that having a well-researched report that actually uses effectiveness studies to talk about where this will work and be useful like it will help us find stolen vehicles. It will not likely capture most package thieves. One of the areas that our police department does talk about that I was interested in, it came up in our conversation is a lot of the smash and grabs are being done by crews in and when they and they they work the entire East Bay and they start in Fremont and they hit mile after mile after mile. By the time they get to Alameda, they often know that they are out, but they don't know who. But they they can get screengrabs, let's say, from Fremont. And they might actually know as they drive in from High Street that these folks that are going to hit, you know, bridge side, south shore, Alameda landing. Read a village and then leave town again. It might be possible whether or not that's going to happen all the time and it's worth the time and expense is. But but, you know, there are some places where some of these property crimes could could have an impact as well. I'd like to hear from the folks who know better, but I also wanted to be very explicit that I don't want anecdotal. Here's a newspaper article in which some, you know, small town police chief says, we put these in and they were great. That's not that's not useful data to me. The surveillance ordinance from San Francisco. So so I guess what I was going to say is we last meeting, we actually passed a policy for based on the ACLU use your best practice and directed that that policy become an ordinance. So I think that we've already given staff the direction pretty clearly. Well, and so, again, we're not approving anything. What we're asking is bring this back and tell us how any data that was collected would be used in the course of the collection of this, so that we can make an informed decision about whether or not we want to move forward with a license plate readers. You know, if there's not a scenario where a person wants to go or wants to support license plate readers, I wouldn't move this forward. Again, I didn't. I did mark this not urgent but important with the understanding that the the city manager and the police chief are going to have to choose their that their prioritization in terms of work plans. You know, I think, you know, how I would summarize this this referral and I'm happy to say not limited to it's basically is it are there scenarios where a majority of this council would support license plate readers? I would suggest, given that there are scenarios where I will in scenarios where I won't, you know, I would be interested in looking at not sharing with national and possibly state law enforcement agencies, but possibly sharing with local law enforcement agencies, at least for consideration, and then identifying the effectiveness and concerns so that it can come back at some point when the when the police department decides that it is a big priority for their goals and the goals that we've given them, so that we can have that conversation knowledgeably with all the information in front of us.
Speaker 0: I'm going next because I feel compelled to address something that you said, Vice Mayor. I take exception to the story, the incident that I described in New York being characterized as a hyperbolic example. In fact, it is reported that there is an increase in.
Speaker 1: It since that I minutes of your time is that council would need to vote to suspend the rolls to continue additional.
Speaker 7: Can I.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 7: Can I. Whatever time. See, time. I'll be allowed to do that.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Well, you can vote to allow me to continue or not.
Speaker 7: I'll move.
Speaker 0: Okay. Are there others who would.
Speaker 2: Like 3 minutes or 4 minutes or what.
Speaker 7: Do you suggest?
Speaker 0: 3 minutes would be fine for me.
Speaker 2: Day three, then 3 minutes second.
Speaker 0: All in favor. I. Okay. So I don't think that that was a hyperbolic example, and it certainly wasn't a Timothy McVeigh. That's the reference to the Oklahoma City Federal Building. But Vice Mayor, it has been reported and documented that there is an increase in anti-Semitic incidents in our country just a week before the attack at the rabbi's home. There was an attack on a kosher grocery in New York. And so, God forbid anything should happen in our community. But we also can't put our heads in the sand and pretend that it won't. And what I'm considering are issues. And again, if we had the police chief or someone from APD here, they would tell you that they're concerned with crimes a lot more serious than package thefts and that they have you know, we're a very safe community, but there's some folks who do some pretty horrendous things that pass through here. And so, yeah, at the end of the day, I think we all do want a safe community. Thank you for sitting me more time. Okay. I saw that everybody's got their hand up. I saw Councilmember Avella first. I'm going to go to her, then Councilmember Desai, then Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Vella So I just my concerns from before were that I don't want this to give people a false sense of security. And I think that that's kind of what's underscored by what the vice mayor has put forward in terms of requesting data. And I, I would like I am interested in data, not allegorical stories or that sort of thing, but but hard data specific to prevention. We've we've heard a lot about how these can be helpful in solving crimes, to me, increasing public safety. It's great that we can solve crimes. I want to make sure what's the data around preventing them? And that's part of what's included in here. And I appreciate that. But and that's I just want to highlight that that's something that's of of importance to me. I think that there's often a lot of different tools that are available. For instance, China's using facial recognition software. We see biometrics coming up more and more with AI forms of identification. Even real ID is is kind of another method of of kind of harvesting data by government is.
Speaker 0: Here that right we're just talking about LPR is just for the sake of Browning correct.
Speaker 5: But but my concern is while it could be a substantial tool in solving crimes when we're do it, when I'm doing the analysis of the civil liberties, I also want to see what's the trade off. And, you know, I do think we're in a time of heightened anti-Semitic attacks. You know, a lot of this coincided also with, you know, the celebration of Hanukkah. But we're we're alternatively seeing that, you know, there was a report out this weekend that right after the airstrike that killed the Iranian general, that customs, customs and Border Patrol detained dozens of people and that the plane was Iranians.
Speaker 0: Right. Iranian-Americans that. Right.
Speaker 5: And and again, how how did they know they were Iranian-American? You know, they were detaining them at the border. Yes, it was the border crossing. And there's a.
Speaker 0: They had dual citizenship, too.
Speaker 5: Right. But but to me, I you know, I am worried about again, who are we sharing this data with? I frankly would be concerned with even sharing it with local law enforcement, depending on if those other cities had policies to share their information with other agencies in a time where these sorts of things are being used to to to look at individuals of certain ethnic descent. I also think that, you know, there was a lot of discussion when we heard this item the last time around, the value and this was not our police chief, but the product, the person that was representing the product around the value of the photo showing the surroundings and the people in the vehicle. And I think, you know, my fear, I guess my greatest fear would be that somebody says, I have a partial license plate, I have 6l2, but the person was this race. And all of a sudden we're now scanning through, you know, looking for everybody who's X race and has, you know, one of those things in their license plate. And I think that's. Part of at least what I think is Councilman Otis concern. And so I think structuring around how our police officers intend to use this and, you know, whether or not, again, whether or not they're exempt. To me, I wouldn't be comfortable with a blanket law enforcement exemption to either of the policies that we discussed before. If this is something that we're looking at getting, because I think that this is a tool that that does have the potential to be abused.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Councilman Woodside.
Speaker 7: Well, thank you. We in the city had lpas and and now we don't have lpas and and. Yeah.
Speaker 5: But we never had fix.
Speaker 7: But we need to have these kind of lpas as well. So if it means making trade offs, you know, then let's have this discussion and let's move forward with Vice Mayor Knox White Counsel referral. But, you know, there are some things that I'm interested in when it comes to whether there or LPR is on vehicles or whether there are mounted LPAS. There are some things that I'm interested in and I think the city of Alameda had already demonstrated its ability to move forward with, you know, a reasonable policy with regard to all those other important issues like data retention, like civil liberties. I think we've demonstrated that already with the vehicle LPR And I see no reason why we can't use that as a basis for moving forward with the other type of LPR is that the community is interested in having, but if it means, you know, some of the items that the Vice Mayor Knox White needs to be part of the discussion, then okay, we'll have that discussion. And if that's necessary, you know, make trade offs and compromises as I as I would as a council member because I think. That's what the residents want us to do, is to make this a safe and secure island as much as possible for everyone of all ages.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 2: So just I'll try to be brief. First of all, Mayor, I thought I'll.
Speaker 0: Give you more.
Speaker 2: First I thought your points are very eloquent and your understanding of Lpas is completely in line with my understanding. But I don't think the public knows as much about it as you do because. You know, I was there at that meeting. I supported the the the mobile ones, but the mobile ones are scanning and looking for stolen vehicles. And six years ago when we did that, you know, that was that was a big deal.
Speaker 0: Not just stolen vehicles missing.
Speaker 2: Right. Right. So to me, there's a difference. And I'm not saying I'm against them. I want I want all these answers. I could vote for them if my concerns were were addressed. But, you know, there's a difference between patrolling around and driving around in the city and capturing the license plate of every single person who comes on and off the island. I mean, that's the difference for me. And you were eloquent in the point that you pointed out exactly what these things do. They help solve crimes. They help solve that crime. And no one talks about it. But the Oikos shooter, we found him because the Oikos shooter was found in Alameda, my understanding, because of one of our mobile helpers. So remember that which incident? The oikos over in Oakland.
Speaker 5: The he shot.
Speaker 2: He shot the people at the at the Korean school.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So, I mean, there's a value in solving crimes. I totally get that. But I don't see how it prevents crimes. I mean, maybe the incidents where, you know, there's a a truck that, you know, is smashed and grabbed up the East Bay and, you know, we can ping and then we know that person is there. Well, that's you know, that's an instantaneous use, you know, that I don't think anyone has any issue with that type of use. The concern I have and because we did a lot of discussion on this is from, you know, when I spoke to CHP and OPD years ago when they were doing this is you have to have a tremendous amount of data if you want to if you want to solve some of these other crimes that you have to look at. And so for it to be a really valuable tool, you have to keep a year or year and a half worth of data and we have to have a discussion on what if we want to if we want to do that. And B, if we do do that, what the tradeoff is. So the tradeoff is data that is at risk or that, you know, needs special controls around it. So I, I really appreciate, you know, those comments. So these are the things I want to hear about. I had one other thing to say, but I forgot. But I am concerned. And if it's as you describe, which I believe it is, Mayor, you know, where you're taking a picture of a license plate and you're never going to be able to, you know, look at the driver. To me, that's my understanding. But I don't think the public has that understanding. I think they they think if they call in and say a green guy, you know, in a in a tan suit and, you know, just did X, Y and Z that the police are going to be scanning license plate photos for green guys driving a tan sedan with or, as Malia said, the six L. S license plate. And that's where I think people want us to be able to do that. And my understanding is you can't do that. And if that's true, then I'd feel more comfortable. But if there's a chance that that could happen, I think there's that's where the risk of of racial profiling comes in. But, you know, I could be you know, it may not matter to me. But I was happy to support the mobile ones. I just want to make sure there's a differentiation. And if there is something that says it prevents crimes, I'm all ears. But, you know, I think it's effective tool solving crimes. But I have yet to see anything that says it's going to prevent crimes.
Speaker 0: So if I could address your points really quickly and the mobile ones I know, I love it. I should go. I'm had bet on the mobile ones. You know, the Council on American-Islamic Relations actually had issues because of it, as of an incident in New York, where police with Mobile Alpers were patrolling around a mosque and getting the license plates. But we don't do that. We have a policy. Our retention policy and LPR is, if I recall correctly, is six months. The police chief is still not happy with me because he would have wanted a year, but I really held out for six months. I just felt that that should be long enough. And so as far as could they prevent crimes, I would submit this scenario. So the attacker on the rabbi's home in New York, he had been following these, you know, hate filled websites. He was armed. Who knows what he might have done and where he might have gone if he hadn't been stopped. I know that our LPR as our roving ones have stopped people who are child abductors. I mean, that's preventing a crime and stop.
Speaker 2: The stabbing or the.
Speaker 0: No, but but but I can't.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Right. And so anything we do is going to require some public education. I hope we'll go forward with considering the policy. I hope we'll make sure to have someone from the police department here to answer our questions or draft the staff report or something if and when it comes back. Okay.
Speaker 4: Vice Mayor. So, I mean, if we're ready, I'd like to propose a motion that essentially moves. I really think all this conversation and the considerations is what I tried to do. I heard a few things that I wanted to add into it just to make it clear I heard concerns about photo captures. I think that at the very least, we should we should request any information might may improve their standing as most of the light. Our helpers do not take photos, but I do know that there were some old models that did so a clarification that photo capture would not be a part of that. And then I think also just based on the things I'm hearing, I think that we need clarification and as we're discussing the new data privacy policy, how that links up with our LPR policy, I would suggest the A LPR policy needs to be amended to align with our data policy in that we definitely part of the conversation when, if and when it comes back needs to be an express discussion on the public safety exemption and how that would apply to the data that's collected here, because it's not my expectation that we're just going to collect information and that does APD and other law enforcement agencies are.
Speaker 1: We need another motion?
Speaker 2: Well, actually, I think by 3 minutes.
Speaker 3: Um.
Speaker 1: I thought it was specific to the mayor, but if no.
Speaker 0: I think it was everybody.
Speaker 4: I think if that were my, my motion would be essentially the referral as written with the mayor's not limited to addition clarification about no photo capture and expressly asking for clarification on the LPR policy as it correlates to the new data policy, future ordinance and express discussion on the public safety exemption and how it might play into this vis a vis the data policy.
Speaker 0: We have a motion to have a second.
Speaker 2: I mean, I could second that, but I don't know if I want to.
Speaker 0: Go second and then the.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: Unless you were making a friendly.
Speaker 2: There was a kind of be a friendly amendment. I'm I'm not sure we need to say no photo capture, but, you know, an analysis of what photo capture capabilities may or may not exist because, you know, maybe there maybe that'll never happen, but maybe they'll be some technology that can be an add on. I don't know.
Speaker 0: Maker of the motion.
Speaker 4: It's I think, you know, when I hear my colleague on the left not supporting front of capture, I'm not very.
Speaker 2: Much supporting.
Speaker 4: It either. I'm not supporting I wouldn't support photo capture. I don't think if we're not using I don't know why we need photo capture for this.
Speaker 2: So I don't think we do either. But my point was, what if the the product we get somehow has an ability to do that in the future? You know, I mean.
Speaker 0: Then we amend the.
Speaker 4: Way they did. Then they would have to come back.
Speaker 2: Where it's happening without us knowing.
Speaker 4: Well, that's that's that's its own problem.
Speaker 0: Like Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 5: I think my concern would be I want to I want an ordinance to deal with the technology as presented today. I want an ordinance that deals with the technology as presented in known today. And I think it's for a future for future council to amend the ordinance if they're going to expand it. And I think this helps prevent the situation that we had even with our last renewal of the license plate reader technology with the company that that was doing things that were in violation of our ordinance. So if we create the ordinance and there some somehow a violation, then we actually have a legal legal ground to stand on to say, hey, no, we said no, you should have known better and you're in violation and breach.
Speaker 2: So I'll just second it as it is then.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor or any discussion? No discussion. All in favor. Hi. All right. Thank you for the discussion. All right. Good work, everyone. Thank you. All right, now we move on to item ten Council Communications. Let's just go down the list. Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 2: So I.
Speaker 0: Didn't.
Speaker 2: Really do that first or second.
Speaker 0: I don't care to do that.
|
Council Referral
|
Consider Directing Staff to Develop a Recommendation on an Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) Program. (Vice Mayor Knox White)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_12172019_2019-7528
|
Speaker 1: Recommendation to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal Operating Agreement between the city of Alameda and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority and introduction of ordinance approving a license and authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a 66 year license with the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority for the use of real property and submerged land at Alameda Point, this item requires four affirmative votes.
Speaker 10: Good evening, Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: Can I just wait until we have everyone's attention? Okay. Are we ready? All right, please.
Speaker 10: Good evening, city council members. I'm Michelle Giles, the base for you manager. And I'm here to present a report recommending that the city council authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal Operating Agreement. And the water emergency with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority or WETA, and introducing an ordinance approving a license and authorizing the city managers to negotiate and execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a 66 year old 66 year license with the LIDAR for the use of real property and submerged lands at Alamy. A point I want to give you just a little bit of background, a little bit of context for how long we've been working on this. In 2005 15, the council approved the DDA with the with AP for the site, a project which required AP to construct the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal and contribute $10 million towards the project as part of the site infrastructure. In 2016, city and the city and we approved a ferry terminal plan and an IMO you with veto to provide a framework for funding and operations of the sea plane terminal. At the time the IMO was approved, funds for operation to launch the service were not sufficient. The parties agreed in the IMO to collaborate and seeking other funding sources to fund an operating subsidy. In 2017, Alameda County Transportation Commission awarded the Ferry Terminal Project at $8.2 million grant and county Measure B funds, bringing the total funds to 18.2 million. In September 2018, the city approved an updated ferry terminal plan with updated costs of 22 point million, which was a $4 million increase from the previous budget. And but to close the construction gap the city appropriated just last year. Last fiscal year, $2 million towards the project. And the Wheat Board approved a $2 million contribution to have a fully funded project. On July 19th of this year, the city entered into a funding, construction and dedication agreement with AP to address the expenditures of funds for all the ferry terminal costs for the completion of the design permitting and construction of the ferry terminal project and the dedication of the ferry terminals, landside and waterside improvements, landside improvements to the city and waterside improvements to wider following construction of the terminal. So construction began this year in July and anticipated completion is in spring 2020. Just last month, the city the Wheat Board approved initial service for a seaplane lagoon starting in August 2020 with a six trip commute service created by restructuring the Alameda Oakland Service to shift the peak period. Alameda Trips to Seaplane Lagoon. The midday and evening services at Main Street will continue. The service was initially developed for implementation with the new ALM three funds, which we just talked about with Representative Quanta, which are, as we know, currently unavailable due to the ongoing legal challenges. But we do have the board agreed to use other funds to operate the service over a three year planning period in the meantime. Just last week we had a board approved the operating agreement and license at their December 12th meeting and we are here today to bring forward that operating requirement. The purpose of the operating agreement is to define the rights and responsibilities of of WETA and the city in connection with the operation of the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal. Just a brief summary of some of those rights and responsibilities. The city's rights is to continue to own the landside area and the waterside area, which is the seaplane lagoon, to maintain and to maintain the landside area. The city will execute a 66 year license to enter and to enter on and access city's submerged real property for a license fee of a dollar per year and will cause AP to execute a bill of sale to transfer the ownership of the waterside assets from AP to Wheeler. We just rights and responsibilities are to own and maintain and repair and replace all the waterside improvements, including the float, the gangway and the. I'm missing something. But all of the waterside components of the of the ferry terminal pay for an additional water, any additional waterside equipment, including any dredging it should it be become necessary and maintain and repair the submerged real property of the sea plain lagoon that it will be going over. And they also pay all long term capital costs associated with associated with the ferry terminal operations and traveling over the marshlands. Also, what we're asking for your approval tonight is a license agreement. The license agreement is needed by we to to access the submerged lands because the waterside improvements owned by Rita, the float, the gangway and other waterside improvements are located in the seaplane lagoon. And vessels must transverse over the sea floor to access the terminal, therefore needing a license to do that. And as I said before, the staff is imposing that a license of 66 years with an annual fee of $1 be effective once the ferry commences service. So tonight, staff is recommending that the city council authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal Operating Agreement with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority. And to introduce the license, I'd like to acknowledge board member Jeff Obono here tonight, who was instrumental in working with Rita to get this project in the water, the operation agreement passed by the Wheeler Board, and also Kevin Connolly, the planning and development manager who is here tonight. And I just want to express our profound appreciation for their work over these last five years and hope that we can keep moving forward with this project. Thank you and.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Do we have any clarifying questions? Do we have public speakers on this items? Do we have we have agenda? We have the clarifying questions. Councilmember Odie, just one.
Speaker 3: You may have said this, but so it was approved last week. Right? Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I have a couple questions on the operating agreement. I think it is, yeah. Exhibit one, the operating agreement. My apologies. Usually I get my questions to staff ahead of time. I'm not not on top of things apparently today, but excuse me, um, so on the, on the operating agreement, this is page two. Sorry. Um, page two, paragraph two, B to it says this has to do with the landside assets. So parking facilities and this is at Seaplane Lagoon Terminal parking facilities for approximately 400 vehicles, vehicles with the city making reasonable efforts to ensure priority for ferry riders during ferry operation hours. And my question is, how do we do that?
Speaker 10: Good question.
Speaker 0: They both smell. It was a good question.
Speaker 10: Yeah, good question. And I think it's a good answer. You'll have to figure out how to do that.
Speaker 0: So I'm this Maxwell. You can speak to the microphone.
Speaker 4: Please think of city council. Lisa maxwell, assistant city attorney.
Speaker 0: Got to get a taller microphone.
Speaker 4: Let's put that to wear. Now, that provision was certainly important one to Aida and we discussed it a great deal. And I know that parking is of great concern to them. So we didn't really have an opportunity to flesh that out fully. So we sort of agreed to continue to work on that matter and matter that the city would do its best.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 5: To to more.
Speaker 0: Fully. Mr. President.
Speaker 6: We are currently working on parking management, which the Council's fully aware of. This is one of the priority areas that we are working on in connection with that. And if you go on Main Street, you obviously see parking management's a very important thing with the ferries and we're trying to aim to have probably not paid parking there by the time we get to August, which we're hoping the end of August, early September is where I'll go take off, but we'll have the parking available there. That that's our aim.
Speaker 0: Okay. And I do realize that these things take time, but we've also heard AC Transit say over and over again that they the reason we can't get AC Transit Service to the Main Street Ferry terminal is among other things, because we provide all this free parking. And so at some point we've got to bite the bullet and charge for parking. So just and I think I would have some other councilmembers who would agree with me on that. I also wanted to and again, I apologize for not getting these questions to you ahead of time because I don't like to surprise people. But here, let. Me lob this softball at here. So this is page five of the operating agreement. And it has to do with this reader's rights and responsibilities. And specifically, this is this is paragraph 60 on page five says that we to sole pay for any watershed equipment, blah, blah, blah. And all dredging activity within the water side area again. And as to the extent determined necessary by weight of her seaplane lagoon ferry terminal operations. My question on the dredging is will we to also be responsible for hauling away and disposing of dredging materials?
Speaker 4: That would be part and parcel of the dredging and they don't currently think they need to dredge because it is deep.
Speaker 0: But we all hope for the best but plan for the worst. Right? So okay, so when that's part of the responsibility for dredging. Okay, that's good to know. And then the second part was paragraph six E that says we shall maintain and repair any submerged real property within the waterside area only to the extent it is damaged or contaminated by Wheater and or Wieters operation of the Seaplane Terminal Ferry Service. And to the extent such repairs are necessary to provide the seaplane terminal ferry service. And my question on that one is what happens when the submerged real property, say, a pier outlives its useful life and must be replaced? Does that responsibility for replacement become the city's responsibility because it wasn't the result of damage or contamination by Rita?
Speaker 4: Well, are we talking about the waterside assets then related to the ferry terminal service?
Speaker 0: This is the specific paragraph, Max. All is maintained in repairing these submerged rail properties. So aren't Piers submerged Piers?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 0: That's not.
Speaker 4: No, no. Well, I'm a little confused of the question. I apologize.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's probably in my ass. He never again visits you. Well, okay. Just because in other areas of the city we've had, Piers, or at least the posts that hold them up.
Speaker 4: The piers are part of the waterside asset, though, so they would be what is responsibility them. Correct. They will own them and they'll take them on the water. The the distinction of the submerged land is that we still own it. The city will still own it. Okay. But I wanted to make sure to capture that anything caused as a result of the activity by Rita would be their responsibility. Okay.
Speaker 0: So. So we still own the assets. So then the city is responsible for when that pier.
Speaker 4: No, it is that city's the city owns the submerged real estate, but we don't own the actual land. Okay, okay. It's on the water site and the city owns the landside assets improvements.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay, clear enough. All right. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions or did I muddy the waters?
Speaker 4: Bad pun.
Speaker 0: Okay, let's end. Did you say we have public TV? No public speakers. Okay. Council decision discussion motion. Where to begin?
Speaker 2: I'm of approval. We can discuss after if we.
Speaker 3: Have a second.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have a motion. And again, this is for. Is there any reason we need to break this out? Because we have to do that. This is both authorizing an operating agreement and also introduction of an ordinance approving a license to. We need to break this out for a vote or once. Okay, so we have a device be removed and Councilor Odie seconded. Okay, discussion vote all in favor.
Speaker 4: Oh, wait.
Speaker 6: That's okay.
Speaker 0: You know, you threw your arm out or something. I just want you. City Manager.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I just want to thank your member, Doug Bono and all the staff leader. Absolutely. You don't realize how much negotiation and how much this partnership means to the city of Alameda. And I think it's a very valuable relationship. And I just want to thank them for everything they've done in making this even a better relationship with the third term.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I am actually I was remiss in not acknowledging that it I'm I've been to a couple of the we had board meetings to speak in Alameda. We are so fortunate to have the backing of the majority, if not the full Ouija board. But we have a very strong representative in Mr. Barrio. And by the way, but Mr. Roboto and Mr. Connelly are Alameda residents. But we I mean, we're an island and we do water transit extremely well. It's very important to our residents, and we're thrilled to have our third ferry terminal being built as we speak. And so, yeah, we can't thank you enough for the the support and we're going to make really good use of these new ferries in this new service. So thank you for that reminder. You know, somebody.
Speaker 3: I'll just be real quick and add on to what everyone else has said, a deal of appreciation. We all I think the mayor, the vice mayor, myself, city manager, Miss Potter, I think there were many other elements that came to them last week at a meeting.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 3: We packed a meeting and they were. Gracious enough to let all of us speak early because some people had to go. So I want to give a shout out of thanks for that.
Speaker 0: Okay. With that, all in favor. Hi.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: Okay. I didn't hear any. I heard also that the motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much. Okay, we're moving on. Item six B.
Speaker 1: Recommendation to consider adoption of a City Council Code of Conduct in Councilmember Handbook and Code of Conduct providing guidelines for Council members to follow and conducting city business and fulfilling their responsibilities as city elected officials.
Speaker 0: Oh, you know, the vice mayor just mentioned that we have a number of public speakers in the audience. Could or do we know, madam? Are they all for item six? Okay. So Council, do you suppose that since we have public speakers for six C would be we could swap the order of B and C.
Speaker 3: And make that motion.
Speaker 0: Second. Okay. I have a motion to take item six ahead of six p and it's been seconded. All in favor. Hi, Mr. De. You went away? Yeah, sure. Yeah. Okay, let's make that unanimous. Okay. So with that, we will take item six, the.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal Operating Agreement between the City of Alameda and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority; and
Introduction of Ordinance Approving a License and Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 66-Year License with the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority for Use of Real Property and Submerged Land at Alameda Point. [Requires Four Affirmative Votes] (Community Development 858)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_12172019_2019-7533
|
Speaker 0: Second. Okay. I have a motion to take item six ahead of six p and it's been seconded. All in favor. Hi, Mr. De. You went away? Yeah, sure. Yeah. Okay, let's make that unanimous. Okay. So with that, we will take item six, the.
Speaker 1: Adoption of resolution establishing a privacy policy data management policy and prohibiting the use of face recognition technology.
Speaker 0: All right. And that is is that assistant city manager.
Speaker 3: Ready to go?
Speaker 0: You want to go down to the podium and. Yeah. Yeah, that's nice.
Speaker 3: And then click it down.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 3: All right. Good evening, Mayor. As the Ashcraft vice mayor knocks white members of council. My name is Jerry Bowden, assistant city manager. And as with a lot of things that come out of the city manager's office, this is a collaborative effort with the city attorney's office, police department, I.T. department. And I just want to send a quick shout out to Prachi Patel, who is our intern in the office. She did a lot of background research on this effort. So I'll start there this evening. We are talking about about privacy, data management this evening. And it's going to be a really brief presentation. I'm going to try and highlight a lot of the things that are in the draft resolution covering the policies that are related to how this city manages our residents privacy and the data that's collected as part of our ongoing operations. The purposes of the materials are really to state the city's commitment to maintaining and building trust by commuting how communicating how the city goes about protecting the integrity of the personal data and ensuring that there's transparency in how we collect the data and how it's used. So to that end, we do have a resolution with three attachments this evening. They're identified as three topic areas. On this slide, there are exhibits A, B and C with the staff report, and I'll go through them in pretty quick, pretty short order here. This is the lengthiest that are the one I'll spend the most time on. These are the the framework or the overarching privacy principles that have that emerged as part of this effort. So there's a there's a need to protect the privacy of the of the data that we collect and the individuals who are represented in that data . As we go about our our service delivery in the community, we realize that privacy is key to the health, safety and welfare, as well as the security of those people who are living, working and visiting our community. So there are seven privacy principles that have been assembled for your consideration this evening, and I'll just touch on them with a sentence. There's much more to each of these in the attachment, but I just want to give you a sense or a flavor for each of these, so I'll try and do that as efficiently as possible. The first is design and use of sorry design and use of equitable privacy practices. This is acknowledging that the community safety and access doesn't have to come at the expense of privacy, and we really want to ensure that we're not discriminating when we collect that information. So that's the first. The second is that we're going to limit collection and retention of personal information. And this means that we're really only going to collect and store personal information as long as it's justified to serve the purpose for which we've collected it. The third is managing personal information with diligence, and we're really trying to take care of the information that we collected keeping our security and management systems current. The fourth is extending privacy protections to our relationships with third parties. We do have relationships with other agencies and entities, and so when we're sharing data, we want to do it in a way that's consistent with the principles that we're talking about here, but also making sure that we're disclosing that information unless we aren't allowed to do that by law with the people that we've collected the information from the fifth item is the fifth principle that we've assembled here is safeguarding individual privacy and public records disclosures, Public Records Act requires. And so to open government needs, we have to make sure that we're in compliance with the law when it comes to these areas. But we also want to do that while we're maintaining individual privacy interests. The sixth item is being transparent and open. We do want to make sure that the community knows why we're collecting the data, how we're using the information. And to that end, we want to ensure that we're including easy to understand language on our website and with our forms. And then the last principle that we'll touch on here is to be accountable to Alameda residents. If there's a need for surveillance technology, we want to make sure that we have that conversation publicly and we review and discuss those requests so I can move a little a little faster from here. One of the central reasons we're talking about these principles and the data management aspects of this report is because data has become just a key asset for the kind of work that everyone sharing when we're trying to provide good service and when it comes to our services, programs and projects, we want to make sure that we're being efficient and convenient, but also transparent. So we are we have assembled a data management policy as well with this resolution. It's intended to really talk about how we're storing, managing and using the data. I'm going to just jump down here. So we're talking a little bit about the. Policy, including several examples and types of information that the city collects and how it's collected. We do that through websites, application forms, paper or electronic phone messages. We like every other organization in this day and age. We're collecting a lot of data over the course of the day. So we really want to make sure that where we're talking to as we're as we're doing this work, we're telling people that the policy doesn't apply to data and information collected for public safety as well. We want to make sure that that's clear in this policy, those individualized and serious nature of the kind of work that happens when you're whether you're responding to an emergency or whether it's part of an investigation. There's really a variety of personal information that may be collected in those instances, and those are covered by separate policies. And we can talk about those this evening as well, but that's not part of what we're discussing this evening. And the final topic this evening is face recognition technology. This is an area that continues to grow. There's growing concern regarding the privacy and equity because individuals who are having their face scanned may not even know that that's happening. And so the policy attached as Exhibit C makes it clear that there is a prohibition that we're recommending this evening that no staff shall obtain, retain access or use facial recognition technology or that information that might be obtained from that kind of technology. And there are a series of exceptions to this. Again, coming back to public safety and criminal investigations, also things like our our cell phones that have face recognition technology that help us just access our our technology easier. Those are those are exempt. So with that, staff is recommending that council adopt a resolution establishing a privacy policy, a data management policy, and prohibiting the use of face recognition technology. And that concludes staff's presentation this evening. And we're happy to answer any questions you might have.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Burton. Do we have any clarifying questions before we hear from our Public Speakers Council?
Speaker 8: So let me.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 8: Yes. So are you saying that the facial recognition policy would allow for police use of facial recognition, or is it precluded?
Speaker 3: No. So what we're saying is that face recognition technology would not be something that the city of Alameda would be would be using ourselves. But if face recognition technology was used as part of a criminal investigation by another agency and it was part of and it came into our investigative process that would that would be a loophole that could be explored. It wouldn't be something that we would seek out or in any way pursue. It's just something that because of because of the nature of investigations and the fact that it's not illegal, it might be something that would happen outside of Alameda.
Speaker 8: So let me ask the question. So suppose there is a video of someone doing some kind of crime at an ATM? We don't know the person, but we have the person's face. Are you saying that we can't then take that face and subject it to some kind of facial recognition system?
Speaker 3: The city of Alameda would not do that.
Speaker 8: Okay. Okay. I'll ask questions later. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any other clarifying questions? Okay. Let's go to our public speakers. How many are.
Speaker 1: There? We have six.
Speaker 0: Okay. So with six, you can have up to six at 3 minutes. Hello.
Speaker 1: The first one is.
Speaker 0: Also.
Speaker 1: For Salah al-Bakri and then Tim Kingston and then Brian Hoffer.
Speaker 6: Good day. Good evening. Thank you for having us here. My name is Talal Bacterium, the executive director of Support Life Foundation, an organization that is focused on social justice and economic justice. We're here in Oakland. I'm also a member of the Northern California Islamic Council, which is an umbrella organization to over 128 Muslim organizations in the bay . And I'm here to speak in support of a complete facial recognition ban. It's time I remember watching the movie for Tom Cruise and 2003. What was it?
Speaker 8: Never report. That was it. I think was Minority Report.
Speaker 6: Minority Minority Report. And I had an attorney with me at the time and I, I said, I don't think this is for our future. I really think this is close by. And he said, no, no. I said, I shouldn't worry about it. He said, No, you should, because privacy in California is a right, but only if you defend it. For me as an activist, this is something that's really terrifying. I am appearing in many different protests around the bay here. I speak up my mind as publicly. Last thing I want is for somebody to have my profile wherever I go. Not that we're already profiled as as members of my community. I have seen a very large reduction of people accepting posts at mosques as executive committee. In other words, this mosque will have, as part of their resolution of the charter that they have to elect their members. Nobody wants to serve on a board because of the extra surveillance that the Muslim community is feeling that they're living as a minority. For me, as somebody who really believes strongly in the values of democracy, I think it's very detrimental to democracy when we take away the factor of privacy at large. Who would run for office if he thinks that that thing that he did when he was a teenager is recorded on a server? God knows where and when that will and it will be used against him if he runs for a campaign. Imagine how many great candidates we would be losing if this technology is allowed to prevail. The hardware is everywhere. We have cameras everywhere. We have plate readers everywhere. All we need is to switch on the software. If that happens, imagine the repercussions we have on ourselves as a society. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our next.
Speaker 1: Speaker, Tim Kingston and Brian Hofer, then Matt Cagle.
Speaker 0: Hello.
Speaker 5: Hi. My name is Tim Kingston, and I'm a member of the San Francisco Public Defenders Racial Justice Committee. And I'm here to speak in favor of an ordinance, not a policy, to ban the use of facial recognition technology and regulate the use the acquisition of new surveillance equipment on the island. I strongly urge the Alameda City Council to cast a vote in favor of privacy, civil rights and the rule of law. Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco have all banned facial recognition technology without any ill effect. Emeryville is considering it. Meanwhile, a number of other cities, including Davis, Palo Alto, the BART System, Santa Clara County, have all put in place surveillance technology, acquisition ordinances without any problems or any lawsuits. Bans on facial recognition, facial recognition technology and push backs against overly aggressive surveillance technology are almost becoming mainstream. It's been raised in Congress. This should be an ordinance. It's timely and it's necessary, even if there are going to be a challenge to Almeida's ordinance as opposed to a policy, there is not the danger of any financial distrust on the part of the city. From what I understand, I'm going to speak specifically to facial recognition technology and its constitutional dangers. As a public defender investigator, I'm all too familiar with the problems that can ensue when a few overzealous officers cross the line with the new technology and then have to be reined in by the courts. Simply put, it's unconstitutional. It's a violation of the first the fourth and Fifth Amendment. It violates the First Amendment because it offers a very real possibility of chilling free speech. All but the most determined people will be think twice about going out on a public demonstration. If they know they're going to be surveilled, it will reduce public in public debate. And this is also particularly true of people of color due to the way that Africans, Latinos and other people of color tend to be targeted by law enforcement. It's highlights California's constitutional right to privacy and the Fourth Amendment. Supreme Court Justice Roberts declared, A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, one seeks to preserve as private. Even an area accessible to the public may well be constitutionally protected. This is true of cell phones. It's absolutely true of your face. Finally, facial recognition violates the Fifth Amendment. Probably self-evidently, if facial recognition technology is used to ID someone against a database without a warrant, that's person's very face is the thing that gets them arrested. A US district court recently overruled police who forced someone to open their iPhone their iPhone 11 with their face. iPhone 11, lots of people have them. They're open by facial recognition technology.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Kingston. Our next speaker, Brian Hoffert.
Speaker 1: Then Matt Cagle, then go ahead. And Mohammad Mohamud.
Speaker 6: Good evening, honorable mayor and city council members. My name is Brian Hofer. I'm the executive.
Speaker 5: Director of Secure Justice. I'm here in support of the three proposals in.
Speaker 6: Item 16 and ask that you support each one in a following manner that you adopt the.
Speaker 5: Privacy principles as written. Tonight, resolution is fine with us that you direct the staff to return with an ordinance for the non law enforcement data management practices piece in that you direct the staff to return with an ACLU model ordinance following San Francisco's ground breaking lead, which is a separate exhibit in your agenda pack here that would govern surveillance equipment and contain the facial recognition ban. I want to discuss a little bit as chair of the City of Oakland's Privacy Commission, I have a pretty privileged front row seat. Earlier this year, our Commission adopted a set of principles crafted by the UC Berkeley Law Samuelson Clinic. I believe supervising attorney Megan Graham is back there. I want to recognize her. That's the basis for the language that's in your agenda. Packet We were really appreciative of their work. The mass slaughter during the Holocaust rarely relied on law enforcement. Data is generated by Census Bureau's here in America. When we put the Japanese in camps, it was census and tax record data. So these other two pieces are absolutely critical as we move into the era of smart cities, more data mining, it's going to be critical. We all know it's not a matter of if a data breach is going to occur, but when. So we're really excited you're going down this road. I do want to thank Councilmember Vella for helping us start this conversation about a year or so ago and then at the time, Councilmember Ashcraft, for meeting with us, along with Chief Law Larry and others to begin discussing. In this ACLU style ordinance, there's now seven in place in the Bay Area. Six have been adopted by unanimous vote. San Francisco has a 10 to 1. Across the country, there's 13 of these that are law and a whole bunch more in the works. So it's safe to say that this is the new norm. This is the way things should happen at the local level. As I pledged a year ago and just sat down with the chief and basically pledged to my first born son, we're here at your disposal. We've got.
Speaker 0: It. He accepts.
Speaker 5: He did. He said he wasn't his name. We have any policy template you're going to need at this point. Santa Clara County, you know, they're very wealthy, very rich. They have over 77 policies. We have excluded an awful lot of items since them since their ordinance was passed. So I anticipate you'll have maybe 5 to 6 policies. We've worked with similarly sized cities like Davis and Berkeley. They have 4 to 5 policies. The administrative concerns we can get you to a comfort level if you do direct staff to return, you know, February, whatever we're looking at. We'll start setting up meetings, will work with you guys, work with the staff to get you to that happy spot. If these ideas do mean something that they do need to be an ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Hood, for next speaker.
Speaker 1: Matt Cagle, then Gordon Mahmoud and then Mark Knapp, Muntari Mohammed.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Matt Cagle and I'm an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. Thanks for having me here tonight. I've met with many of you before and the chief as well. And we're happy to see this policy finally come before the city council. We urge the city council to stand up for the civil rights and civil liberties of Alameda residents by moving forward with an ordinance that ensures the public and the city council and stakeholders within the city have a voice in decisions about surveillance and are at the table when these technologies are proposed so the community isn't caught off guard. So we aren't caught off guard by a vendor who seeks to make money off of residents information. These are controversies that Alameda has seen before and could avoid with this kind of ordinance. Importantly, this ordinance, as Mr. Hofer and others said, also draws a line in the sand when it comes to facial recognition technology and its use against the public. This is a technology that threatens not just our right to go down the street, that basic freedom we all enjoy without being tracked or the right to go to a political protest with without having your name logged in a database. It also implicates your right to not be treated as a suspect by having your face logged in a database of individuals who can be tracked at a later date. This measure, taken together the two parts, the ordinance or excuse me, the oversight measure and the facial recognition ban, really make sure that the democratic process applies to something that by definition operates in secret surveillance. And it makes sure that the community won't be caught off guard by profit seeking vendors and that rights won't be violated in this really important era. This ordinance is common sense. It's straight forward. As others have said, more than half a dozen Bay Area communities have adopted it. Over a dozen American communities have adopted it, and it's proven workable. The ACLU is happy to be a resource if there are questions about how to draft something like this, since this is based on a concept and a model that the ACLU has drafted previously. And finally, we do want to emphasize that it is important that this be adopted as an ordinance. The public stakeholders and the Council are they you deserve and we deserve and they deserve the assurance that this is enforceable law and that it will be complied with by everyone. And that's, I think, the intent of all the city actors. And so it makes sense to adopt it as an ordinance. Finally, I want to separately put in a plug for the privacy principles, which were drafted by some great students at the Berkeley Law School and that have been adopted as resolution, I believe, in Oakland and versions of this have been adopted in other cities in the Bay Area as well. We consulted with the students on that and they are really great set of principles. Please don't hesitate to contact me or the ACLU if you have questions going forward and we urge you to adopt the facial recognition ban and the oversight ordinance and to approve these principles.
Speaker 0: Q Mr. Speaker.
Speaker 1: We received an additional speaker slip, so now we have seven.
Speaker 0: Okay. So now that there is more than six, your time goes down to 2 minutes.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Want our next speaker yet?
Speaker 1: Khalid Mahmood. And then.
Speaker 3: Good evening. It's a pleasure to see all of you and to thank you for your service. Thank you for serving our community. I know there's a lot of family members that are missing you right now, and you do this on our behalf. I come here as a father, as a son, as a father, a husband, and just your average community member. My hands are in a lot of things, but I come here for that little girl right there. She has a future to feel enfranchised in this country. September 11th, I was one of those victims of 800 tips. I quit my job. I went to another job. And it didn't kind of strange. And every every American was. I was told, if you see something, say something. So I quit my job and I got another job. And the next thing I know, I have the FBI at my door and my mother in law said what you just did. And I said, I did nothing, Mama. And I'm from Ethiopia and I'm an immigrant. I have a large family. And I always tell them, September 11th is a day I had to make a decision. Do I believe in the principles of freedom, fair play values, that to feel that your neighbor is your neighbor and your brother or not? And I had to make a decision. That decision said, no, I will not stand for this. I went straight to that FBI office and I told them who I was and what I am. And when I sat there with them in that white room like a scene out of a television class, I mean, you know, so I was like, wow, you have everything. Elementary school, junior high, high school, college, where I live, what I eat. I think we have to draw the line. And I think you guys need to think about we need to think about 50 years from now or 30 years from now. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we hear.
Speaker 1: Mark Monitor Mohammed and then Samina Usman.
Speaker 0: Samina here.
Speaker 6: Good evening. Thank you so much for the opportunity. I'm here to call for an ordinance to prohibit the use of facial recognition technology because it's unreliable, it's biased, and it's threat to the basic rights and safety. While proponents of this technology might come and tell you that this technology is really good, it helps to discover like genetic disorders or improve the consumer are consumers in the banking and retail industry, or they can say that it helped to improve the security check in the airport. However, it's still pose a serious threat to human rights and fundamental freedom. This type of technology has proven to be performing very poorly in the people with people with darker skins notes and also on women it has. So it's broking, it's unfair and it's it's very biased. So with this type of technology will lose the freedom of expression, freedom of social assembly and association. So we're not calling to regulate this type of technology. We want to ban this type of technology. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And did you say Samina Yasmeen? Yes. Is she here? Oh, she's coming. Okay. I would say I know her and I don't see her in the room. Well, I'm. We're waiting for Mrs. Mind. She's in this parking lot. Okay. Um, does counsel want to say anything? Or we could just sit here. I think you.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 8: Have a question.
Speaker 0: A question, Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 8: QUESTION Would does the facial recognition policy cover the use of video data captured by body cams?
Speaker 3: No. We actually have separate public safety related policy related to body cam footage. And our current body cam contract does not use facial recognition. And our chief is here.
Speaker 0: At Community for Larry. Madeleine. We'll let Mrs. Mann catch your breath. Speak slowly.
Speaker 5: Chief of police. So our body worn cameras do not accent is our vendor. And as a company policy they do not even offer facial recognition technology. So we don't we don't have that. Now, there's some confusion. Sometimes people talk about facial shaping versus matching. So the cameras that we have, if you think about your cell phones, if you take a picture and it frames up someone's face, it has that technology because now when we do redactions, the cameras say, oh, there's a face that we need to maybe blur or redact, but there's no there's no matching, there's no identification, none of that. It's not even offered as part of the technology.
Speaker 8: One more question.
Speaker 0: Yes, Counsel, can somebody say for me.
Speaker 8: Okay, when we're talking about facial recognition technology, are we mainly or mostly talking about algorithm based technology that in addition to capturing in real time an abundance of data with regard to facial recognition, but also through an algorithm, are able to match in real time or later on. So it's really not only facial recognition technology, but an alt with an algorithm component.
Speaker 3: Yeah. The policy's not specific to that level of detail, but the definition of facial recognition technology means an automated or semi-automated process that assists in identifying or verifying an individual based on an individual's face. And so whether that's software based or what, and whether it's live or in real time or post or at a future date, it it's it's not specific to that. The idea is just that you can recognize faces and identify them through the technology that's available. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And I believe that our next speaker is now prepared. If that's the case. Please come up. Greetings.
Speaker 4: Hello. Apologies for running a little late. Gotta put the get the kids fed.
Speaker 9: And so I really appreciate your patience and waiting for me. So, again, my name is Timmy and it was one of the government relations coordinator for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. As you may or may not know, the Muslim community is, uh.
Speaker 1: Has definitely faced and faced the brunt of surveillance.
Speaker 9: Um, you know.
Speaker 4: Communities are, have always been concerned about if they go.
Speaker 9: To mosques, you know, are they're being, you know, spied on. Is there, you know, any agent provocateurs? We do have.
Speaker 4: Proof of these things now.
Speaker 9: Where the city might come into. What we're concerned is now we have like the New York Police Department, we have evidence that they had been spying on the Muslim community.
Speaker 4: Obviously, we don't see anything like that in the city of Alameda.
Speaker 9: We're so happy that the city of Alameda.
Speaker 4: Has made concerted efforts to embrace the diversity and.
Speaker 9: Inclusiveness and making sure that everybody feels safe in this community.
Speaker 4: And so that being said, to extend that also to ensure that if any surveillance technology is acquired by police.
Speaker 9: Departments or by the city, we want to make sure that the community feels safe knowing that this.
Speaker 4: Surveillance technology is not going to be misused against them, that there is a use policy in place, that we have.
Speaker 9: Transparency in the acquisition of such surveillance technology, that we have also accountability, if, you know, it comes out that it has been misused.
Speaker 4: So I'm.
Speaker 9: Really appreciative of the city of Alameda considering.
Speaker 4: This type of an ordinance, because we want to make sure that all of our community is safe and that that there is that because we want to.
Speaker 9: You know, again, make sure that that communities feel safe with their law enforcement and know that they're not going to be using such technology, misusing it against the community members. So, again, I thank you very much for considering this. And if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Is that our last? Yeah. Okay. So we'll close public comment at this time. Thanks, everyone, for speaking. Okay, come in. We'll start with Councilmember Vella.
Speaker 9: So as Mr. Hofer mentioned a couple of years ago, when I was first on council, first elected on to council, I brought a referral specifically asking that we adopt an ordinance relative to our data collection and management. So I'm glad that this is back before us. Where I'm at is I am beyond just having a policy. I would like it to be a hard and fast ordinance, and that was part of why I did the referral. I'm just going to throw it out there. I think it's a little bit ironic that we're having a conversation about privacy after there were city staff, and this is obviously in the interim. First, I brought this referral and since then I've been secretly recorded by city by city staff and that recording has been released. And I find it ironic that we're talking about the value of privacy, but nevertheless, we're here. I do believe in the right to privacy. I believe in the Constitution. I think that we have to look at the propensity for the abuse of various types of technology, specifically targeting people, especially with the development of smart cities and the development of additional types of technology. You can now digitally record people on your cellular telephones. That's what our former city manager did. You can record people using video on your cellular telephone. All of these sorts of things are available and how we how we communicate with the public. We have people that email us, text us. We're kind of all starting to become data hoarders. And so I think that having a data management policy is is very important, not policy, but an ordinance. And I think that that needs to be in place as an ordinance. It'll help us kind of go through I don't want to just hold on to data to have it where it can be used against people. And I, you know, coming from a Japanese-American family, I kind of would I completely understand how information has been used. Information collected by the government that seemed innocuous enough at the time was then literally used to round people up. And I don't want to contribute to the. In terms of the privacy policy principles, I have no problem adopting that in terms of the facial recognition. I would like that as an ordinance. I really think that it's important. Again, for the same reasons that I feel about the data management. I think that we need to have legally enforceable safeguards. I think that, you know, while there might be things in place now that we're not using them nefariously or that vendors aren't using things nefariously, I think we've we've found that sometimes things can evolve, vendor's policies can evolve. I don't want to be caught in a situation where a vendor decides to change their policy and somehow we don't have something in place that would trigger an automatic process. And I think that that's what an ordinance does. And I think that I don't ever want citizens to feel like they can't participate, that they would somehow not be able to engage with or speak with the city, assemble somewhere publicly, because we don't have the protections in place. I think the time is now and I think that as technology evolves, it just allows us to have a very public conversation that makes our decision making very transparent, but also thoughtful so that we're we're actually taking steps that we intend to take rather than somehow getting sucked into some sort of corporate ploy that's being put out there on us.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Vella, for a point of clarification, because I don't want the public confused and I'm a little confused myself. We just heard a reference to a secret recording made on a cell phone by a former city manager. I'm not aware of anything in the policies that we're that are before us now, that cover cell phone recording. If it's there, I would ask the city attorney or the assistant city manager to help me find out where it is. And beyond that, and this goes back to a grand jury report that we will be in part discussing in our next agenda item. There was a finding by the district attorney that that wasn't an illegal recording under the circumstances.
Speaker 9: So it wasn't the finding. The finding was that there wasn't enough evidence for her to convict.
Speaker 0: So I think that the grand jury, you know, we can I'm going to ask this.
Speaker 9: Raise it because we're talking about privacy. And I my point is, is that technology can be used in a number of different ways.
Speaker 0: I just want to make sure that we're discussing things that are actually appropriately before the council and this particular agenda item. But can the city attorney help me out here? Does this policy in any way refer to telephone recordings made on a cell phone and with specificity to the examples that was given?
Speaker 2: So I'll look to my colleague for some assistance, certainly on facial recognition, there's an exemption on cell phone use. On data retention, the that the data retention policy does contain some information about phone calls, though not specifically referring to cell phone recordings as that. Did I get it right, Mr. Brody?
Speaker 3: Yeah. The only thing I would say that Exhibit B relates to data collection, and it does talk about the collection of different kinds of data from the public to assist in conducting city operations. So I it is not it's not related to any kind of taping of meetings per say, but it is the data collection that we any data collection that staff would undertake would be covered by that portion of the policy. And it is clear that we want to be transparent in the collection of the information that we're we're bringing in to the Organization for City Business.
Speaker 0: But it doesn't refer to a particular penal code section that allows for surreptitious recording under certain circumstances.
Speaker 3: There's no mention of. Thank you. Kinds of audio recordings.
Speaker 0: Okay. Further comments, Councilman Brody.
Speaker 3: So have a couple questions, too. So I appreciate everyone coming out and speaking on this issue, and I appreciate Councilmember Vela for putting this referral on our agenda a while back. You know, it was refreshing to hear people refer to the Constitution. I think it's always good to be reminded of what's supposed to be our bedrock principle. So just some hypotheticals, because I'm trying to figure out how this might work in real life. I, I think we are encouraging folks to, like, provide their ring video coverage, if I'm not mistaken. Right? So, I mean, that that's voluntary, but they're giving it to the city. I mean, what happens to something like that or, you know. That is that.
Speaker 0: Is a question for the police.
Speaker 3: For anyone that should have an answer.
Speaker 6: I mean, that would be under the data. But I think the law enforcement is exempt and correct.
Speaker 3: That's I would I would follow city manager Levitt's lead on that. The police department for investigative purposes are not subject to all of these policies. But that doesn't mean that there aren't policies that are, aren't there? There are policies in place on the public safety side to address surveillance video related to the investigation of a crime. But I think I heard someone say earlier, our police wouldn't be allowed to use facial recognition software. So they are those videos exempt from facial recognition or the fact that they came from a private individual who shared it with the city? I mean, I don't know what the interplay there is. So I can come back to.
Speaker 0: Actually, if I might, assistant city manager can. I would like some clarification. I do believe there's a difference between a camera that's taking a photograph or a video and facial recognition software. Do you want to address that or to the ring?
Speaker 3: Well, the question was the use of that video for facial recognition. I mean, I'm not as concerned about the data.
Speaker 5: But that I hear you say.
Speaker 0: Microphone.
Speaker 5: Chief, that. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Get a taller microphone.
Speaker 5: You know, two weeks ago, we had it up on a block. I remember.
Speaker 3: That. Yeah. Sorry.
Speaker 5: Um, I'm just going to kind of hunch forward. There we go. So I just. I just wanted to make sure that I understood. Are you under the impression that we're somehow requiring or have some agreements with people about sharing? Because we don't.
Speaker 3: Know the question? That's what I was asking for the clarification. I think there has been a small amount of encouragement, but my real question is what happens to that? I mean, because I think I heard an answer to Councilmember de Sox question. We would not use any data that we have like ATM videos, I think was the example and send it out for facial recognition. Would we send out, you know, video that we receive through these ring services?
Speaker 5: Yeah. So if if we got a home video, a ring nest, whatever, private company, we would just be using it for the investigation of the crime. So a porch thief or something like that. I hit and run collision, you know, some crime that was committed in public or maybe inside of a residence that was captured on a camera to help. But we don't there's no facial recognition component to those videos. Right. And so we're just it's a video of hypothetically, you doing something, you know.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't, but. Okay, not you. Someone could if something happened, some other.
Speaker 5: Random some other some other random person stealing a package off of a porch. And then we still have to go figure out who that person is. We don't. We don't there's no technology that's telling us. That's John Q Citizen.
Speaker 3: I get that. But would we be sending this out to a vendor that offers that service? Because I thought I got the answer of no earlier. Not the way that the policy is set up is that the city would not initiate that. But to follow through on Councilmember Desai's example, if these are bandits robbing banks across the state and the FBI is involved and they use facial recognition technology, then that that could help our investigation. We would leverage that as a resource, but it wouldn't be something that the city of Alameda would be paying for or seeking the assistance of directly. Okay. The way the policy is written currently and another hypothetical, I know there was a discussion about speed cameras and I know for the red light cameras, they take a picture of the driver and that's compared. I mean, would we be using any of that type of data to do that type of work, or is that allowed or prohibited or just we don't have them, but if we were.
Speaker 5: So my my understanding of how those cameras are used in the cities that do deploy them, it's it's basically it's the tiebreaker between, you know, the system saying you ran a red light. And then I said, well, I wasn't driving my car. And then they show me a photograph and they say, that's you. And so you get the ticket versus if the mayor was driving my car, then I'd have an argument. I don't mean to keep criminalizing everybody or just if I make eye contact with you, you're a suspect. I'm just kidding.
Speaker 3: But in that hypothetical, we wouldn't send that picture out and have somebody identify who the real driver was. Right.
Speaker 5: No. I mean, again, because we don't have it. I don't I'm not sure how the other cities do it, but I believe all it is is to establish whether or not you. The person being issued the citation was, in fact, the driver not trying to figure out who it actually was.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: Then another hypothetical that I don't think this is a police one, but say, for instance, we have a public transit agency that wants to recognize people when they get on a bus or maybe a ferry or whatever. I mean, would that would they be allowed to do that in Alameda under this policy or. I know it's kind of a stretch, but we didn't think we'd have this at the airport either. 20 years ago, our policy would not limit outside agencies from implementing these kinds of technologies on their. On their vehicles or within things that they operate. Okay. And then the last question. Can you tell us practically. Maybe this is for our senior staff the difference between a policy versus an ordinance as far as how it can be changed or discarded or that type of thing.
Speaker 2: So Councilmember de um Councilmember Judy, I will answer that question with respect to the difference between a policy and an ordinance. An ordinance have the effect of law. What could occur under the Council has a number of choices. When you adopt an ordinance, you could, for example, provide for enforcement mechanisms, whether civil or criminal. You could also provide for and in fact, by adopting a law and it's generally provided that there may be opportunities for private enforcement of an ordinance. So in other words, when there is a violation of an ordinance, there is opportunity for private parties to bring litigation, whereas if it is a policy, then you're still adopting a resolution. So staff would not be able to alter it without bringing it back to the council. But it does not have some of the enforcement mechanisms, both on the law enforcement side and on the litigation side that exists in an ordinance. And there are, you know, benefits and concerns with both that I'm happy to go into further, if you'd like.
Speaker 3: You don't think so? Thank you all for answering the questions. I would be inclined to agree with my colleague, Mr. Miller, and push for an ordinance. I'm happy passing this policy today, but I do think the folks who spoke today and many others like them deserve the protection of law and not just policy.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember, decide how to go down the line if you're ready.
Speaker 6: Oh, sure.
Speaker 8: Well, I appreciate the answers to my questions. I believe what we're fundamentally talking about, whether we're talking about automated or semi-automated facial recognition technology or, as I put it, an algorithm based face on tech, a facial recognition technology. What we're not talking about are things like body cams or even ATM videos that capture events or activities, and that can be interpreted in a non automated fashion, i.e. in a fashion involving typical police reviewing of the of the of the information that was captured through the body cam or through the through ATMs, if in the event that there's some kind of crime that occurs around an ATM. So so I appreciate hearing that, that this policy doesn't preclude our police from using technology in a reasonable manner to to help secure public safety. I think the questions that many here and outside of Alameda have raised about facial recognition technology are are absolutely important for every city to deal with, not just because of the events that you see happening in, you know, far away Hong Kong and China, where rioters are being videotaped to see who they are, recognition technology being used. It could happen here in the United States. But I, I do think that we have a policy in place that is reasonable in its reach in terms of safeguarding the variety of constitutional rights of of Americans and immigrant residents. And so I'm satisfied with the policy. I mean, I was coming into tonight, I was not sure if I was going to support this or not. But I think that the questioning that have been raised have been very helpful. So with that, I'm willing to support this policy. I think the suggestions that I would make, though, is I think facial recognition technology is very intertwined with questions regarding First Amendment rights, not only our ability to speak, uh, whatever we want to say, but also the part of the First Amendment that has to do with a freedom of assembly. Um, so somehow I believe that the sentence. On on exhibit C, facial recognition. Facial recognition technology means an automated or semi-automated process that assists in identifying or verifying an individual based on an individual's face. I think that sentence is a good start, but there ought to be, in my opinion, some kind of reference to the storing of the information and also the way in which the information is sometimes used to curtail many of our constitutional rights, especially those in the first First Amendment, particularly freedom of assembly. So but I'm fine as it is now, but but I kind of think that this whole conversation is really about the use of technology in rapidly capturing data and and kind of connecting that data with through the algorithms or the automated process, connecting that data with other databases that in real time can possibly make mistakes with regard to individuals at certain locations, but not in not in real time, begin to track individuals and their and their whereabouts. So I think that in my opinion that that those two elements, the tracking, the gathering of data and and the use of that data to curtail some amendment first constitutional amendment rights ought to be somehow referenced in that. But but I'm fine with it as it is. But at some point in time, we ought to.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor. That's right.
Speaker 2: Sure. Thank you very much. I also want to thank the speakers, many of whom I've spoken to multiple times over the last many months, some of them even internationally. Thank you for your care and taking the time to to help educate me, but also help support Alameda in moving this forward. You know, for me, I think we have the right policies. I'm 100% supportive of moving this not as a policy, but as an ordinance and asking for it to come back very quickly. You know, we've spent a lot of time talking about the facial recognition ban. I'm 100% supportive of that. I also want to I'm hopeful that as we move this forward, we have well, while not a proposed policy right now, we do have for our consideration the acquisition of surveillance technology, which I think Councilmember De Sugg was starting to get too, which is a the way in which we can both inform the community about what we are considering to purchase and use and how it will be used and at the same time provide a method of ensuring that our public safety departments have the ability to to access appropriate technology, that that brings that public safety. And so I would hope that that would also be a part of any motion that goes forward, is bringing back a surveillance ordinance. You know, I think on the face, facial recognition, the constitutional issues, I just think, yeah, yeah, that's very important. Also important is the fact that it doesn't work. African-Americans are 5 to 10 times more likely to be misidentified. Whether or not we get into what that means when when some people interact with public safety in some areas and the outcomes of those interactions, you know, people have a right to not be harassed just because somebody, you know, a bunch of white coders forgot that there were other non-male white people in this world that they needed to make sure their software worked for. And, you know, we shouldn't even be having it. Luckily, it doesn't sound like it's going to be too much of a stretch here to ban facial recognition. But but but the technology is not even close to being ready for discussion. And so I would expect or hope very much to have that surveillance ordinance as it comes back, if we approve one, to include the facial recognition ban. I also just want to acknowledge the city attorney, Shen, and the city manager who I know are still, you know, may have some questions or concerns about the ordinance. And so, you know, and moving forward, I hope we can also provide some direction that would allow them to at least identify areas of concern that they might have from the city's perspective that they could bring back alternatives to if there are sections of the ordinance that they might propose this policy or whatever else. I'm not saying that I would like to break it apart, but at least so that we can have that conversation and moving forward to me. These principles, these policies, all three of these policies or two policies, the privacy policy and the surveillance policy with the facial recognition ban, basically start creating the trust. Pew Pew just did a study of people's trust of government and people's trust of government as it relates to using information and storing their information, whatever else, and government's faith that somewhere around 17% feel good about it. We have lost the trust of folks because they don't know what we're doing with their information, etc.. And I think that these policies are the first step towards rebuilding that trust. And and why not? So anyway, I'm ready to make a motion, but I know you haven't spoken.
Speaker 0: I'd like to hear from Councilman Ravello as you finish. You started your comments. Okay. So I will just add that first, I want to thank our assistant city manager, Jerry Bowden, for bringing this very thorough report to us. Thank you. He hasn't even been on board very long, but he took the ball and ran with it on this one. I concur with the vice mayor that if and when this policy, assuming it's approved tonight, I think it's going to be if it comes back to the council to consider as an ordinance. I do want to hear from the police department. I appreciate that, Mr. Hofer. And for as long as I've known him, he's always been amenable to meeting with a public safety. As his missus, mine, we've. We've all met together. And the ACLU attorney and you all make this a better informed discussion. And of course, we always balance competing interests. And I will just throw in I'm an Arab-American. And so these issues are near and dear to my heart, too, because I you know, I know people from from the countries that my grandparents came from have have gone through a lot in the aftermath of 911. And and we don't want that for anyone. I mean, when we say in Alameda, there's a banner behind you that says everyone belongs here, we don't have an asterisk that says, you know, some people belong here more than others. We mean everyone belongs here. But we also consider a lot of different aspects of what it means to be a safe community. And I know we will have early next year, I think, a discussion on the license plate readers that the police department would like to to have. And they are not the roving ones that the New York City Police Department misused by surveilling gatherings outside mosques in that city. But but anyway, that's a discussion to to to be had. And certainly this council has gotten lots of emails from residents who are concerned with rising crime rates and would like better abilities to to capture some of the folks who have committed some fairly serious crimes and then left the island. But, you know, so we we need to consider all these different interests. I don't think they're mutually exclusive. So with that, I'm happy to entertain a motion. We're being asked to consider adopting a resolution and if we want to add some direction to staff. And I think the vice mayor also mentioned that this is probably if we do direction to staff, it's something that we want to hear back from the city attorney and the city manager on. So you started to make a motion, I think Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: I believe Councilmember Bella might have a motion she wants to make.
Speaker 0: Please. What's up?
Speaker 9: So what I'm hearing that several of us or at least are in agreement with would be to do it. Well, I'll make my motion that we can discuss it. I would like to pass everything listed tonight as policies, because I do want to have something in place in the interim. But I would also move. So I move approval of the policies as written, but I would also move to direct staff to come back to us with facial recognition ban ordinance and with data manage management and privacy oversight ordinance. And so that's my motion.
Speaker 0: Okay, a second. Okay. We've had a motion in a second so we can have discussion.
Speaker 9: So I would also like to add that there there are examples of both of those ordinances out there. So I would like staff to look at some of the cities and I think my referral a few years ago included what the City of Davis passed. San Francisco has a couple examples. So I would like to kind of start there rather than kind of draft something completely novel. And then I think we've heard from a couple of my colleagues who would like to hear back about any city concerns, that sort of thing, and how that would weigh.
Speaker 0: Okay. And I'm sorry. Tell me again, it was a direct set to come back to us with, um, facial recognition band ordinance and data management policy, data management.
Speaker 9: And I think data oversight or data management. Privacy oversight or something like that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um, a discussion. Councilman Brody, thank you.
Speaker 3: Just real briefly, I think there was an offer that the ACLU has model ordinances that I think might be helpful. And there's no reason to reinvent the wheel on this. Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Staff can consider all this, I'm sure. Did you ever hear that? Yeah, I do. Vice mayor? That's right.
Speaker 2: So I wanted I wanted to ask a quick question, and then. And I have a couple comments. Would you with the motion maker and seconder, include adopting the principles tonight, which wasn't a part of the motion, and also.
Speaker 9: Policies which I will amend to include the principles. Okay.
Speaker 2: And then also a direct direction to adopt a surveillance ordinance modeled on the San Francisco model to something I'm interested is that.
Speaker 4: Um.
Speaker 0: I think I would yeah, I would like to give staff direction to consider those, but I'm not directing them to that. That's the one that uses your model. I mean, I, I think that there may be some differences between Alameda and San Francisco.
Speaker 2: And so I guess my question is, to the person who made the motion, would you be willing to add the surveillance, you know, using it based on I'm not saying like verbatim, just find a find and replace Alameda in San Francisco. But you used to use as a as it's the one that is out there.
Speaker 9: Yes.
Speaker 2: And it is based on the ACLU, if.
Speaker 8: It is my character.
Speaker 0: A member of design.
Speaker 8: Of of what you're saying. If I said what my interpretation of what you're saying is, strongly consider using San Francisco as a model. Then then I'm fine with that. Doesn't mean that we have to, but we have to strongly consider it. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: That sounds good to me.
Speaker 2: Second in your motion. Oh, great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Are we ready to vote?
Speaker 2: Can I just want to make one more quick? I believe that. I believe everything that is in here actually has come from the privacy groups as well. So, yeah, there was a comment about about not starting from scratch, but I would actually say that that to my to my understanding, to the comments we've heard, we have the right policies written as here. We just need to convert them directly to ordinance. So I think we're I just wanted to reflect that that the direction isn't necessarily to go back and read. That was that's not what I heard.
Speaker 0: Okay. With that all in favor, I oppose, abstain and the motion passes unanimously. Thank you, everyone. Okay, now we go back to item six B.
Speaker 1: Recommendation.
Speaker 0: To actually, you know, what we're going to take. We've been at it since AD five. We're going to take a six minute break and we will be back here at 927 minutes if you miss time. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Key.
Speaker 0: We are going to get started. I've got a quorum. We're going. Okay. We have one more item. Well, we've got a couple items, actually, but we're going to six be now. Did you get. Which is.
Speaker 4: Half of the spirit.
Speaker 1: Recommendation. We the recommendation to consider adoption of a City Council Code of Conduct in Councilmember Handbook and Code of Conduct providing guidelines for Council members to follow and conducting city business and fulfilling their responsibilities as city elected officials.
Speaker 0: Okay. And that is me. Who's your doing? Okay.
Speaker 6: Mayor Marisa Ashcraft and City Council. Both myself and even Jen are going to do a joint presentation. It'll be relatively brief. We're just going to hit the highlights of the handbook, code of conduct, and then open it up for discussion.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 6: Taking the recommendation. I have a0i have a four. Mm.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You've got the power.
Speaker 6: Right. The recommendation is to provide feedback on the City Council Member Handbook, Code of conduct and social media policy. We do not intend for action necessarily to happen tonight. If you decide to do action, that's great. But if not, we're actually looking for your feedback and we're seeing the strong possibility that this would continue with your feedback and direction on how you want this policy to be be used. Moving forward, the background, just to remind everyone the background on this policy proposal is on June 11th, 2019, the Alameda County grand jury recommended that the city more formally establish a council member Code of Conduct Handbook.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Adoption of Resolution Establishing a Privacy Policy, Data Management Policy, and Prohibiting the Use of Face Recognition Technology. (City Manager)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_12172019_2019-7532
|
Speaker 6: and direction on how you want this policy to be be used. Moving forward, the background, just to remind everyone the background on this policy proposal is on June 11th, 2019, the Alameda County grand jury recommended that the city more formally establish a council member Code of Conduct Handbook. That is what's before you tonight is a draft code. A Code of Conduct Handbook. On July 16, 2019, the Council agreed with this recommendation and directed staff to return with a Code of Conduct Handbook. The draft is before you tonight and following the Council's direction on July 16th, the city manager's office and City Attorney's Office have been collaborating on consolidating existing city policies and reviewing best practices from other jurisdictions in order to create a Code of Conduct Handbook. And here in the draft that best suits Alameda. The the draft city council handbook in front of you includes the following. The principle areas addressed by the proposed handbook include City Governance, City Council meetings, agenda setting, staff attendance and participation at Council Meetings, public participation at Council meetings, meeting minute in Council Communications with staff and with the public. With that, I want to hit on one highlight. A couple of questions have come up in particular regarding Section e, general Council Communications Policy, in particular with city staff and responding to public. That was just a concept. It was towards the bottom of that particular policy, a concept. It was not meant to be an etched in stone way of communicating with the public by council, but more one strategy that could be used to make sure that there's consistency and in communicating with the public and to make sure that the public communicate with on different, different items. But we are open to a variety of different approaches there. Also, I have sent out based on some impressions with the Sunnyvale policy, the Sunnyvale policy, which I think has some excellent points to it. And so that might be an alternative in looking at policies moving forward with that and over the presentation to even to finish it up.
Speaker 0: Mr. CHEN. Yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. I agree with the city manager that we worked on our offices, worked on this policy together to give at least the beginning roadmap for conversation. And we were very much looking for your feedback on any number of fronts. I want to touch a little bit up on one of the alternatives that's in the staff report is that part of the main recommendation, which is the social media policy and this in particular, we put it in the alternative because it really is one that we want to trigger conversation versus having something that's ready for necessarily ready for complete adoption. And we want to get the council's thinking just because there's a range of options available to the council from adopting nothing to adopting a very, you know, a policy that creates a number of limitations. You know, in today's world, the councils and boards and commission members from time to time post social media, that's what happens throughout the state and in fact throughout the country. That happens all the time. And without a policy, the what governs essentially this the Brown Act. The Brown Act basically provides that council members and boards and commission members cannot create a collective consensus outside of a notice public meeting. And so with no policy in place, that is the guiding principle. The concern that could occur is that it leaves a lot of self-regulating to boards and commissions and council members. And one example that was given is that let's say there is a post on a social media page and there is, you know, a thousand comments council members will have to or boards and commission members, if it's within their jurisdiction, will have to look through them to determine how many have posted to make a decision whether or not they violate or not. The Brown Act by posting or not posting. It's something that occurs today and the lack of a policy doesn't change that status quo. With that said, the council has a number of options available to you tonight. You could continue with the existing practice, which is simply comply with the Brown Act and do nothing else. The Council could decide to adopt a policy that only applies either. Or to itself or to boards and commissions or both. The council could decide to make the policy simply a recommendation versus direction. You could take the position that it is recommended, for example, that, you know, members, whether council members or commission members, you know, engage in the practice of not posting if it's something that's coming before you instead of making it a clear direction. And so that softens the policy and gives more discretion. A direction is obviously a more hard and fast rule. So there's a range of discretions there. You also have a range of discretion if you wish to have a policy at all, to think about what are the limitations that you want to impose, a clear limitation you could impose as to say and this is all assuming you want a policy at all, is that you want to limit posting only when there's an item pending or agenda before your body. And so that means if it's not agenda's then not pending, then there's no governing policy and members revert to just general compliance with the Brown Act. You may choose to go a step further, as some jurisdictions have done, and make a determination that in addition to pending an agenda size, you want to limit it to items that a member knows or reasonably should know would come before that body. That's a difficult determination to make for members. You may or may not want that to be a limiting factor, and if you do, you may even want to limited to a discrete time period, because over time almost everything will come before the body. And you may want to say, well, we would you know, we like that limitation, but we wanted to limit it to the next 60 days or 30 days or some concrete timeframe. And so these are the range of options available to you, which is that, you know, not adopting a social policy, social media policy at all, to having a recommended policy to a policy that provides direction and to decide, you know, and if you chose to do any of it, to decide whether or not you want to cover only currently pending agenda items or to reach out a little further. With that, we're very happy to take your questions.
Speaker 0: And we have no public speakers on this item. Okay. So I'm just going to jump in quickly to say I read through the draft proposal, the hand, the handbook and code of conduct and the social media policy and all that. But then I saw the city manager's email with a link to the Sunnyvale Handbook, and I really like that. And I, because I made a lot of notes when I was going through the proposed policy, I thought some of the language was a bit antiquated and maybe could be, you know, stated a little differently. And then I went to Sunnyvale and it just seemed like it was kind of up to date and they thought it through. So and I'm actually was just looking it up because I don't remember now, did they do it? Do they do a social media policy? They're in the backyard of Facebook and all those places. So anyway, that I just I think whatever we do, whatever we decide to adopt, assuming we do, should be as simple and straightforward. And we and I will say that the policy that staff came up with, I mean, it certainly referenced its various citations of where certain policies were found. But I don't know, I just like Sunnyvale is kind of plain spoken, common sense language. So with that, I'd like to hear from my colleagues. Am I right? Councilmember Odie.
Speaker 3: Sure. I'll chime in. So I usually look at the agenda with a cursory review and then after I let it percolate, I look at it in more detail. So in between those two days, we received that email from League of Cities and that's where are and I saw at the bottom it was adopting a code of conduct . So I was like, Sounds interesting. I'll click on it. And sure enough, there was the article that popped up, I think it was from Western Cities magazine and it talked about, you know, how councils should you know, this is basically our rules and how we want to work together. Work together with the public, work together with the people we serve, work together with our staff, and, you know, talk about how it's good to have a workshop to develop these type of codes of conduct. And, you know, then there was I couldn't find them just now, but there were links. And then Sunnyvale was one of the links and then the others. And I thought it was a very comprehensive code of conduct. I mean, we have a, you know, ignoring how we got here. This is a great opportunity, I think, for us to kind of show people, you know, what we stand for, what our ethics are and what our values are. And, you know, I think what you guys put forth was a good start. But, you know, I think with some input from the council and if, you know, I like city mayors a lot, I mean, it covered things that were missing, you know, like boards and commissions and our interactions and the mayor being the point of contact for press because, you know, that's what our charter says, that he or she is the is the official head of the city. So I think I mean, I could go into more detail if if we're going to have a more detailed discussion. But I thought there were a lot of things that that covered, you know, like there are some elected officials that weren't covered by the proposed policy. And I think all elected officials should be covered by by this policy. And I don't even know if it's something we could require. As you sign, I guess you you can sign it when you take an oath, but, you know, sign it to file. I don't know if that's something we could add as a as a requirement, but, you know, it would be something that I mean, at the end of it, there was that thing you signed about your, you know, what you were going to promise to do. And I. I can't say I have any complaints about this council, but I think in the past those type of rules and somebody was signing it or not signing it would have made my first term a lot more comfortable. So not so sure. So, again, if we want to give more direction to go back and draft, I mean, I'm happy to have that discussion. But, you know, at a high level, that's my initial reaction on the social media. Wow. That was interesting. I mean, the first thing I did was Google and see Brownback's social media and it sounds like it's covered. So I'm just curious, see what everyone else thinks before I chime in on that one, because I could see where, you know, the mayor and I may have a discussion on something and we've picked each other, has a Brownback person, and then we read Councilmember de Saag feels that way on social media. And then all of a sudden, you know, we know how three people think and maybe, you know, I don't know. Do we not read it? Just it's just very interesting. So I want to hear what others have to say. I just use that as a hypothetical.
Speaker 0: You weren't driving the chief's car.
Speaker 3: Or anyone's package.
Speaker 0: Okay, thank you. Can somebody who's next? Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 9: Um, so I like Sonny Vaile's code of ethics and conduct. I like that it includes. One change that I would like to have is that it says that it's for the members of the city council and the city's boards and commissions. We have more than just the city council's elected officials. So I just want to make sure that whatever handbook we pass is for all elected and appointed officials in the city of Alameda, and that would include our city auditor and city treasurer. I think that we should all be held to the exact same standard when it comes to code of conduct and ethics. And I think just keeping it general to all elected and appointed officials will have us covered in the event that there's any changes in our charter moving forward. So another thing is, I think that we've had a lot of presentations recently and a lot of laws on kind of safe workplace environments, workplace harassment, that sort of thing. I like that. The Sunnyvale policy includes elected and appointed official interaction with staff. I think that this is something that we can do to bolster the classes and the training that we've had surrounding safe work environments. I think that our staff are working with not just the council but with all of our boards and commissions. I think sometimes there can be differing opinions. What I really like about this Sunnyvale handbook is that it's really about providing a safe place for dialog so that people can have an open conversation but done in a respectful manner. I think that's really the heart of what they're trying to get at, and I want to make sure that that's something that we we strive for and protect, because I think it's very important. I think sometimes in the heat of advocacy, sometimes that can be lost. And I want to make sure that our staff are also understand that and our boards and commission members understand that they're to behave appropriately with staff as well. And those interactions. The other thing that and I don't know if it would belong in the handbook or somewhere else, but I know we lack a fraternization policy as a city. I know that we have kind of we generally adhere to sexual harassment in the workplace policies, but I don't think we have a fraternization policy or a policy on a situation where, you know, there could be a previous relationship and how that could impact people that move department to department or up for promotions, that sort of thing. And that was something that I think is is lacking. Or also, if there's a Border Commission member that I just I want to make sure that when we're doing this, that would be something that we also look to include perhaps in this. And I did speak with a council member from the city of Sunnyvale, and she informed me that that they adopt this it's on their consent every single year. So it's not just when there's a new council, it's every single year and they do it on their consent calendar. And they also let all of their board and commission members know that it's on the agenda. And if especially if there's any changes and they do try to update it regularly to comply with law. And so I think those are things that this is a living document. That we may need to adopt and amend over time. And so, yeah.
Speaker 0: And then I saw the vice spirited.
Speaker 2: So I want to thank staff for for four for all of their work I think. Yeah I two when you sent the Senate fail example it answered some questions because I think we have two different handbooks and the Senate bill is much more about kind of ethics and behavior in the the, the, the, the original one was a little bit more of how we run the city and whatnot. I think that there are a couple of things that I that we might they don't really believe belong in the code of ethics and conduct. But I think that there are some longstanding issues and questions that have come up over and over again related to agenda setting and some things like that that were in the Alameda version that may not belong in the Sunnyvale version, but we should find a place to clarify that because since I was on the Transportation Commission in 2001 to that issue of is it the chair of the board and the commission or the staff or is it the council? And, you know, who who who is the final decider? I think it just could use that clarification. Other than that, I would be ready to, you know, with staff's input, but adopt something almost word for word in the Sunnyvale one with with Councilmember Vela's expansion to yes all elected officials that we can cover on the social media policy. You know I like the idea of having something in the in the in the book that basically reminds everyone of the Brown Act potential violations. It's not a Brown Act violation of you and Councilmember Vela. Do talk and then you read something. Tony has Tony could write to the paper and talk to all you know and all of us can read it. That's not a Brown Act violation. It's when you're engaging in actual conversation. So if you if all three of you ended up in the same thread, that's where it gets dicey. Just I just want to clarify. Clarify? Yeah, I.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. I'm an American.
Speaker 0: I may I? Okay. Your Councilor Brody Green ification.
Speaker 3: The thing that struck me was reading articles like if three people press like then that's kind of an expression of, of support. So that's where I got. Wow. So I don't know.
Speaker 2: No, no, no.
Speaker 0: I suppose emerges.
Speaker 2: I will say the clicking like one was the one that jumped out at me like you know, because I'm like they just click like to say thank you, right etc.. So I will definitely in the future be more careful about that because I do not look at who's like everything, you know, especially in there, 65 people. I'm not going to scroll through that, but I do think that we can trust each other also, or we should start off by trusting each other to look through the comments before we join. There was a conversation the end of last week that I went and I'm like, Oh, I had something I was going to say. And then I quickly went through and there was the mayor commenting and there was Councilmember Vela comedy. And so I stepped back, you know, and I wasn't thinking Brown act at that point. I just thought like, I don't need to add my voice as well. It's, it's, it's but, you know, rather than I, I also I talked with staff earlier. I would be a little nervous as a saying. We can't comment on social media because I don't think it should be required. The people comment. But I will tell you that I think if this if everybody on the dais goes silent on social media, what's the impact in the community is going to be? They don't respond. They aren't, you know, because because at some point or another, all of us have commented on something that that was important to them. And they wanted to know that people were thinking about it and whatever else. And so I think we just need to I think it would be good to have something that reminds us and, you know, adopted every year. But that that that we should be very mindful of not having three people in the same thread. But I would be a little leery of, of voting to outright say no social media commenting at all. And I think we should also, you know, we're all grown adults, I think is becoming a problem. We should we should then at our next not tomorrow, but at our next workshop, we can maybe set aside 45 minutes to talk about it.
Speaker 0: Before I go to Councilmember decided you want to say something else?
Speaker 9: Councilmember Vela Yeah, I just on the social media policy, I think sometimes also we click like just to say we hear you like we've we've heard you. Thank you for voicing this. We'll we'll do something about it. I think what we all need to be careful. I know we all want to be responsive and it's difficult. I, I think my my fear is also that we we censor ourselves too much, which I think is what the vice mayor's fear is, where we are no longer being responsive or engaging in a dialog on something that is not actually a matter coming before the council and therefore in Brown Act issue.
Speaker 0: Thank you Councilmember so.
Speaker 8: Well thank you. I think the reason why we're having this discussion about the code of conduct really boils down to the part of the draft that has to do with section policy implementing charter review Section seven dash the. Which among other things, has to do with inquiries made by council members of the city manager of administrative tasks. But it also has to do in the last sentence of seven das three. It also has to do with prohibitions on council members in in involving themselves. And this is we have to understand this specific word involving themselves in the appointment of persons to particular jobs within City Hall. So in my opinion, whatever code of conduct that we have, it needs to speak to that particular the last aspect of 7-3, because there really are two or maybe even three elements to seven, dash three one, as I had indicated. First has to do with any queries made about, you know, made of administrative duties that are rightfully belonging to the city manager. But the second part has to do with the appointment intervening or involving themselves in the appointment of individuals with regard to the code of conduct and the appointment of individuals by the city manager and the possible intervention of city council members in that job appointing process. The one thing that I would recommend is that that council members, in no specific instance, never look at council members, never specifically, uh, inquire about or specifically advocate for particularly particular individuals or sets of individuals or particular who are named. They can talk about, inquire about jobs and the type of characteristic the city manager is interested in or the type of characteristics that they are interested in seeing. But as a code of conduct, I believe we need to speak to the prohibition on pursuing, and it can enable even the phrase, the word inquiring can even apply here inquiring about particularly named individuals or even sets of individuals for appointments. And remember that 7-3 isn't is when it comes to the job. It's about appointments of individuals to positions. And I think I need to say that because it's altogether possible that council members might be concerned about a current department head and might want to raise some questions in their private one on ones with a city manager about the the performance of of department heads. That is not an instance of a council member involving herself or himself in the appointment process. The appointment process, in my mind, refers to when there is a position open and the prohibition when it comes to the conduct should simply be a sentence or two that prohibits the inquiring about or any kind of verb about specific named individuals or sets of individuals for appointments to city positions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So I'm just going back to the executive summary of this staff report that reminds us why we have this item before us to begin with. And it says that the city council agreeing with recommendations from the Alameda. I think that's Alameda County civil grand jury directed staff to return with a draft council member code of conduct slash handbook in order to provide additional guidance for Council members in the conduct of the city's business in fulfilling the duties of their public office. And that's what we have before us to consider. I also agree with Councilmember Odie, who said I believe when he started his comments that regardless of how we got here, this is a great opportunity and I happen to agree with that. I think that this current council and all future councils are only better equipped, better prepared to do this job by having a clear set of guidelines. And and the clearer and the more readable, the better. I also agree, though, with the vice mayor that the Sunnyvale handbook, I think is great, but it also lacks some of the specific references to our charter and things that I think are important. And so I would hope that when we send this back to staff for further work, that we can meld the Sunnyvale Guidelines Handbook with the with some of the pertinent parts of the proposal that.
Speaker 4: The.
Speaker 0: City our city staff came up with. I also. O The one thing you can omit from the Sunnyvale Handbook are the quotes. I do not know why and who. Maybe the city librarian or something chose those. But no, let's just, you know, stick to the basics. The social media policy. I do think something needs to be said. I mean, we can't pretend that we aren't here in almost 2020. And there just are some things I don't you know, we we have First Amendment rights, but we also have responsibilities to adhere to the Brown Act. So good to have those reminders. And I think as as Councilmember Otis said, this is is a great opportunity. And it also just clarifies what we're doing. I mean, this really is a noble endeavor and it should be treated as such. And I also think it's it's exceptionally important in today's world, especially in our country, looking to Washington, D.C., I think we can show that at the local level, we can communicate with civility and respect. We don't all agree all the time, but we can still have a good, productive discussion. And so sometimes we need to be reminded of that. And I think, you know, we've got some really good material to work with here. So, Councilor, ready? So your hand up. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I just wanted to add. Whoops, I just flipped over. I mean, if you look at the Sunnyvale, I mean, it devotes like two pages to an analysis of member questions, inquiries to staff. So I think there's a a good base there to address a lot of the concerns my colleague brought up. And, you know, there's actually a set in a paragraph which I think could be expanded on based on some things that are specific to Alameda, but do not get involved in administrative functions. And it spells out elected and appointed officials must not attempt to influence city staff on the making of appointments, awarding of contracts, seeking of consultants or selecting of consultants, processing of development applications, or granting city licenses or permits. And again, that that's probably a good start. I mean, if it needs to be expanded on, you know, I think we should we should expand on it. But, you know, it's a good start. The topic that came out that did concern me when I did read, uh, the original draft is, you know, I think there needs to be some guidance around what is allowed and not allowed as far as people that aren't are our direct reports because I really don't want to get in the business of disciplining or evaluating anybody. That's not our director party. So I don't know what the answer is. So I'm counting on on our staff to kind of bring that back. It's a fine line between saying, you know, I wish somebody had done this better versus saying, you know, something that councilmember days have brought up. I mean, I'm not sure that's appropriate thing for for a council member to get involved in. You know, maybe I'm wrong and maybe people disagree with me. But, you know, to me, it should be limited to boom, boom, boom. Right. One, two, three.
Speaker 0: Referencing our direct.
Speaker 3: Reports. Right. Yeah. Sorry.
Speaker 0: The question.
Speaker 3: Is my night, deposition, desire.
Speaker 0: Nonverbal communication.
Speaker 3: So, I mean, so basically that's why I like this because instead of, you know, a sentence in a charter, it's two pages of analysis on what an inquiry is. And if we want to expand on that, I'm sure there are other other charters or other codes that have that. But, you know, that's what I like about it because it was pretty clear and. Okay, yeah, things that I don't know if we thought of. So that that's kind of my comment on that.
Speaker 0: So I would just say that I do think there should be specific reference to Alameda City Charter in and that may be just a melding of two areas. Back to you, Councilman.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: And then there's.
Speaker 3: The last sentence of that said The Sunnyvale charter contains information about prohibition of interference. So, I mean, you can easily just plop our section in there.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 9: Councilmember Avella So I was just going to say the Sunnyvale policy includes, I think, what is really lacking, which is an interpretation of our charter. I think it's great that we have a charter, but I think part of the issue that we've been asked, but part of what we've been tasked at doing is is actually interpreting the charter in terms of how it's applied. And I think referencing our charter section as Sunnyvale has done would be helpful. But I do think our charter says very specifically and it uses the word I think Councilmember de SAC didn't, I think he maybe interchanged the words, but it says that that neither the council should the council should not interfere with the execution by the city manager of his powers or duties, except for the purpose of inquiry. And that's where the the Sunnyvale language defining what an inquiry is is helpful because our our charter lacks that. And then it says an attempt by the council member to influence and I think, again, outlining and defining what we mean by influence would be helpful in the making of an appointment. But part of the city manager's listed duties includes the appointment, discipline and removal of all officers employees of the city under his jurisdiction. So I think, again, there's that fine line. I don't I think that's been pretty clear and pretty clearly drawn. So I think there's an I and I've looked I also looked at the Sunnyvale Charter. Its language is very similar to ours. So I think to the mayor's point of referencing and inciting back should be pretty easy to do, especially if we compare our charter with their charter.
Speaker 0: One thing I really liked about the Sunnyvale Handbook is it had a little glossary section. Not even section was like half of a page, but pertinent phrases.
Speaker 4: Were.
Speaker 0: Spelled out, okay, are we ready for some?
Speaker 3: Do one more quick things. And I also thought that, you know, it had a really well thought out progressive, I guess sanctions is the word they use. So there was actually some guidelines in case there was an issue. And we had an instance before where, you know, somebody had asked for a police officer to be disciplined based on an interaction with that member's family. So I want to make sure that doesn't happen. So, I mean, to me to me, that's a violation of the charter, if anything is so I want to make sure that, you know, we make sure that that's especially pointed out.
Speaker 0: So is the direction. If I'm understanding council the direction is we like the Sunnyvale language minus the quotes and but we want to incorporate the the specified aspects the areas where the Alameda the draft Alameda handbook went more specifically into charter a reading of meetings some just some things that Sunnyvale didn't I think I think we really can combine both of them for the best of all worlds and zation policy. Um you know.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: This is a code of conduct for the city council, um, and other electeds, I think an appointed, um, you know, I, I think that one may merit a little further discussion. I don't recall seeing that in the Sunnyvale Handbook. So at this point, unless someone feels awfully strongly. Barrett. I think maybe we get this done. And I.
Speaker 9: Understand. Is there a separate policy? I just.
Speaker 0: Well, it's not before us in anything that was provided council or vice mayor. And that's why I think.
Speaker 2: Well, I guess the first question is, are we going to make a motion to do something or are we just going to send staff off with a general sense of the council.
Speaker 0: Going back to the the staff report? So. Well, it's and I think the city manager even said this in the beginning that he doesn't necessarily expect us to to come up with a record or that to adopt somebody tonight. But the recommendation is that we adopted as drafted or adopt a truly proposed social media. And then, you know, we got the Sunnyvale language, I think, after the staff report was drafted. So but the city mayor and city attorney, Mr. Chen, can you tell us, what do you think is preferable? Should this council make a motion or is staff direction sufficient or something else?
Speaker 2: It's you know, we're always happy to take your motion, especially if it means that you would give us specificity so that we can go back and do our work better. But my colleague, the city manager, may have a different thought on this. We definitely want to get your feedback one way or another so that when we bring something back to you that's consistent with your thinking.
Speaker 0: Mr. Levitt, your thoughts?
Speaker 6: I'm good with either. Either way, I've been writing down different elements. It sounds like Sunnyvale is sort of the baseline. And then you have some specifics out of Alameda that you want to do. So if the better direction we get, better, we are. But I'm I'm good with either.
Speaker 0: Vice mayor next.
Speaker 2: Page. So I'll just try to make a motion which would be to give direction to staff to return to the council with, with a code of ethics that is very much based on the Sunnyvale document. I did not as I didn't hear a lot of significant changes that needed to be had. And given that you've made the list, I'll say consider adding or where the appropriate place to provide the additional items, agenda setting, fraternization, etc. that may not belong in the ethics, but that, you know, I think you could come back and talk about how the city is going to address that issue or would propose to address that issue if it's not the right place. So then I was trying to figure out where it goes.
Speaker 0: Right. But this is fraternization among council members and board and commission members because that's what this handbook is addressing.
Speaker 3: And elected and I think we.
Speaker 2: Could be staff, etc.. Yeah.
Speaker 0: This. So just so I'm clear, this is a city council code of conduct in council member handbook.
Speaker 2: Right. I understand. So I guess I'm saying there's an interest. It does overlay with city of elected officials and appointed officials. The fact I would say we should expand it to the staff for consideration and we're just asking staff to consider it and come back with what the recommendation might be.
Speaker 0: I respectfully disagree. I don't think that it is the City Council's place to implement policies for the staff, especially in this item before us. That is a city council handbook, but I'll defer to the city attorney.
Speaker 2: And so maybe I think we can we heard the council's concerns and the city manager and I will work together to bring back whatever is appropriate. And it may not be an item, it may be some of the format, but we'll we'll come back to you. So I'll finish making my motion because I didn't get there. So it would include that direction for that consideration, but it would also include the direction to include social media language that does not prohibit but does highlight the Brown Act considerations.
Speaker 0: What did you excuse me just for clarification based where did you say we are directing them to bring back a fraternization policy for a staff sitter?
Speaker 2: Whether they should come back with a fraternization policy.
Speaker 0: Whether that's appropriate.
Speaker 2: And where where it would go. It's not I didn't they were not directing and put it in here. And there might be a fraternization. They may say we already have it covered. They may say that we think that this is a good idea. We'll bring it back as a policy. But yeah, yes.
Speaker 0: But referring to city staff when we're talking about a city council handbook.
Speaker 2: Referring to elected and appointed officials, but also broadening it to include city staff. Yes. I hear you don't like the broad name, but but I haven't heard that that this is an inappropriate, minor amendment to the direction that everybody should play by the same rules. And so if we're considering it for elected and appointed officials, we might as well also just included a B on that. So I think I think, you know, the city manager and I think understand that there's some interest in the council for us to bring in this information back and we'll just bring the information back to you at whatever appropriate form that will be excellent.
Speaker 0: I could live with that. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Speaker 3: I mean, I'll second it.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have a in discussion. Councilmember Daza.
Speaker 8: Yes. I will support the motion. Only because I think it's important for us to have language come back to us where we can make a decision, yay or nay, howsoever we want. The thing that I'm going to look for, though, is language that is specific to the code of conduct regarding interference in the appointment process. Because if we leave it vague, then the code of conduct is going to be as vague as the charter that were last. So many people are saying is vague, which I do not believe the charter is vague. The vague is quite clear. The charter is quite clear. So but I think it's more important than just to have the conversation just started so that we can make a decision. One last point. So in terms of department heads, the city council does have a role with department heads in the charter. So it's the city council that determines the offices of the departments and that the city manager then fills those offices. But it's the city council who determines the offices of the departments. And we can make we can change the composition howsoever we want. So there is a review process and it's charter item two, dash three, take a look at it.
Speaker 0: So I just want to make sure that whatever we're doing is in the spirit and in keeping with the recommendations of the civil grand jury. That is the reason we're considering this today. So and I understand that the city attorney and city manager are also cognizant of that. And, you know, this civil grand jury was not concerned with fraternization among staff or whatever. But I trust our our city staff to come back to us with an informed product. So we've had a motion, we've had a second all in favor.
Speaker 3: Oh, I was going to add one more comment, but.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Think we've had a lot of comments. One last one. And, you know, we are going back into closed session. Okay.
Speaker 3: Just a drafting request that we don't have to cut and paste like parts of our charter and sunshine urns. We can just incorporate them by reference. That would be a preference of mine.
Speaker 0: Okay. Are we ready to vote? Let's do it. All in favor. I oppose. Abstain. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, everyone. Okay. We are moving on to item seven City Manager Communications.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Recommendation to Consider Adoption of a City Council Code of Conduct and Councilmember Handbook, and Code of Conduct, Providing Guidelines for Councilmembers to Follow in Conducting City Business and Fulfilling Their Responsibilities as City Elected Officials. (City Manager/City Attorney)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_12032019_2019-7502
|
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. So, then, Councilmember de. So you pulled item five J. Yes, I did. Okay. And whose? See, this report is community development. Do we have somebody who's on this? This is the, uh, the lease with Pacific shops for the second reading, correct? Yeah. Come on up to the microphone, just in case. Do you have questions or is this just you want to vote? No.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I want to remain consistent with my no vote the last time by voting no again.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. So then let's take a motion. So this is the we're voting on the final passage, passage of ordinance authorizing the city manager, their designee, to designate to execute amendment to the lease with Pacific Shoppes Inc for Tidelands property located along Clement Street between Third Avenue, Clement Avenue, whatever, between Alameda Marina Drive and Willow Street , commonly referred to as Alameda Marina to allow Pacific Shops Inc to exercise its lease option requires four affirmative votes. Okay, Madam Clerk, we need to vote. Oh, we have him. I'm sorry. I do have a motion.
Speaker 3: So move.
Speaker 0: The. Have a second.
Speaker 5: Second.
Speaker 0: I have a motion from Councilmember Odia. A second from Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 1: Councilmember de san. Nope, not quite.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: I, i may ask.
Speaker 0: Why the motion carries for 2 to 1. Thank you. Okay. So we have dispensed with the consent calendar and we move on to our regular agenda items.
|
Consent Calendar Item
|
Final Passage of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager, or Their Designee, to Execute an Amendment to the Lease with Pacific Shops, Inc. for the Tidelands Property Located along Clement Street between Alameda Marina Drive and Willow Street, Commonly Referred to as Alameda Marina, to Allow Pacific Shops, Inc. to Exercise Its Lease Option. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Community Development 216)
|
AlamedaCC
|
AlamedaCC_12032019_2019-7466
|
Speaker 0: I see. Okay. So you want to make a motion? Yes. You're welcome to make a motion.
Speaker 5: So my motion would be to bifurcate this hearing into two parts. The first part I would not participate in, I would recuse. And that is for. All events occurring prior to this, for which there could be a claim filed. And then the second vote would be, uh, which I would like to participate in would be for any events happening after the adoption of this policy. Uh. Where in a claim could be filed.
Speaker 0: Okay, we've had a motion. Do I hear a second? If someone wants 2 seconds so we can have discussion, that could happen. If no 1 seconds, the motion will die for lack of a second.
Speaker 2: I'm sure you have got no idea what you think we discussed briefly.
Speaker 0: Okay, I take that as a second. Okay. So it's been moved by Councilmember Vella, seconded by Vice Mayor Knox White. Did you want to lead the discussion? Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: I understand my question, and I believe it's going to get to the issue of how we have the conversation. I think that there are a few things that I'm a little concerned about how we can be comfortable using language in conversation, but not playing out in the second part, where in a way you can also say, you know, we're not talking about now we are going to discuss this problem adequately in North Carolina. There are currently no jobs.
Speaker 0: He still has a flaw. Are you?
Speaker 2: I'm not clear. I can try to clarify.
Speaker 0: I I think he was saying that it was would be difficult to keep the issues separate was what I heard. Okay. All right. Council Councilmember Desiree.
Speaker 6: Well, thank you. I think the thing that concerns me is that. If there is litigation. I'm concerned that if we proceed down this path, if I say something in a way that. Could be injurious. So I just I'm not. I just have to be careful about that. And I'm not sure I can be that. Eloquent and trying to do that song and dance. It just seems to me if we just have a clean discussion based upon what's in front of us. Because. As a council member speaking, you know, from from my perspective. I don't see how even though there might be a bifurcation, I don't see how I would have two different thoughts just because there is this. Procedural layer that we have imposed. So if I'm not and if I'm not going to have two different speaking patterns, I just want to make sure that. I don't see something in one hand that potentially proves injurious if there is litigation. So to me, the wiser course of action is just to proceed. Like we had agenda this on. So.
Speaker 0: And I'm sorry I didn't. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Desai, for my part, I favor action that is simple and straightforward, because I think that at the end of the day, that's easier for the public to follow and understand our thought processes. And I also go back in recent history to the reason that we're even considering this policy tonight is it was one of the recommendations that came out of the grand jury report and the council, the three non recused council members voted unanimously to adopt all all of the recommended policies of the grand jury. And so I see this as a continuation of finishing that task that we started. This is just one of a number of policies that will be coming forward to us. But, you know, it's taken staff time to put this together. So while I appreciate the motion to bifurcate, I cannot support it. So, Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 5: Can we hear from the city attorney because there was a question initially posed by Vice Mayor Knox White.
Speaker 8: I think the vice mayor's question and if I get it wrong, the vice mayor can correct me. Was that would it you know, what would the vice mayor would have which would he have to compartmentalize his thoughts between the two processes? The answer's yes. The law authorizes you to do it if the council chooses to vote that way. But you do have to compartmentalize your thoughts so that you are taking two different actions so that you would. And I'm hoping that answers your question. And if I missed understood your question, I hope you'll re-ask it so I can provide a better answer.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Now, you know, if there was.
Speaker 2: A breakthrough in order to turn signals to computer. I think you're going to have a little bit more information before on and understanding how I think we may forgetting the first time taking care of your arm in a situation where the discussion in the second part of June is somehow still playing out, and then the ongoing issue that no one has ever been. Well, you know. Little legal issue, one of the leaders of a conference in Europe. I'm struggling with how our nation can achieve the kind of discussion in which we actually have a conversation and don't really bring them. Have you done that? I think you design the discussion forum together, but I you know, I that that's how we how we understand. I mean.
Speaker 5: So can.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 5: So I think that there's a number of different portions of the proposed. Well, first of all, it's a council policy. And so as it's a policy as applied moving forward to events that. Potentially could apply in the future, I feel like. I should be allowed to weigh in on those as it especially for the elements that do not necessarily relate to even the portion related to the Council. There's other elements of the policy that include other things. I suppose I could bring a referral for those matters if it's not discussed to those specifics. In fact, the things that I care about don't relate at all to the Council, and that's what I had wanted to discuss. But it's I understand the conflict, which is why I'm trying to bifurcates it so that it doesn't at all apply and that the two to anything where there could be a potential conflict for things that have occurred.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any further council comments or questions? Okay. We've had a motion. We've had a second to the motion to bifurcate this this item of motion. Second. All in favor. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. So we do roll call votes.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilor of dissent. No, not quite.
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 1: Vela, I and Mayor, as Ashcraft know.
Speaker 0: That fails. All right, so the motion fails.
Speaker 5: And just to confirm, I can bring a referral for the. I'd like to get it.
Speaker 8: Councilmember Avila In theory, if a referral is forward looking, you likely could do so.
Speaker 5: Okay, thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Who's presenting on this? I will. All right. And. And we can. Can we see even just fine on the screen? If he stays where he is, he doesn't need to come. Okay. Perfect. Okay.
Speaker 8: Good. Good evening, Mayor and Council. And today we bring forward to you one piece of the recommendations that you directed us to bring back to you as a part of your adoption of the grand jury recommendations. The grand jury made a recommendation, and it's it's number three of the recommendation that asked the council to consider a policy whereby council members would not be entitled to reimbursement from the city for legal or other fees incurred as a result of such persons knowing violation of the city charter. We've taken the council direction which was to bring this back to you before the end of the year, and we are doing so to you for you tonight. I want to add a couple of things that we've received in terms of comments so that the Council can have a full consideration. One was that we received comments to indicate that it may be helpful to lead with something to the effect of to the extent authorized by law and and not otherwise preempted. While we recognize that that preamble exists in every policy in the city. For this policy, there may be utility to include this preamble explicitly. So we are recommending that you consider that as part of your discussion tonight.
Speaker 0: To the extent allowed, say it again.
Speaker 8: To the extent authorized by law and not otherwise preempted. And I'll just interrupt my presentation to indicate to you that it is my understanding that the city clerk will be putting the substance of this policy on the screen for you. So that much like what you did with the grand jury responses, you will be able to have live discussions, direct the city clerk to make life changes, and you and the public will be able to see it on the screen. And so that preamble is one recommendation we're making to you tonight. We've received another communication, which was that perhaps this policy should apply to boards and commissions. We don't have any concerns with that, though. That was not part of the grand jury recommendation. And so we did not include it. But the council chooses to do so. You could direct you can give us that direction tonight. And finally, we've received some communications regarding delegation of authority there. We've received some concerns with respect to, in particular, delegating decision making authority to the city manager or the city attorney, especially with respect to council members, because both the city manager and the city attorney are retained at the pleasure of the council, and that delegation may not be appropriate.
Speaker 0: Well, and it wasn't I'm sorry to interrupt, but it wasn't just decision making. It was a determination of whether a council member had.
Speaker 8: That's right. That's right. And to be more specific, it's, you know, to to make the decision to to make the determination of whether or not a council member had indeed violated a charter provision or an applicable statute. The comment we received that it was a direct report of the council may not be the best suited to make that determination. And we that is a point well taken and it is something that the council could also make modifications to tonight. One solution could be that for council members, if the council wishes to delegate, that may only be to special counsel. All of these potential changes are at the Council's disposal, and we are ready to answer your questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Chen. Comments as well. Any clarifying comments and questions and do we have public speakers? We have to public speaker. So Council, at this point, let's just have any clarifying questions or comments you might have that we'll hear from our public speakers. Then we'll come back and discuss. Councilmember de SAC Councilmember I'm Vice Mayor Knox White.
Speaker 2: I think my only question would be, I think I am concerned in the media environment and my own students, I know right now is going to be the winner because our income line has been touched by and we can play a little bit of that in the council by an individual from the point of view of innovation about how to impress me, perhaps some some form of formal determination of one of.
Speaker 0: Oh. Did you understand the question? You that?
Speaker 8: I think so. There was a little bit of garbled communications, but I think the question was, you know, who's making the determination to delegate? And the answer to that question is that the policy as written is that the city council or a majority of the council will make the decision to delegate, if any.
Speaker 0: I think I might add, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but everybody might have heard him say, will there be a formal process to determine a knowing violation of the charter or law? Was that a fair, approximate approximation or not? Vice Mayor Not quite.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think the question was who is there any consideration of any more formal consideration?
Speaker 0: Of the other violation. Correct.
Speaker 2: Engineering should have happened because right now it seems dangerous to go looking out a manager or company telling me to find out whether or not there were the nine violations and you know, how they have been, you know, barred across the board. If you have the discretion to decide whether or not to use them by this point in time, I'm just trying to figure out how we how we find out. Do I think, you know, raising the bar further, if we know, for example, to be an issue and be really clear my mind or is clear right away, I think about anything.
Speaker 0: And and if I could just interject, I was at least one council member who raised the concern. And this goes back to my firsthand experience with the saga that gave rise to the grand jury report to begin with. It's a very difficult task to ask a direct report as the city manager or city attorney or city clerk or the city clerk wouldn't be making these determinations, but to to make a decision, a determination of a violation of the law or charter against one or more members of the city council, knowing that those members, those same members of the city council vote on their at will employment. And that's a that's a very significant factor. And so I felt that it would be better if the council were to delegate to a special council outside council so as not to put any of our direct reports in a a potentially precarious position. And you know it. Okay. Then the other thing, I mean, there's a lot of projection that goes into this or, you know, you try to look into the future a little bit, but you wouldn't want to establish a process that could give rise to political attacks. I mean, there might be a reason that a majority of the city council was turned against another member. So that's why I think the outside special counsel is just the best avenue on a number of levels to to pursue. Those are my thoughts. Um, do we were we in the middle of getting the decision? I think I cut you off in mid-sentence, probably. Were you put up? Are you going to tell us about comments or whatever?
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think we're at the council question stage and I think the mayor may have answered the vice mayor's question. A mr. Vice Mayor, if there's if there were anything else that was unanswered, I'm happy to answer it. If you wouldn't mind just repeating any portion that you would still like answered.
Speaker 2: She must have begun the language here in Southern Africa, which now is very much African American or more about at the time, and very new ground. And just from proceeding down the reporting of the conversation from there.
Speaker 8: I think that's right, Mr. Vice Mayor. We wanted we are breaking new ground in many areas, and we were keeping this policy short and simple. I think if you were if your question has to do with, you know, could this policy lay out a more detailed approach to how the council make the determination? We do not propose it because that could be, you know, procedure could be up to the council at the time and how the council wants to handle it. And we did not think it was essential to this policy, though if the Council wants to direct us to come up with more detailed, you know, beforehand policies on detailed procedure, you're certainly welcome to direct us to do so and we'll certainly do our best.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council Did you have any further Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 6: Councilmember Desai So here's my question on this subject matter about delegating or so. So what's the theory behind it? Because in the sentence, the first part of the sentence says that the city council can exercise its authority to not reimburse. And then in the latter part of it, or they can delegate. So what's the theory as to why a city council might want to delegate that?
Speaker 8: And so one example could be because the policy applies to staff. The Council may want to delegate to the city manager or the city attorney to make those determinations, especially vis a vis staff. And it you know, the mayor's point is well taken that you may not want to make that delegation to the city manager or the city attorney with respect to council members. But with respect to determining whether or not staff has violated a particular, you know, charter provision, let's say it is relatively common that, for example, city attorney or county council officers oftentimes will make the determination on whether a staff member acted outside the scope of their employment. And that determination is critical to whether or not the city would then defend that particular staff member in a civil litigation.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Any further clarifying questions or comments before we go to our public speakers? And let's take public speakers.
Speaker 1: Steve Swanson and then Kathryn Polley.
Speaker 0: And you'll each have 3 minutes to speak.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Mayor Ashcroft, council members Steve Schlosser live at 2426 Otis Drive. Before we get into the meat of the subject, I believe there's a typographical error on page six or paragraph six of the resolution regarding the date that this takes place.
Speaker 0: That it's been noted.
Speaker 3: Good. Okay. We are in agreement with Mayor Ashcroft's idea of an event.
Speaker 0: Just for the record, Ashcroft not like Ashcroft.
Speaker 3: ASHCROFT Sorry about that. ASHCROFT Yes. We are in agreement with Mayor Ashcroft's thoughts on an independent special counsel speaking on behalf of a group of concerned citizens. We are upset over the previous expenditures made by the city of Alameda for certain attorney's fees incurred by Councilmember Ody and Councilmember Vela. The total cost of this is approximately $40,000. I spoke with a member of the city attorney's staff this morning and have found that none of these monies have been recovered by the city of Alameda. We would like Councilmember O'Day and Councilmember Abella to take the high ground and voluntarily reimburse the city of Alameda for these expenditures. Barring that, we demand the city of Alameda take whatever action is necessary to recover those monies. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms.. Pauling.
Speaker 4: I'm mayor and council. I'm. 1/2. So in looking at this, I understand that staff wanted to be good on their promise to begin to bring these articles before the end of the year. But I am concerned that you start with Article three. It appears to me that you're really putting the cart before the horse. The one of the big problems noted by the earlier I investigation and by the grand jury was the vagueness of the term undue influence. I can't help but think, you know, if we're talking about a thief, I mean, is it someone who robbed you at gunpoint or is it someone who accidentally left something in the basket and you have not yet completed the work on whether on what exactly how you're defining the violations, what is the scope, and to determine a penalty and an outcome before you've even defined that seems just simply out of order. I'm also very disappointed that Council has decided to have this very important discussion with only three members present, because somehow it's going to be difficult for you to compartmentalize, I think, on an issue as poor as this is going forward. I would really prefer a full discussion by all five people and it's very disappointing to me that you've chosen to limited just to three people who have already made a determination that actually picks the grand jury decision over the much more intensive earlier investigation. There are a number of things here that I find distressing, and I respectfully request that you wait on this decision until table it, until you actually decide what is undue influence. The two council members on this last debacle didn't have the benefit of knowing that clearly. And there is a line between free speech and what happened. I'm clearly someone who puts a letter of recommendation on letterhead is not subterfuge. Someone who discusses something in a meeting is told it's violation, then does not continue with any discussion. And I think it's very important that this that you follow the grand jury's recommendations and not start with the penalty phase before you even done the hard work of defining what the violations are. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And are there any further penalties? Okay. So with that, the public comment is closed. Who wants to? Oh. I would like to make a comment and then I want to hear from everybody. I heard the city attorney's say that there had been some suggestion that board and commission members should be included in this policy. I would not support that. These are volunteers who apply to serve, who are appointed and voted on by the council. They receive no reimbursement. We don't receive a lot. They receive absolutely none. And I, I also don't really see the potential harm again. I don't have that crystal ball. But in in the case of the hiring of the fire chief by the former city manager that involved, as I mentioned previously, council members who were direct reports of that city manager who had the ability to hire or fire her at a board and commission member wouldn't have that power. So, I mean, that was not my suggestion. If anyone wants to make a case for why we should include board and commission members. I'm certainly willing to hear it, but I'm. That certainly gives me pause. Anyone want to chime in on that one? Councilmember de SAG.
Speaker 6: My feeling is the grand jury had given us recommendations and we're putting in place policies that that kind of grow. It's like a tree. And then we've got these limbs that are now growing. And to add in this extra item regarding boards and commissions, while in and of itself, that might be a sound policy, I think, if we just stick to. The Council and what the grand jury had suggested. I feel that I'd be on firmer ground. I mean, continue with my tree metaphor. I feel like if we go.
Speaker 0: Out and go out on a limb, exactly where.
Speaker 6: We're going out on an on a tree limb, the further you go, I don't know how steady it is. Whereas, you know, the the matter regarding the council and whether or not to allow reimbursement for legal costs, I mean, that there's a substantial body of discussion and actors who are involved in that discussion and there's a substantial amount of understanding people might disagree with with some of the policy recommendations. But nonetheless, there is some agreement on the policy recommendations, and I just feel that's firmer ground if we just stick. To the essentials that the grand jury had suggested.
Speaker 0: So I will just note that this policy recommendation goes a little bit beyond what the grand jury recommended, because it also adds city staff. No council member nor city staff member should be entitled to reimbursement from the city for legal or other fees incurred as a result of such persons knowing violation of the city charter.
Speaker 6: I mean, I can live with the city staff portion. I mean, there's some some limbs. I could you know, it might be a little bouncy, but I could still feel a little comfortable on it. But perhaps the board, the commission might be taking me a little too further out. But I could live with the city staff passing.
Speaker 0: Hey, Vice Mayor Knox White.
Speaker 2: In terms of the average amount by the city attorney, I should like to be able to write that, but better. But I think we're we're starting to get into conversation more and more with the commission, but I don't think we should be, you know, not moving very quickly.
Speaker 0: Q Okay. Okay. And I will say that I am I also agree with that in the preamble that Mr. Shen started out with that the lead with the language to the extent authorized by law and not otherwise exempted. And then, okay, so we and we don't want to add board and commission members. And again, I think that the city of Alameda is, you know, a little bit on the cutting edge here. But I also think that, as has been said, more than once, the city of Alameda is also making an attempt to make to rectify past situations and to follow the grand jury's recommendations. So then we touched on briefly, but the the question of so in the resolution, I was concerned with the language on page two that says that says that the I'm sorry, it's not on page two. It is the, uh. Okay. Where is it that. Is it just in the. I'm looking for the language that says we could delegate to the city manager or the city attorney.
Speaker 8: If I may help you.
Speaker 0: Please help me.
Speaker 8: It's right there. It's on the top of page two. You were correct.
Speaker 0: It is in the seduction to.
Speaker 8: Yeah. And where the cursor is. Right?
Speaker 0: You're right. You're right. Yeah. Okay. I'm looking at my finicky iPad. Yes, it is. So I. I believe and I will say that I discussed this with Mr. Shen a couple of days ago, that we. What was the language that we said that, um, uh. Do you remember the language?
Speaker 8: I do. I believe the gist of it was that your preference would be that the delegation would be to special counsel with respect to council members, and that you were comfortable with the delegation to city manager, city attorney or special counsel with respect to city staff?
Speaker 0: That's exactly right.
Speaker 8: And so we can make that change on the screen. Okay. As you deliberate further on the item, I'm going to go and work with the city clerk to make that change.
Speaker 0: Okay. Council member de is GAZETTE does that sound okay to you?
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's fine. I think, you know. Teeny bit of wordsmithing here, but you know, the part where it says committed the violation or delegate such decisions shouldn't be committed the violation comma or because that's a whole independent clause of its own. After the word or those it should be a comma or.
Speaker 8: Sure would be happy to add a comma right in front of or.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 6: Especially since you're going to add these other.
Speaker 0: Yeah, right. And then at the top of the page you've already made that ex. Yes. The, um. There was a extraneous word than you already. Yes. Okay. Okay. And then, let's see. Did we put in the, um. Do we put in the preamble? Yep, we did. There it is. Highlighted. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 6: Oh, you know what?
Speaker 0: It's where we look in.
Speaker 6: The OR is after a violation where your cursor is right now, right underneath the cursor, the word violation and then comma or because I think that's what we're intending. Right. Because delegate is the verb that's associated with the city council over there, the city council. The city council may decide comma or. Or delegate. Comma or delegate. Right. That's.
Speaker 0: So we start from the beginning here.
Speaker 6: Aware that the city council and then may decide is the is the verb. And then and then all that. And then right where she has a cursor, that's where you put a comma. Because when you say or delegate, you're saying the city council. I don't know.
Speaker 0: It's not it's not a numerical kind of thing.
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 0: What I would.
Speaker 6: And take out the Corvette. That's all I'm saying. You put the comma there or delegate. That's grammatically correct. Yeah, I believe. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thanks. So it's there, right? Exactly. The comma is there. Okay. We found the comment. Any other. Any other proposed changes or.
Speaker 2: Vice mayor of New York, a conversation about the European Union and concerns about it. And I'm going to try to get to the video of this meeting in about ten or 15 seconds by time, so that we have the language where we're going to prepare for the showdown between me repeating that.
Speaker 0: Oh, absolutely. Yeah.
Speaker 2: People said to me that I think the first time is going to be somebody is going to commit a violation in not really adding too much power. So, you know, you don't already have the ability to detain them. If they're not going to reimburse conventions, she's going to influence the Supreme Court. I guess I would say that the grand jury's reporting that we're doing to, you know, kind of where is the trigger for even for somebody being declared to have knowingly violated that according to the rules? And I am a little uncomfortable with it just being the special counsel I had for ten years to a leading special counsel. And one of those I thought that was just alcohol in it, you know, not even following it should be not California law and, you know, the grand jury and about it. But, you know, you're very correct. And so, you know, even even, you know, the special counsel's just a big old. And I knew.
Speaker 0: You were going to.
Speaker 2: Bind the future council by making you determine that it needed to be not being allowed to determine whether to buy I. And there should be more than just the first two years in the company after being ordered, you know, an hour before not going. I'd hate the idea I or my mind, but NPR could be in the grand jury or could be a finding of the court, etc. But I think that we are trying to litigate the past and in doing most important, really thinking through, I don't know, we're totally battling or intervention of our novel in the future. And I'm just a little worried and that I'm just saying you can go. You don't even think.
Speaker 0: That you.
Speaker 2: Did that.
Speaker 0: Yeah, so I'm too. And I didn't want to cut you off. Vice Mayor, I heard you finish your sentence.
Speaker 2: No, I don't think so.
Speaker 0: I think those are well-taken points. What I might suggest and again, from direct experience, I think part of the problem was that the city attorney, who was also a recipient witness to the events that gave rise to the grand jury report and the events examined by the special counsel also chose that special counsel. So I would say that moving forward, I would leave it to council members to determine who that special counsel should be. So I think that this gives us more control over the process. We can interview some firms. But it also I'm still trying to build in that protection from council members who might be a majority and might , you know, have it out for a council member. I want fairness in the process, but I do think that this is a responsibility that the city council could delegate by being the ones to choose the special counsel. That's my thought. Gentlemen yours.
Speaker 6: I am. This is. This is Tony.
Speaker 0: Yes. Chasm of desire.
Speaker 6: I thought the point that Vice Mayor Knox White raised about a higher threshold or his use of the word trigger is spot on. I. Because I. I'm going to try to make this summarize. I think what I hear you saying is. Okay. The policy of reimbursing or not reimbursing should follow an event or a decision made by some. For lack of a better word, third party entity, whether it's the grand jury finding or the district attorney finding that that some kind of charter violation had occurred. So once that hire that that trigger is pulled, so to speak, then the council can can decide to pull its subsequent trigger of not of not reimbursing legal fees. But the first trigger has to be pulled first. My correct in saying that that's what you're getting at.
Speaker 0: That's a question posed to the vice mayor.
Speaker 2: At the end of the day. You already are a property that are legal in Quadrangle and you follow and you have that trigger point because you put in another comment in a meeting about, you know, how do we if we have nothing but we involve people that are more political among themselves. And I think I think we need to be careful about what rules you put in place with respect to the future.
Speaker 6: So follow up question. So right now, is it your reading that by virtue of being silent about that? About the grand role of the grand jury in making a determination or or the role of the D.A.? I don't know which one you prefer. By remaining right now silent about that role, it's almost like, well, okay, if three council members decide you made a it's the policy is reading such that it's almost like if three council members so decide. Is that the concern? So in that sense.
Speaker 2: I think Germany or America could decide to hire a special counsel and give them very specific instructions about what they want to see.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay.
Speaker 2: I think Israel may not be even a reality for you, but to be able to respond in a private way, all you know is a grand jury also has no due process in its court. I just think that, you know, that, you know, we in my minority, we had one grand jury in 20 years. I live in town. It's not overly difficult to independent reporters and a lot of people in town. I was reporting on both sides in case you feel it was wrong and you did not do a good job and you got a great job and the was. But there are a lot of people I don't know if you can talk about anything you can support. And therefore, you know, I think that indicates that the only thing we have to be doing with the grand jury, I would think that that would be it needs to be much. I think you can ask information.
Speaker 0: Okay. And the minimum threshold, again, if I'm understanding, is that three or four council members could vote to bring in a special counsel.
Speaker 2: I believe the threshold for me would be in a grand jury found a violations of the rules.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, so here's the thing to keep in mind that the grand jury, we don't direct the grand jury to look into as a scenario. They they reach down and and do what they do. So I, I think we need to build in a little better protection than that. And again, and maybe I wasn't being clear enough, I, I think the process of selecting the special counsel itself was flawed. And, and didn't have the the input of the city council. Councilmember Daza I.
Speaker 6: Hear what you're saying, and I probably would have agreed with you had I been there. But I think the situation that we're dealing with now has specifically to do with reimbursing legal fees. So the point at which most of the time people ask for reimbursement of legal fees is after some kind of process had had unwound most of the time. Unfortunately, this previous time, some legal fees were were were reimbursed prior to the decision by the grand jury. But let's let's forget about that for now. Let us suppose that there were no reimbursement of legal fees that had occurred in 2018. Let us suppose that and let us suppose further that the grand jury made a determination in June 2019, and the grand jury report comes out. That's the trigger that I believe Vice Mayor Knox White is referring to when it comes to the question of do we reimburse or not reimburse for legal fees? And to me, I would agree that that that on the question of reimbursing legal fees, that that is that is the I think that it's appropriate to have that it's appropriate to have that that that triggering event, that IEEE, the grand jury, had made some kind of determination in terms of the issue of the counsel. I think that was kind of a parallel issue that was leading.
Speaker 4: Up to the grand jury.
Speaker 6: That that I think.
Speaker 0: Okay. So if I can just jump in. I am just saying that I. So the reason that someone's legal fees would be denied is that there was a determination that they either violated the charter or violated an applicable law and in the language proposed. It leaves the possibility of who would determine that to be the city attorney, the city manager or a special counsel. I think it's perfectly fine to for the the the for the city attorney or the city manager to determine a violation or not for a member of city staff. I worry about, for the reasons I stated previously, of giving them that responsibility when it puts them in a precarious position, as the director reports to the City Council. So that's the only circumstance under which I would bring in a special counsel.
Speaker 6: Oh, I see.
Speaker 0: But but again, the and maybe the city attorney wants to weigh in here, but it just I don't think it's just after a grand jury makes a finding that someone will claim their legal fees. I'm we've seen it before, and I'm not sure that it's just the outlier and the exception that will never be repeated. And again, we are following a recommendation that emanates from the grand jury's findings based on the the the events that occurred in 2017. So that's the only I don't want to belabor the part of the special counsel, but I just think that there is a time when it's appropriate to take that decision outside of the city, especially for people who are our direct reports. And Mr. Chin, do you want to weigh in?
Speaker 8: Yes, I think I understand exactly where the mayor is coming from, and I think I also understand where the vice mayor is coming from. Mr. Vice Mayor, I think the concern expressed by the mayor, which in a way I share, is that there are very few times that the grand jury actually is involved in a city process . And so if the triggering event is a grand jury determination or a district attorney or an attorney general investigation, and that triggering event could be both over and under inclusive. It could be under inclusive in that those law enforcement agencies just intervene so frequently that this policy would never be applied, essentially. It could also be over inclusive, because this policy makes more clear what a knowing violation is. And because the Council has no control over those other agencies, you could not be confident that those agencies are applying your policy properly. They may be applying some other policy and decide there's a violation whereby you may or may not agree with. And so that's why this policy is drafted, to give the council as the elected governing body of the city, to essentially make the ultimate call. I think the mayor's point is also well-taken that special counsel should be appointed by the council, and that was always our vision that the council would appoint the special counsel. And so I'm proposing that right in front of special counsel, we could add council appointed to make clear that special counsel would be appointed by the council and not by some other appointed employee in the city. And I hope that was helpful.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: It was helpful. I guess I would be counsel have already been denied company indemnification because they feel that they knowingly committed a violation. We're not changing that ability right now. What we what we're doing is whether or not there should be more specific policy, any specific trigger for requiring that to happen. I concur with Mayor, when you read your comments about Josh, the attorney, David, out of that investigative role and and the. Bob, is your point about picking up all of the need? The question is, can we report the need for anything, anybody to figure out that they're going to improve our lives? And perhaps we're not really at any point where we need to kind of pick up all of that time and being able to get a reimbursement for a fee. But I feel like we are a policy. Yeah, I. We had such a mouthful. You know, you're right. They were. I thought that they were hired by the city attorney and the people related to that. But I hate to call it the council, but I think you have to be there for it is going to be without parties or governments or whatever else. I honestly believe in the fact that we have a council of the people who are really trying to act ethically in this regard. And I have very little problem working with the Council to do that. But I think we're talking about, you know, I mean, I'll talk to you tonight in person out there. Although I feel obligated because I'm looking for somebody to make me an attorney.
Speaker 0: So if I could just chime in, I do hear your concerns. I have a concern about due process and to make sure that whoever is making a determination has the the background and the ability to do so. And I think in some cases and I don't say this because I'm a lawyer, but I think in some cases you do need a lawyer. But what if rather than just delegating to a special counsel, we bring a special counsel in to work with us the the non recuse council members. Council member I mean, Madam Clerk. Yes, I'm.
Speaker 1: Sorry to interrupt, but if the council could just take a vote to authorize additional time since two members. Yes.
Speaker 0: This is true. We have our clerk. Okay, I will move that. We allow this discussion to take as much time as it needs to take. I think it's too important to cut us off at a certain number. We do have a second thing. Okay, wait a second. Let's take a roll call vote.
Speaker 1: Council members desire. Yes, not quite. I may or as Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: Yes. That's two yeses in an I three. Affirmative. It's okay. It passes. Thank you. Okay. So I think I was saying that, you know, maybe a compromise position would be we don't just send it out to the special counsel, but we bring that counsel, that special counsel in to work with us, because after all, we would know the the case facts certainly the best. But I, I just am not sure that in every instance, the Council is is equipped to make that determination. And there might even be a way to word this so that the council reserves the discretion to appoint a city council, a special counsel, to work with it, if, if necessary, if it felt the necessity to do so, or words to that effect. You're grimacing Councilmember De. So what? Yeah, translate that into words.
Speaker 6: I don't know if I'm becoming more Catholic than the Pope and by by glomming on to Vice Mayor Knox's white's phrase of triggering triggers and higher thresholds. But when he referenced grand juries, I believe in particular, I might use the word D.A. I don't know if he used the word D.A., but when he referenced grand juries, as , you know, an example of of a higher threshold decision making body, I still I think that that is a correct point so far. So, for example, one way that we could potentially deal with that is in the very first in in section one, in the first sentence of paragraph two, it reads, No council member nor city staff member shall be entitled to reimbursement from the city for legal or other fees incurred as a result of such persons knowing violation of the city charter. An applicable criminal statute or an applicable ethical code of conduct period. Maybe where we say period, we introduce comma as determined by a grand jury, D.A. or counsel appointed special counsel.
Speaker 0: Well, I mean, that's a possibility. I would also just be mindful. I mean, I think you probably wrapped up wrapped into that language. The city attorney's reminder that law enforcement agencies intervene so rarely that we it could be an under inclusive policy to rely on their determination. But maybe we're getting both that we can have our cake and eat it, too, or whatever. But, um.
Speaker 6: But I take what you're saying about what you just said. But again, we're responding to this very rare, historic event that we just don't want to see happen again. And so and so that historic event was, you know, some some some violation of 7-3 that then, you know, required the D.A. and the grand jury to make a determination. And they did that. And so going back to the tree metaphor, staying close to the trunk as much as possible. That's why I don't know. I'm still okay with inserting or asserting a role of the grand jury or a D.A. in this. I don't.
Speaker 0: Know. Well, I and again, I'm sorry, did you finish? Okay. So I am I'm also mindful of the fact that we will not pass this policy unless all three of us agreed to it because we were the three person majority. It will take I, I think the language that Councilmember de SA just suggested that we referred to a grand jury proceeding, the district attorney, or a determination by a special counsel.
Speaker 6: I thought you said council appointed special.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, it is counsel by special counsel. Yes. That that might suffice. And I again, yes, I hope that this is a rare occurrence, but we don't know that. And I think that it's really important to have clear policies that just leave. No question about. And this is you know, this is what what what you can expect if this if a in alleged violation were to occur again.
Speaker 6: I mean, and Vice Mayor Knox. Right. Are you about to say something or. Because I was about to make a comment.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: Mike Huckabee.
Speaker 6: Okay. The weakness of what I just said and you know, I want to of course, I would love to say it's all good, but there is a weakness. The weakness is that if something goes wrong, does that mean that let's say a city staff does something wrong? Does that mean the city staff has to go to work and get some kind of grand jury seal of approval or so?
Speaker 0: No, because, again, the special counsel involvement is only triggered when it's a it's a city council member. And that's only to keep us from requiring our direct reports to make that determination. Yeah. And I guess as I hear myself saying that, well, the city attorney is obviously an attorney. City manager isn't, although he's a wise man. But, you know, he won't always be here. But. But I think we I'm hoping we, with your suggested language council member decide the the specification that it would be a council appointed special counsel that we might have enough to move forward on. But what do you think, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: I don't think I'm going to support any litigation and having internal counsel, regardless of who they are appointed by.
Speaker 6: During the.
Speaker 2: Day. We need to be clear about that. I think we have to be able to feel comfortable that we're open minded. Both of them are problematic in their own way. And I think that giving an individual or firm, even if they're voyeurs, to trying the power with you on the left hand side, you know.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 2: I'm here about the attorney. I'm concerned about how people interact. It's not that big of a concern. They can hire a special counsel and they can use the special counsel's report of a referral to an individual with that in mind and so on. I mean, the model that I would hope is that you gave the grand jury to take it out. I don't think that the ability to hire language when you do that. I guess I may have less to do with special counsel, both of which I know you agree with.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I'm not suggesting that we go down either of those two paths. What I'm suggesting is that I do think that there may be times when a city council needs to confer with a special counsel to get an opinion. We aren't we wouldn't need to be looking for a special counsel's report, I would envision as sitting in a closed session with that person and raising our concerns and getting legal advice. And so the fact that there have been two examples in recent memory where special counsel didn't, you know, it fell short of the task they were assigned. I'm not looking to replicate that, but I am looking to at times and only if a majority of the non recused counsel decides that we could bring in an attorney to work with us and advise us. We could also decide, no, that's not the path we need to take. But I think that there is an element of safety in at least knowing some legal considerations that if we're not consulting with our city attorney, I don't think that it's reasonable to assume we can just rely on ourselves for the legal advice that may be required. And obviously, you you're willing to to take the determination of of some attorney, like a district attorney. And the district attorney certainly advises the grand jury. So I'm just saying, this is just be like a resource vice mayor. I'm not I'm not saying we do what was done before. Okay. Have at it and come back and tell us what you think. It's come sit with us. Here are questions. Here's where we think we want to be. Is is are we, you know, going down the right path anything that to keep us out of legal jeopardy and to ultimately achieve the outcome we're trying to achieve. But I'm not looking to replicate past models.
Speaker 2: So I guess I'm still not sure I'm on board with it being a sympathetic company for determination and have their interests in consultation with the special counsel.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry at their interest. What they.
Speaker 2: Can handle any special counsel in higher education, that special counsel will be notified not to do.
Speaker 0: So again. I didn't say delegate. I'm saying to bring them in to sit and work with us. It would only take place in the presence of the counsel and this legal adviser, that of our choosing. Right.
Speaker 2: To give them the language and instruct them.
Speaker 0: So. Well, I yeah, I mean, we we're in the drafting stage. And so, yeah, I am trying to.
Speaker 2: Say that whatever it was that needs to be done to get the proper training going, including being helpful in coping with the special counsel that we're not hearing that special counsel is threatening to.
Speaker 0: Be if we are not. And I'm not suggesting that. Okay. Let's work with that wording. I think we might be on to something. Okay. So we're looking at me. Put it up in my screen.
Speaker 2: This is going to have to be guided by on all of these triggering of an execution by or not back. Yeah. I mean, are you saying that the council will determine whether they are going to come on board with everything else but making the determination of violations and giving them patients based on their findings?
Speaker 0: Do you want to jump in, Mr. Shin?
Speaker 8: Sure. Vice Mayor. Vice Mayor Knox White. I think what this policy does is that once a decision or body makes the determination that there is a violation, then the Council could not exercise its discretion to indemnify. So in essence, once a knowing violation is found, the council doesn't get to step two. The council just simply doesn't exercise its discretion to indemnify. That's that's all that this policy does. I think the grand jury recommendation was not an intended to be a sea change. It simply just moves the discretionary indemnification to mandatory non indemnification to the extent that the council or whatever body has found a knowing violation. I've been scribing.
Speaker 2: I guess my question is where is that? What is that threshold for that finding of the city council.
Speaker 8: As it is currently? Yes.
Speaker 2: Right? I mean, I think that's all right.
Speaker 0: So how would you how would you address that problem?
Speaker 2: No, I wouldn't do anything by injecting that. We're going to just buying something that probably I think it has to be following to get there. The company decided to not get it down the highway or not to pick up the rights of the individual, you know, and after November five, regardless of the fact that the grand injury is involved or not. We're not we're not trying to eradicate it with Germany. And again, we're just trying to figure out at what point in time, but no longer the council's ability to say that. And I think at that level, that personal need to be much higher than just to be on the level.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So we're. Well the okay go ahead cancel everyday.
Speaker 6: So I think you know the way in which the city attorney had modified the first sentence of a second paragraph to section one, the modification occurring where we, we replaced code of conduct period with code of conduct comma as determined by dot, dot, dot the things. I think everything is satisfactory there except for the last thing or the city council. I think it's just basically attorney general, the Alameda County district attorney and or the Alameda County grand jury, period. I think that's what Councilmember Vice Mayor Knox White is getting at. Is is those are the decisional that those are the higher authority, higher threshold decision making bodies that signal to the council. Okay. Council, yes, indeed. These reputable bodies have made a decision that that, you know, goes to the due process that the vice mayor not Suarez speaking to. And based upon that decision through that due process, the council will not reimburse legal fees. So so I don't think you can have the last thing or the city council is it does that some close to what you're getting at.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mr. Chan.
Speaker 8: May we ask the Vice Mayor? Could you. Could you actually see these live updates from where you are?
Speaker 2: Oh, you know, on my camera, on the screen.
Speaker 0: I will ask them to. Oh, okay. So you're not actually seeing the changes that are being made. Okay.
Speaker 2: I enjoy it because I go.
Speaker 0: Has got.
Speaker 2: It. After.
Speaker 8: And I'm going to highlight the sections that were changed for your viewing convenience.
Speaker 0: That would be helpful. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 2: So on the screen.
Speaker 0: Um. Can't. Can we email it to him?
Speaker 1: It should be okay.
Speaker 6: Your concept of that just having to do with city staff?
Speaker 0: No, I think.
Speaker 2: I believe based on what I see in Europe, there will be karma or the city council. I will be under my watch because I don't think they will have a significant change of anything sitting up our country ability to not have anything.
Speaker 6: Yeah. I think that's where he's going at.
Speaker 0: The top. Oh, well, I would still leave in that. The city council may have that right, but we should still specify specify that that should be should not include the council members who are alleged to have council member or members who are alleged to have violated the law.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Okay. May I ask a question of the vice mayor?
Speaker 0: Yes. And then I have a question for you. Mr..
Speaker 8: So, Mr. Vice Mayor, if your your request that the lead comma or the city council. Are you okay with the rest of the highlighting? The rest of the highlighting essentially provides that if none of these public bodies actually make a determination, then the council gets to do it. Or is it your request that we delete everything? If you look at the second round of highlighting.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, I think the the situation. So that we can create a very small industry by saying that whatever, you know, get motivated by people finding the particular looking children not to identify that, correct?
Speaker 8: Well, essentially, the policy as it's written would be that the city council would then make the finding.
Speaker 0: Right, that there was a violation. Yeah. Yeah. And so I. I just want to jump in and say, I'd like to get to a vote, but I also want to make sure that whatever policy we're adopting, the city attorney thinks will hold up to legal scrutiny because there's no point in having a policy that just brings us into court to to clarify, did we you know, did we have the ability to make that determination? Maybe we do. And it you know, we just haven't had a specific policy telling us that. Councilmember de SAC.
Speaker 6: On the point that the discussion item that we just had where we said if none of those three top echelon decision making bodies make a decision, then the city council could make a decision. I'd be concerned about that because if the attorney general or the district attorney or the grand jury is not is not making a decision on this item, that that's telling you something. So then I don't but but yeah.
Speaker 0: I think I think that we can't read too much into that. The Alameda district attorney has quite a few items that the grand jury considers. And, you know, even topics that are suggested. And then they vote on which ones are going to hear kind of like the US Supreme Court. So that doesn't mean just because it didn't come to their attention that it's not significant. It just could say that that particular year there were a lot of things that took more time and attention.
Speaker 6: King.
Speaker 2: Question.
Speaker 0: Yes, vice mayor.
Speaker 2: Has been saying that match the game by game council can make a finding that something was knowingly done in their lifetime themselves to not reimburse. We don't have that language. We use the. That's not appreciated.
Speaker 0: Well, I mean, I would say that we want to make sure we have a firm legal foundation for making that determination, which we might, because maybe the charter language is so straight forward. But I again, this is this is a recommendation of the grand jury that we not pay legal fees to council members who are found to have violated the charter. So how is it they're found to violate the charter? And I try to when I look at a situation and maybe this is my, you know, Arbitrator Day's coming out, I try to look at it from both sides. So it's one thing for the three of us to be sitting here determining this policy. How would it feel if we were on the other side of the equation is, you know, did we maybe, maybe once you elected a council, you were just, you know, imbued with that wisdom and knowledge. I, I wouldn't mind having someone to consult with, but I don't think it should be the city attorney in this instance. Um, and I, and I think if I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying just leave it silent. But I again, I'm just trying to do what we said we would do, which was to adopt this policy that the grand jury recommended in the three of us unanimously agreed to do that. So how best to do that? Let's let's see. We can come up with some language that I mean, I think you I think you understand my concerns. I'm hearing yours. I think there's got to be some some middle ground language in there that can satisfy all of our concerns.
Speaker 2: I mean, I have no concerns about the use of the special counsel's counsel in their actions. I'm not proposing anything that would change that. I don't know that we can call a meeting in my mind. We will make a determination about whatever. And I just I feel like that's already been my part of what we're doing, is following the grand jury's recommendation that people who are knowingly found guilty of violating the charter cannot be identified. And I think what we're just tapping into, where is that determination going to violating the charter or other rules? And I think jumping the gun is a part of it. Even if the due process that you do not spy three politicians sitting on people who may or may not be aligned. So your options are strong. And if I was on the other side, you know, never to be. But I know that there was some sort of due process that I was following that would be followed in making that determination. And I didn't feel that the three people that I am opposed to or something like that, which I think that might be, and I think we've seen in the past few days around the Bay Area and country in the world that you don't need to be doing anything other than just kind of climbing, that it's a binding issue.
Speaker 0: Of.
Speaker 2: Being in a council meeting, that determination, making and determination and choosing to follow the lead of the attorney general and not have done that by any time we talk about the country.
Speaker 0: I think, again, it is awkward when we're asking the city attorney to make that determination with regard to another city council member. The reason that I would leave in the council appointed special counsel is to make sure that a future council is aware of that. And I see that as a protection because I've seen what happens when it's not a council appointed by the city council. And again, it is exactly what you said only to consult with us. We're not delegating any authority, but I think to your earlier point about how the the the ones who are seeking legal reimbursement would feel , I think that consulting with a lawyer is actually is actually a a level of protection and safeguard. Right.
Speaker 2: So what I'm proposing, I think people are buying a couple of things. I don't know if you disagree there at all. You know, I'm already part of the determination. I mean, I think that the council should make up the language. I don't think that they can be precluding community banking, and I don't think we're not trying to or politically unpopular, but that's what we're trying to do. Anything else about the competition?
Speaker 0: Well, right. Is there a way we can sit in the affirmative rather than the negative?
Speaker 2: I'm sure make.
Speaker 0: So let's see. So here's the highlight. So in the absence of any determination of etc., etc., the city council, excluding bereavement share, shall shall retain the ability to make.
Speaker 2: You design.
Speaker 0: So retained. Did you say the authority to decide to determine the time to decide whether. Okay, sure.
Speaker 2: So this term.
Speaker 0: You shall retain the authority to I think we're saying determine rather than decide or that's pretty close to determine, but a better idea. Okay. And then, um, I would like something about that gives us the ability to consult with a special counsel appointed by the city council. Those are two different spellings, but city clerk knows that.
Speaker 2: I'm bored with that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Let's see if we can get it offline. Are you and by the way, Vice Mayor, are you seeing these changes in real time? Okay. Um hmm. Okay. Let's see how this looks now. In the absence of a determination by a court. Um. The City Council shall retain the authority to determine whether the Council member knowingly committed a violation or delegated, um, decision. Okay. Um, in making determinations required by this. Okay. So on that last highlighted sentence that I think should be modified and moved because it's not going to apply to staff at all. Right. We don't need to. And city manager, city attorney can make that those determinations with regard to city staff. So I would like to say, um, uh oh, I know that, um. Is the council actually going to make a determination about the city staff member or are we leaving that to the city manager and city attorney? Mr. Chin.
Speaker 8: So as written, it gives you the choice to either.
Speaker 0: Downgrade or relegate guy to zero vice mayor.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. In making determinations required by this policy, the city council, I would say, may consult with special counsel. And it's a make and sell with council appointed special counsel to provide necessary advice.
Speaker 6: Consultant not consulted?
Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. In that last year, take the EDF rate. Yeah, you got it. Okay. In making determinations required by this policy, the City Council may consult with counsel, appointed special counsel to provide necessary advice. What do we think?
Speaker 6: So let me go back up. So the first sentence that starts with to the extent and then right now we have as determined by court of competent jurisdiction jurisdiction, the attorney general, Alameda County district attorney, the Alameda County Grand Jury Karma or the City Council? Do we really intend to have or the city council there at the tail end?
Speaker 8: Councilmember de SAC I think you do if you want to keep the latter part of the policy, because the latter part of the policy makes clear that the Council retains the jurisdiction to do it. And so if you delete the City Council from the first sentence, then it could clear.
Speaker 0: That confusion.
Speaker 8: As to whether or not the council could do it at all.
Speaker 6: Oh, I see. Okay.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: Yeah. That sounds good. Okay. I would be okay with that.
Speaker 0: Okay. And that just just.
Speaker 6: For the.
Speaker 0: Record, some every day.
Speaker 6: So I want to make sure that we captured what the city attorney just said in the minutes, because that to me, it's it has to be understood what we mean by that phrase or the city council at the tail end. So yeah.
Speaker 0: In the minutes of this meeting. Yeah. Okay, we got it. And then okay let's see here. Section two. In Section three. I don't see any necessary changes unless you all do. Council Member De SA. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: Are.
Speaker 0: You ready to support that? Me You'd like to make a motion.
Speaker 2: I'm open to all of the document as written.
Speaker 0: Okay. As amended. Right. As amended, yeah.
Speaker 2: Now that we have this kind of thing going on.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we have a motion by the vice mayor. It's been seconded by councilmember designee. We have a voice vote.
Speaker 1: Councilmember DeSantis knocks way. I mean, as the. Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: Yes. All right. The measure the this ordinance to enact this policy passes unanimously. Thank you. All right. So, yeah. Good work. Good work, everyone. Thanks. And now let's let's take a brief. I'm going to call a ten minute recess. It's 924. Well, let's make it 11 minutes. We'll be back at 935. And let's bring our council colleagues back in. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Ready in the balcony. All right. Okay, everybody. Well, we're all here. It's 934. We'll go a minute early.
|
Regular Agenda Item
|
Adoption of Resolution Establishing a City Council Policy that a City Council or City Staff Member Who Knowingly Violates the City Charter, an Applicable Criminal Statute or an Applicable Ethical Code of Conduct Shall Not be Entitled to Reimbursement from the City for Legal or Other Fees Arising Out of the Violation. (City Attorney 2310)
|
AlamedaCC
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.